Sitting of 7 April 2003

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

    Arts (Young People)
    Mr. Graham Allen: When she next plans to visit Nottingham, North to discuss Government policy on the arts and young people. [104047]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): Last summer, I announced the biggest increase in funding for the arts for at least 20 years. On 25 March, the Arts Council of England announced its spending plans for the next three years, which will provide major increases in funding for artists, performers and arts organisations in my hon. Friend's constituency and across the country. Support for young
    2
    people is a key theme and investment in creative partnerships is set to grow from £25 million in the current year to £50 million in 2005–06.
    Mr. Allen: In trying to hold the Government to account on creative partnerships, I made inquiries of Ellis Guildford, Trinity, Brocklewood, Gladehill, Hempshill Hall, Highwood, Rufford and Glenbrook schools, and every one had nothing but praise for the scheme that the Government have introduced. May I therefore ask my right hon. Friend whether she will ensure that this universally acclaimed scheme, as it operates in my constituency, will have sustainable funding?
    Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend. He will be pleased to learn—although he has done his research pretty well already—that 13 out of the 23 schools in the Nottingham creative partnership are in his constituency, which reflects the nature of deprivation in his constituency. Yes, it is our intention that in due course, and on the basis of careful evaluation, creative partnerships will become a national programme so that children all over the country, wherever they live or are at school, can be exposed to the benefits of arts and creativity from a very early age.

    Arts (Small Towns)
    Mr. Colin Pickthall: What support her Department offers to small towns without theatres, galleries, or museums to create such facilities. [107048]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): The majority of the funding that my Department provides for theatres, museums and galleries is broadly directed to supporting existing cultural institutions, aiming to broaden access and attract new audiences. We do, however, offer support to new facilities in a number of ways. As far as theatres are concerned, that comes through the Arts Council of England, a lottery

    3
    distributor that can provide funding and advice at a regional level. In the museums and galleries sector, through our £70 million investment in the renaissance in the regions initiative, a network of regionally based museum development officers will be established to help small and medium-sized museums, and grants for museums will continue to be available from the regional agencies.
    Mr. Pickthall: There must be many small and middle-sized towns such as Skelmersdale, which has a population of 42,000, yet has no theatre, no gallery, no museum and no cinema, although there is substantial demand that is met only at the margins by make-do venues in schools and the library. Does my right hon. Friend agree that up-to-date cultural venues have an important part to play in economic regeneration in towns such as Skelmersdale; and does he therefore agree that some of the grant aid earmarked by the Government for economic regeneration should be used to help communities like Skelmersdale establish such cultural venues?
    Mr. Caborn: The answer is obviously yes, but to a large extent local authorities or partnerships drive that process. We are not imposing it from the centre, and I do not think that my hon. Friend would want that to happen, either. In terms of theatres, a dialogue with the Arts Council of England should take place at a regional level. My hon. Friend should visit his local authority to ask what it is doing proactively to try to deliver the types of facilities that he wants.
    Mr. Andrew Rosindell: Will the Minister take steps to ensure that boroughs such as the London borough of Havering are given a fairer share of grant aid for museums and for our local theatre in Hornchurch? Many boroughs on the outer rim of London are not getting their fair share in that respect: will he ensure that we do in future?
    Mr. Caborn: We want to be fair. If the hon. Gentleman writes to me, I will look into what is happening in relation to the funding agencies and the formula that has been applied to that part of London. I shall try to be as helpful as I can.
    Mr. Derek Wyatt: What discussions has my right hon. Friend had with his colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills in relation to bids for specialist schools in the arts? In Sittingbourne, which has a population of 42,000—about the same as that which my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) mentioned—we, too, have no museums, art galleries and the like. If there was some combination between the work of the two Departments there is just a chance that our schools might get specialist status in the arts.
    Mr. Caborn: There are 173 specialist arts colleges; I do not know whether any of them fall within my hon. Friend's constituency. We do have a dialogue with other Departments about trying to use the arts and, indeed, sport and physical activity. One of those with which we have the most proactive approach is the Department for Education and Skills, which is making a difference in
    4
    arts colleges and specialist sports colleges. If my hon. Friend writes to us, we will try to be helpful in providing information.
    Michael Fabricant: Let them come to Lichfield, which has a population of only 35,000 but boasts the Garrick theatre, which is an eco-friendly theatre that is about to open. Of course, David Garrick was born and brought up in Lichfield. A new arts gallery will shortly open and my constituency contains the St. Mary's heritage centre. However, may I ask the Minister about smaller theatres such as that in Pipe Ridware in my constituency? It has only 70 seats yet still puts on performances. It has been unable to secure grants from the Arts Council of England or any other organisation that gives lottery grants because such organisations say that the theatre must provide training schemes for young people in the area. That is impossible for such a small theatre, so how can we get round the problem?
    Mr. Caborn: That investment shows very clearly that we do not discriminate against Tory constituencies. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was advertising tourism and inward investment when he got to his feet and extolled the virtues of his constituency. I obviously cannot respond to his specific point but if he writes to me, I shall take it up with the Arts Council because I assume that the theatre has been in contact with that body.
    I have said clearly that we want viable theatres of the nature that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but I stress that the broad approach of our policy is to try to get current facilities and investment to work as efficiently and effectively as possible. That is the right approach and after we have achieved that, we can move on to further developments for arts, museums and galleries.

    Arts (Inner Cities)
    4. Mr. Adrian Bailey: What steps the Arts Council is taking to promote arts projects in inner-city areas.[107049]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): The record levels of funding increase announced for the arts last week—the biggest for 20 years—recognise the importance that this Government attach to the arts and to extending their benefit to anybody who wants to enjoy culture. Jubilee Arts in Sandwell is a good example. It has seen an increase in its funding from more than £107,000 this year to £623,000 by the end of the spending round in 2005–06. That represents getting on for a 500 per cent. increase, which is in addition to the £29 million of lottery investment toward the c/PLEX building that will house the Jubilee Arts project. I would like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his advocacy of that important project.
    Mr. Bailey: I thank the Secretary of State for her reply. I welcome the national increase in arts funding and especially the money for the Jubilee Arts organisation and the c/PLEX project, which is an innovative arts and technology project that is pioneered by Sylvia King, who is one of my constituents. The Secretary of State may not be aware that the project has stimulated a further £250 million of regeneration and

    5
    development money. Will she examine whether the example of West Bromwich and c/PLEX can be used to encourage other inner-city areas to promote arts-driven regeneration projects?
    Tessa Jowell: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestion. We believe that there are tremendous opportunities to link regeneration and culture. We have seen the benefits in cities such as Newcastle, Liverpool and Manchester; indeed, in almost all 12 of the cities that are bidding to be the European capital of culture. I shall ensure that the beneficial experience of West Bromwich is added to that proud list.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: While I appreciate and welcome the increase of funding through the Arts Council of England, would the Secretary of State agree, on reflection, that that sum has been completely dwarfed by the significant decrease of grants made available from the New Opportunities Fund and the community fund? Surely she should address the reasons for that decline if we are to help the arts in the way in which we all want.
    Tessa Jowell: I do not accept the premise of the question. The sports and arts are funded by the Exchequer and the lottery, which in the case of the arts is provided in equal parts. There has been a small decline in lottery ticket sales in recent years, but the regulator and the operator are confident that that trend is set to reverse. The arts across every constituency in this country can look forward to a bright future because they have a Government who are committed to investing in them as part of our central purpose, not as an afterthought.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those cities that do not become the European capital of culture or win the bid feel rather bruised by that? Many of us in Yorkshire believe that having been left off the shortlist, Bradford feels that it is unloved and uncared for in the arts. Surely all those other cities that will not become the European capital of culture should have a chance that is not European funded but funded by her Department to take significant initiatives in cultural events.
    Mr. Chris Bryant: What about Cardiff?
    Tessa Jowell: No doubt we could hear a chorus of suggestions around the Chamber.
    Bradford is a wonderful city and I look forward to visiting it towards the end of the month. It proudly boasts many cultural institutions. My hon. Friend is right: bidding for the capital of culture unlocked vision and ambition in those bidding cities, including Bradford. We are considering ways in which the ambition in those bids can—certainly in part—be realised.

    Television (Cross-ownership)
    Norman Baker: If she will make a statement on her policy on cross-ownership rules in respect of (a) Channel 5 and (b) ITV. [107050]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): The Government's policy is to deregulate where possible to promote investment and growth. However, we will retain those key ownership rules that safeguard a plurality of media voices and tough content controls to ensure quality and diversity. The Communications Bill, therefore, removes all rules on the ownership of Channel 5, which has only a 6 per cent. audience share and 80 per cent. coverage of the UK. The Bill maintains the rule that prevents a large newspaper proprietor buying into ITV, which in contrast with Channel 5 has universal access to a mass audience.
    Norman Baker: I thank the Minister for that detailed response, but is not there something illogical about her position? The logic she applies only continues if Channel 5 continues to have a small share of the audience and ITV continues to have a large share. Surely the danger is that Mr. Murdoch or one of the other big proprietors buys Channel 5 and injects money into it that leads to a big increase in audience share—the sort of audience share that she rules out for cross-media relaxation on ITV.
    Tessa Jowell: It is extraordinarily interesting to hear Liberal Democrat views on the important issue of cross-media ownership. On the day that they tabled amendments to the Communications Bill in Committee, they overslept and Committee members were denied the opportunity to have the debate that the hon. Gentleman is now trying to initiate rather late in the day. However, as it is the middle of the day and Liberal Democrats are awake, I can tell him that we anticipated precisely the scenario to which he refers by creating provision in the Bill for the public service broadcasting requirements on Channel 5 to be strengthened if there is a significant increase in its audience share.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: Tough content controls can stand separately from ownership requirements, so why not set ITV free as well?
    Tessa Jowell: Because ITV has a mass audience. It covers 100 per cent. of the country and has an audience share of about 24 per cent. That may well change. It is precisely because we take a different view of media ownership than the Opposition—we believe that competition alone is not enough to safeguard plurality and diversity—that we have retained a rule restricting cross-media ownership for ITV for the reasons that I identified, but have proposed to lift that rule for Channel 5, a minority channel with a small audience share.

    Sports (Maintained Schools)
    Mr. John Bercow: If she will make a statement on the level of sporting activity undertaken by pupils in maintained schools. [107051]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): It will probably come as a surprise to the hon. Gentleman, but comprehensive data on physical education and school sports have never been collected. However, I can assure him that we are putting that right. On 3 February, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport placed in the Library of the House the initial results of the survey of school sport co-ordinator partnerships that took place towards the end of 2002. Updated figures were published on the website on 1 April. The second annual report on the Government's plan for sport shows that one pupil in seven has moved into community sports or physical activity clubs, one pupil in five is involved in inter-school competitions, and 50 per cent. are involved in intra-school competitions and events. Those figures are still well below the targets that we have set; they are not satisfactory. That is why, over the next three years, we are investing about £1 billion to put facilities and people in place so as to build on the figures that I have just given.
    Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his candid and informative reply. As long ago as 5 June 1998, the then Minister for Sport, the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), told the House that there should be an irreducible minimum of three hours per week of sport for children in schools. However, almost five years later, the Government's two-hour PE and school sport target is missed respectively by three quarters, three fifths and two thirds of schools at key stages 1, 2 and 3. Why should we hold out any prospect of success under this Government when their record both past and present is one of miserable failure?
    Mr. Caborn: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to have a serious discussion about this, I do not know where he gets his facts and statistics. I have been quite honest with the House and said that the data have not been available. We are trying to establish a database and, once we have that in place, as we now have, we will be able to measure results consistently. Our target is to offer every child between the ages of five and 16 two hours of quality physical activity or sport every week. The investment of £1 billion over the next three years is to put in place facilities—there will be something like 2,500 developments across the country through the New Opportunities Fund investment of £560 million—and 3,000 school sport co-ordinators. We now have 201 sports colleges out of our target of 400; and just under 1,000 school sport co-ordinators out of our target of 3,000 to be in place within the next two years. We believe that we have made a significant investment in the development of the infrastructure to bring quality physical activity and sport back into our schools.
    Phil Sawford: Although I accept the points that the Minister has made, is the bigger problem not the drop-out rate from organised sport of people over the age of 16? Does my right hon. Friend agree that partnerships between schools and local communities to expand the use of school sport facilities are making a positive contribution? I welcome the £600,000 from the New Opportunities Fund to refurbish the swimming pool at Montsaye school in Rothwell. That is helping to promote more sporting activity for the school and the local community.
    Mr. Caborn: I welcome what my hon. Friend has said. It is a serious matter that 70 per cent. of young people who leave school and go into the world of work or higher education never return to active sport. In France, the figure is around 20 per cent. We have to look into that. The prerequisite for applications to the New Opportunities Fund for investment through the local education authorities is that funds will be used for community activities. We hope that the £60 million that we are investing through the governing bodies to strengthen the sports club structure the length and breadth of the nation will make a major contribution towards arresting that awful figure of 70 per cent. for people who are not active in sport once they leave school.
    Mr. John Greenway: On statistics, has the Minister seen the latest Sport England survey, published at the end of February, which reveals that the number of children who do not take part in regular weekly PE or sport at the school at all is rising and now stands at 18 per cent.—almost one in five children? Some 51 per cent. of young people do less than two hours of PE a week. Does he agree that that scandalous failure of schools policy must be reversed if we are to tackle child obesity and prevent ill health in later life? I acknowledge what he is trying to do, but can he tell us how the joint public service agreement between his Department and the Department for Education and Skills will be monitored and when we can expect results, because a lot of public money is involved?
    Mr. Caborn: That is exactly what I have suggested. The hon. Gentleman refers to a survey by Sport England and, helpful though that survey is, it is just a snapshot of what is happening in this country. We need much more robust figures. As the Government are investing such amounts of money into sport and physical activities, it is necessary to get robust baseline data. In fact, that is exactly what we are doing. There is no disagreement between those on the two Front Benches—we want to ensure that obesity in our young people is reduced, along with diabetes as well. That is why the investment is there.
    According to the National Audit Office, the wider nation's economy loses £2 billion a year because of obesity, £500 million of which falls on the national health service. Those horrendous figures need to be arrested, and we are setting off at the very beginning—in our primary and infant schools—and moving on to secondary schools and, I hope, into the club structure as well.

    Heritage Sites
    7. Mr. Tam Dalyell: What recent discussions she has had with her EU counterparts on protection of international heritage sites. [107052]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells): Officials from my Department attended a specially convened session of the world heritage committee at UNESCO in Paris last month. My Department will also be represented at the main session of the world heritage committee in China this summer, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will know that we are supporting the Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Bill, introduced by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), which will allow much easier prosecution of anyone who tries to trade in this country in objects stolen or looted from cultural heritage sites across the world.
    Mr. Dalyell: I gave the Department notice of my supplementary question mid-morning. Has the Minister had discussions with either the international body or the Ministry of Defence about the fate of the museum at Basra, the shrine at Al-Kawaz, the great mosque that is 16 km to the west of Bara, or the early Islamic site at Tulul ash Shuaiha? In the light of the answer that was given at oral questions by the Prime Minister before the war started that everything possible would be done to protect sites of holy or cultural interest, why has no one in the Government contacted, after their pleas, Professor Postgate and his team at Cambridge, Harriet Crawford of the Institute of Archaeology or John Curtis of British Museum?
    Dr. Howells: I have not had discussions with the experts that my hon. Friend mentions, but I have been informed that representatives of the British armed forces have discussed with those of our coalition allies how best to make all coalition forces aware of the many historic and important sites in Iraq, and I am sure that they will do all in their power to minimise the damage to those sites. I am sure that my hon. Friend will know that the United Kingdom is prohibited under article 53 of additional protocol 1 to the Geneva convention from directing any attack on cultural property, unless, of course, that property is used to support Iraq's military effort.
    Mr. John Redwood: Will the Minister use his best efforts in the European Union to try to get our partners around the Mediterranean to do rather better at identifying such sites and protecting them? Is this not another case of Britain playing the game and enforcing the rules much better than our southern partners? Can he help them to do rather better?
    Dr. Howells: I am not aware that the countries to which the right hon. Gentleman refers are deficient in any sense. If he has examples of such sites that are not being identified and recognised in other parts of the world, I am sure that he is ready to write to me about them; I have not heard of them.
    Mr. Peter Pike: When considering international heritage sites, will my hon. Friend take
    10
    into account objects at the birthplace of the industrial revolution, such as the weaving mill at Queen street in Burnley? [Laughter.] Well, such things still work. We need to preserve them, to ensure they are successful and to attract tourists to them.
    Dr. Howells: The Government have a tremendous record of identifying, looking after and putting money into sites relating to the industrial revolution and to industry in general. I will certainly look at the example that my hon. Friend has given.

    Lottery
    Bob Spink: How many responses she has received to the consultation on the future of the national lottery. [107053]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): The Department received 425 responses to the consultation paper on the review of lottery funding.
    Bob Spink: I declare an interest as a member of the Benfleet horticultural society. I congratulate the Secretary of State on her good humour, and on the professionalism shown by her and by lottery staff in the distribution of grants. Does she agree that lottery sales would increase if grants were directed away from politically correct and controversial schemes towards genuine community-based schemes such as that of the Benfleet horticultural society, which is doing such excellent work in the Castle Point community?
    Tessa Jowell: I looked at the figures relating to the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and I note that his constituents have benefited less than they should have from the distribution of lottery moneys. I hope he understands how seriously I take the need to ensure equitable distribution. As for his swipe at political correctness, what is politically correct today may be progressive and socially acceptable tomorrow. I would bet a small lottery prize that had we been debating the lottery in the early part of the last century, the suffragettes would have been dismissed as politically correct.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: Is the Secretary of State aware that thousands of small retailers are currently having their lottery franchises removed? While her main concern must of course be to maximise the take for good causes, will she look into the growing concentration of distribution that is benefiting supermarkets and disadvantaging small retailers?
    Tessa Jowell: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I know that Camelot has a rationalisation under way, and that being a lottery distributor it is extremely popular. I am glad it has taken the needs of rural areas into account, but I will keep a close watch to ensure that people in all areas have easy access to shops where they can buy lottery tickets.
    Mr. John Whittingdale: Is it not the case that only six of the 425 respondents favoured merging the community fund and

    11
    the New Opportunities Fund, while bodies representing voluntary organisations were overwhelmingly against it? Will the Secretary of State assure us that the merger will not go ahead until Parliament has properly considered and approved it?
    Tessa Jowell: As I have told the hon. Gentleman in a parliamentary answer, about 12 respondents expressed a view. The ratio between those expressing reservations and those supporting the merger was 50:50. The proposals arising from the review will form part of a White Paper, which will be published later in the year, and Parliament will have ample opportunity—as Parliament should—to debate not just the merger proposals but the other proposals for revitalising our national lottery.
    Mr. Whittingdale: When the Secretary of State draws up the White Paper, will she say whether she is satisfied that despite the Government's pledge to reduce it, the amount of money still sitting in the national lottery distribution fund stands at £3.2 billion, 14 per cent. over the figure inherited by her Government? Is it riot a scandal that in the last five years more than £1 billion has accumulated in interest payments—money that could have been used to transform the lives of thousands of people?
    Tessa Jowell: First, the hon. Gentleman should understand that the money raised in interest by the NLDF does go into good causes, so the income has been realised for good causes. Secondly, the balances are now at their lowest level for five years, but I agree that the balances at their present level are unacceptable. However, it is important to understand that balances that stand at £3.24 billion represent on the latest figures almost £500 million of over-commitment. That is money being held on account for organisations that have been awarded lottery grants which have yet to be drawn down. The distributors gave an undertaking to halve the level of balances, and I am working with them to ensure that we accelerate the rate of draw-down. Proposals relating to that will form part of the review to be published later this summer.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Secretary of State be very cautious when she cites figures for lottery money given to constituencies? If she looked at the figures for West Derbyshire, she would tell me that we had had a huge amount of lottery grant over the past few years, but considering that much of that lottery grant goes to the county council for schemes that it is promoting, the money is spread across the county. The figures that she gives are often misleading.
    Tessa Jowell: The figures are not intended to mislead, but if one examines the figures on a countywide rather than a constituency basis, there will appear to be clustering of lottery grants in particular areas. My hon. Friends representing Birmingham constituencies make a similar point about the distribution of grants in Birmingham, and I am sure that there are other examples. One of the purposes of undertaking the review of lottery distribution is to tackle some of these tricky questions. Principles of equity demand that we do
    12
    everything we can to make sure that organisations right across the country have the opportunity to enrich their communities with successful lottery grants.

    Sporting Facilities
    Mr. Andrew Love: What steps she is taking to improve sporting facilities in disadvantaged areas. [107054]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): The Government believe that sport can play a valuable part in alleviating economic and social deprivation. Programmes such as space for sport and the arts, the New Opportunities Fund school PE and sport funding, the PE, school sport and club links initiative and the community club development programme are all targeted at deprived areas.
    Mr. Love: Edmonton Rangers football club provides sport and recreation to some of the most deprived kids in my constituency. It does a tremendous job, but it could do an even better job if only it had a permanent site. There is a site available, but unfortunately it is owned by a neighbouring local authority, which has left it to rot over the past 15 years. What can my right hon. Friend do to assist clubs such as Edmonton Rangers, which is trying to reach out to deprived kids in my communities, and what action can he take with local authorities, especially those that are not represented in the area, in order to bring such sites back into use?
    Mr. Caborn: I do not know all the details of the case that my hon. Friend describes, but if the facts are as he says, that local authority should re-examine its attitude to sport and physical activity. I know that there have been developments in the area with the participation of the Edmonton sports and social club and the local authority there, and I hope that that results in better facilities, including changing accommodation and all-weather pitches. If my hon. Friend writes to me about the matter that he raises, I will look into it and contact the local authority in question.
    Bob Russell: Does the Minister agree that what is important is not just the provision of facilities, but access to them and whether young people in particular can afford to get into them? Does he agree that there is a need for joined-up government thinking with the Department for Education and Skills and local government to ensure that not only are facilities provided, but that young people can afford to use them?
    Mr. Caborn: Very much so. The hon. Gentleman knows that many local authorities—particularly Labour-controlled ones—are trying to ensure that the facilities are accessible, especially to people who can currently ill-afford to use them. I have seen many innovative schemes around the country. Using the modern technology that is available, such as the chips that can be put into passcards, we can distinguish between various categories of economic well-being among the populace in a city without it being seen as discriminatory. Many schemes are operating throughout the country, but he is right to say that, in some areas, financial barriers are preventing people

    13
    from gaining access to the facilities. I hope that local authorities and other partners can look at making that access available.

    Entertainment Licences
    Paul Farrelly: What plans she has to promote the use of live music in pubs and clubs by reducing the cost of entertainment licences. [107055]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells): The Licensing Bill will do away with the current system of separate, annually renewable and often very expensive public entertainment licences and establish a system under which a pub or club obtaining permission to sell alcohol will not pay anything extra to seek permission to provide live music.
    Paul Farrelly: I thank the Minister for his illuminating reply. I am sure that the House will welcome many of the changes that he has made to the Licensing Bill. May I say that he has carried them out with his usual grace, good humour and Pontypridd panache? However, he will know better than most the concerns that the Bill aroused; indeed, he still bears the scars. What steps has he taken since making those changes to reassure pubs, clubs, entertainers and the Musicians Union in particular that the Bill is both in their interest and the public interest?
    Dr. Howells: I had a meeting very recently with the new general secretary of the Musicians Union, Mr. John Smith, and I have met representatives of various folk group organisations, wassailers, folk dancers and even Somerset folk singers. We are determined that, between us, we will ensure that the licensed trade knows the potential of the new arrangements. I am convinced that we will see many more venues for live music in this country, not fewer, and that those that will put on live music will not have to suffer the distortions of the two-in-a-bar rule.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: The Minister has already conceded in answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) that the Government got the original proposals in the Licensing Bill catastrophically wrong. We are very pleased that the Government have now backed down, as his hon. Friend pointed out. Does he recognise the concerns of those of us in the all-party music group that further changes would still be welcome? Will he continue to listen to the proposals not only of the all-party group, but of all other organisations involved in Keep Music Live?
    Dr. Howells: It always amazes me that somebody can stand up in the Chamber and say that we have got something catastrophically wrong when, for 18 years, their Government put up with this nonsense and did absolutely nothing about it. We are determined that there will be a much better regime in this country for putting on live music and that we will see a renaissance of that music, which is a very important part of our economy. If we do not encourage the grass roots of music of whatever sort, I am not sure how the tall plants
    14
    will grow out of it. The entertainments industry is a very important part of our economy and we should never forget that.
    Mr. John Whittingdale: But is the Minister aware that, despite his assurances, more than 80,000 people have now signed the petition against the Bill and remain utterly convinced that it will result in the loss of thousands of venues for live music? Does he understand that he has completely failed to convince anybody as to why those venues should have to have an entertainments licence in future when they do not need one now and about why it is so necessary for pubs and clubs in England and Wales to be licensed when those in Scotland do not need a licence?
    Dr. Howells: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that those venues do need licences now. If he does not know that, he should, because he has been told enough times. If he means that we should continue with the two-in-a-bar rule, despite the fact that it was the Musicians Union and musicians throughout the country who said that it was distorting live music in this country because it was not allowing musicians to explore anything beyond having two in a bar, which usually means one person with a karaoke machine, I am afraid that he will never grasp the reality of the situation. I would have thought that he would want to support something that will secure real improvement in this country in terms of the mounting and performance of live music.

    Public Libraries
    Joyce Quin: If she will make a statement on the implementation of the Government's policy of ensuring that all public libraries are online. [107056]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): The £100 million lottery funding for the people's network programme has enabled 4,085 libraries in the UK to be connected to the internet, including all the libraries in my right hon. Friend's constituency. That represents 99 per cent. of libraries in England, 95 per cent. in Scotland, and 100 per cent. in Wales and Northern Ireland. Only 39 English and 30 Scottish libraries have still to be connected, and we expect all but two to be online by summer 2003. That is a significant achievement.
    Joyce Quin: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate Gateshead council on not only the people's network project but the lending time project? Does he agree that, taken together, they mean that not only is the policy of bringing libraries online being fully undertaken, but that the number of local people who can develop their computer skills and gain access to the facilities has greatly increased through work with volunteers? Is not that one of the many reasons why Newcastle/Gateshead would be an excellent capital of culture?
    Mr. Caborn: I could not possibly comment on my right hon. Friend's last question. Nevertheless, what is happening in Gateshead mirrors events throughout the country. Libraries are perceived, not in the traditional

    15
    sense as places where one can simply borrow books or go to read, but as true resource centres for developing the skills of my right hon. Friend's constituents and others. Many people are taking advantage of the £100 million investment and libraries have developed well beyond their service of simply lending books.

  The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the
  Church Commissioners, was asked—

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Clergy (Conditions of Service)
    Mr. Ben Chapman: When he expects to receive proposals from the Archbishops Council on conditions of service for the clergy. [107082]
    Second Church Estates Commissioner (Mr. Stuart Bell): May I say at the outset how much I welcome the presence of the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) at our joint Question Time? I wish him well in his many endeavours in the weeks, months and years ahead.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) knows, the Archbishops Council has set up a working group under the chairmanship of Professor David McClean to review various matters relating to clergy terms of service, including the freehold and improving protection for clergy without it.
    Mr. Chapman: Given that the Archbishops Council has given the impression of substantial inactivity on conditions of service for the clergy since the Employment Relations Act 1999 was passed, and has appeared reluctant to set up the McClean committee—it did so late and slowly—would not it be a travesty if the workings of the committee were perceived as a reason for delay rather than a vehicle for progress, and if the contentious issue of the future of the freehold were to be used as a reason to delay granting conditions of service, which others have enjoyed for some years, to the clergy?
    Mr. Bell: I am aware of my hon. Friend's great interest in the subject and I respect and admire his persistence over the years since 1997 when he first became a Member of Parliament. I welcome the fact that he has an Adjournment debate on the subject in Westminster Hall.
    The working group's initial report will be made available to the Archbishops Council by the end of the year, and subsequent consultation will take place with the Church Commissioners. As my hon. Friend knows, the Church is anxious to co-operate with the appropriate Department, Professor David McClean and his committee.
    Mr. Gary Streeter: Should not those conditions of service include an express requirement for wisdom? How wise is it for the Archbishop of Canterbury to visit Qatar this week but to refuse to visit our troops, many of whom are laying down their lives for this country?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is too wide.

  ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE
  The hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—
  ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

    Voting Age
    Mr Vernon Coaker: What representations the Electoral Commission has received on reducing the voting age to 16. [107083]
    Mr. Peter Viggers (representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission): The votes at 16 campaign has made such representations to the Commission. It is also aware of support for moves to reduce the minimum voting age on the part of several parliamentarians, political parties and other bodies.
    Vernon Coaker: Will the hon. Gentleman try to ensure that, through the representations that it receives, the Electoral Commission tries to listen to the voices of young people on this issue? Those young people are asking why they can pay tax, get married and join the armed forces at 16, if they cannot vote.
    Mr. Viggers: Yes, indeed. The Commission is aware that there has been strong support expressed in some quarters that the voting age should be reduced. The purpose of the fundamental review that the Commission now has in hand is to gauge how wide that support is.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Has my hon. Friend, whose presence answering questions I warmly welcome, received any even more stupid representations in regard to votes at 14?
    Mr. Viggers: Yes. [Laughter.] I say "yes" to acknowledge that I have heard the question. The Commission has put in hand a wide-ranging survey, which was announced on 27 February. Its timetable is to consult over the summer and early autumn of 2003, with publication of a final report, with recommendations, in early 2004. It is, perhaps, worth reporting, if one is seeking to improve the turnout at general elections, that the overall turnout in the 2001 general election was 59 per cent., but the estimated turnout among 18 to 24-year-olds was 39 per cent.

    Ward Boundaries
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: When the Electoral Commission last met the Boundary Commission to discuss the review of ward boundaries in metropolitan authorities; and if he will make a statement. [107084]
    Mr. Peter Viggers (representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission: Responsibility for reviews of ward boundaries in metropolitan

    17
    authorities falls to the boundary committee for England. The Electoral Commission has not met the committee to discuss this matter.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the guidance issued in the periodic electoral review, which states that the Electoral Commission and the boundary committee for England

    "must have regard to the desirability of fixing identifiable electoral area boundaries"

    and ensure that community interests are safeguarded? It is, therefore, apparent from the directive that both organisations have responsibility for this issue. I would like to draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to problems that are developing in some of the metropolitan areas in which boundary reviews are taking place. In Wakefield, for example, there are two communities with a vast distance between them. The M62 passes through the area, which also has a railway container depot and a vast industrial area, and a railway going along the division between the two communities. There is also no natural identifiable boundary. There has been a tremendous increase in community interest in this issue. Will the hon. Gentleman take this matter on board and ensure that such proposals will be examined in detail, and that the community interest is given priority when it comes to identifying ward boundaries?
    Mr. Viggers: Yes. Electoral equality is the starting point for the boundary committee's review, but of course it also takes account of other items, including community identity. As to the consultation on the boundary committee's draft recommendations in relation to Wakefield city council, the public consultation period ends today, and I understand that the hon. Gentleman is making representations in that regard.

    The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

    Church Repairs
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What assessment he has made of the impact that the revision of the sixth VAT directive will have on church repairs. [107085]
    Second Church Estates Commissioner (Mr. Stuart Bell): As the hon. Lady knows, I led a delegation to the European Parliament on the subject of the sixth VAT directive in December. I have since discussed the matter with representatives of the European Parliament. The Church knows that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury are committed to achieving the changes required to the directive to enable a permanent reduction in the rate of VAT charged on the repair and maintenance of listed places of worship.
    Miss McIntosh: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that such a revision of the sixth VAT directive would have a very positive impact on church
    18
    repairs, but we seem to be no closer to achieving it. Will he put a deadline on when such a revision might be achieved?
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her persistent efforts in this area, and for keeping the issue on the boil. As she will be aware,

    "the mills of God grind slowly, yet they grind exceeding small".

    That might be equally true of the European Parliament in relation to the sixth VAT directive.
    Glenda Jackson: This is an issue of particular concern to members of one of the churches in my constituency, who have been extremely effective in raising money to repair its roof but are dependent on additional moneys. This issue, which seems to be making no advancement at all, is causing them grave concern. So far as my hon. Friend is aware, will the Government help such organisations to bridge the gap, if time is of the essence in tying up the additional funding that they might receive from other organisations?
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for referring to a church in her constituency. As she is aware, the Chancellor reduced VAT on church repairs of listed buildings from 17.5 per cent. to 5 per cent. as a temporary measure. We are aware of and comforted by the fact that the Chancellor will continue that scheme until such time as the sixth VAT directive is passed. I will be grateful if my hon. Friend lets me know of any particular difficulties for her church in relation to those matters, and we will take them up personally.

    Pensions
    Bob Spink: Will he make a statement on pensions provision for the clergy. [107087]
    Second Church Estates Commissioner (Mr. Stuart Bell): Clergy in office receive a stipend and are housed. When they retire, they make their own housing provisions, but they receive a Church pension in addition to their state pension. The basis for determining the benefits provided by the Church—a lump sum at retirement plus a pension takes account of all those factors. The full service pension from 1 April 2003 is £11,013 per annum. The lump sum is £33,039.
    Bob Spink: What can the Church Commissioners do to reduce the proportion of retiring clergy who have to rely on means-tested state benefit and to improve pension provision for those clergy?
    Mr. Bell: I am not entirely sure what we can do about those who wish to retire early, as that, if I may say so, is their God given right. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the clergy pension scheme is a defined benefit scheme. Many companies are switching to money purchase schemes that, in effect, switch risk to the employee. The Church has chosen not to do so, which highlights its commitment to adequate remuneration for retired clergy. We are also considering how we can increase the pensions for the clergy.

  ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE
  The hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—
  ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

    Experimental Voting
    Alistair Burt: What statutory measures allow experimental voting procedures in individual constituencies at general elections. [107088]
    Mr. Peter Viggers (representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission): The statutory provisions for experimental voting procedures apply only to local authority elections in England, Scotland and Wales.
    Alistair Burt: A while ago, my hon. Friend referred to the number of younger people who vote. I and, I am sure, other colleagues have received representations from people of all ages asking for the opportunity to vote by e-mail or via the internet. Can the Speaker's Commission enable an experiment to see whether that would make a difference? It might allow the country to see whether those methods would work or whether more traditional ones are preferable.
    Mr. Viggers: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. This is indeed an area in which the Electoral Commission has a keen interest. The commission's strategic evaluation report on the May 2002 electoral pilots notes that voters generally found electronic voting systems easy and convenient to use. However, the commission also recognises that evidence in relation to turnout remains unconvincing and recommends further trials to build on the experience of this year's pilots, which, of course, will be held in relation to the May local government elections.

    The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked

    Fundraising
    Michael Fabricant: What advice is given by the commissioners regarding the use of Church premises for fundraising; and if he will make a statement. [107089]
    Second Church Estates Commissioner (Mr. Stuart Bell): The Church Commissioners give no such advice. Parishes make their own arrangements for fundraising events, and we applaud them for what they do. Many use their buildings for activities intended to raise funds, and well-planned events can benefit both the congregation and the wider community.
    Michael Fabricant: I am very grateful for that answer, and it is right to say that a variety of activities can take
    20
    place. May I again implore the hon. Gentleman to visit Lichfield to see not only activities such as the Lichfield festival, which occurs annually in our cathedral, but the many different churches, which raise money not only from jumble sales and bazaars, but through artistic events in the area?
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful for the question. If the hon. Gentleman remembers, at the previous Question Time, I accepted an invitation to visit Lichfield in July. When he sends me the invitation, I will be glad to accept it. Having said that, I was in mid-Wensleydale parish last week, in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), and I must tell him that there was a strong response: all those in the room said that they had supported him, did support him, and would support him. I can only congratulate him on his role as a constituency Member of Parliament. At mid-Wendsleydale, a clear local connection existed between the parish church and the parish in relation to fundraising, which was very successful. The hon. Gentleman reminds us of how much work is done in parishes up and down the land in relation to fundraising and in relation to their parishioners.

  ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE
  The hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—
  ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

    Electoral Literature
    Simon Hughes: What monitoring of electoral literature the commission carries out. [107090]
    Mr. Peter Viggers (representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission): The commission does not have a specific role in monitoring electoral literature, although it maintains an overview of the way that the law operates in that area.
    Simon Hughes: Given that all our constituencies and all the opinion polls show that the one thing that electors want from all parties in the House and elsewhere is more information that is, to use the words of the Advertising Standards Authority, "decent, honest and truthful", would it be helpful to the interests of the credibility of politics were the Electoral Commission to consider the issue and come forward with recommendations that we could all follow to public advantage?
    Mr. Viggers: I am not exactly certain what the hon. Gentleman is urging. If there is a breach of electoral law, it is a matter for the police prosecuting authority: it is not a matter in which the Electoral Commission becomes directly involved.

Iraq (Military Operations)
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): With permission, Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to make a further statement about military action in Iraq and the efforts that we are making to help the Iraqi people to rebuild their country.
Since my last statement on 3 April, coalition forces have continued to make excellent progress. Following a series of raids and patrols into the centre of the city, British forces have now deployed in force into Basra. United States Army and Marine Corps units have with remarkable speed advanced on Baghdad, seized the international airport and conducted patrols into the city centre.
Those military successes have not been without cost. On behalf of the Government, I extend our condolences to the families and friends of those three British servicemen who have lost their lives during the last few days and in the coalition campaign to date. I speak for this House, and for the people of this country, in paying tribute to the bravery and dedication of all British and American service personnel deployed in Iraq. It is through their efforts that we will end the threat posed by the Iraqi regime's weapons of mass destruction. The Iraqi people will soon be rid of Saddam Hussein, his barbaric regime and the suffering that he has visited on them.
Throughout this campaign, the coalition has sought to use minimum force to achieve our military objectives. We have never sought to inflict unnecessary suffering on Iraqi civilians, or, indeed, on members of the Iraqi armed forces. We have consistently encouraged members of the Iraqi armed forces to end their increasingly futile resistance and return to their homes and families. We are now beginning to see indications that these messages are having an impact, at least on some Iraqi soldiers. That does not mean, however, that the regime's resistance is necessarily at an end. In Basra, Baghdad and other urban areas, coalition forces will face a difficult and dangerous period dealing with the remnants of Iraq's forces. We owe it to our own forces and to the Iraqi people to proceed with care.
We took great care in the planning of recent operations in Basra: the aim was to remove remnants of the regime while minimising the risk to civilians and to our armed forces. For the last two weeks, 1 Division has consolidated its presence in and around Basra, carrying out patrols and raids deep into the city, undermining the grip of the regime and gathering the intelligence vital to developing the unfolding operation. Raids and patrols into Basra during Saturday night met with much less resistance from Iraqi forces than on previous days. The opportunity was therefore taken yesterday morning to launch a major operation to secure strategic positions deep within the city. That involved personnel from the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards, the 1st Battalion Irish Guards attached, the 1st Battalion Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, the 1st Battalion Black Watch, the 2nd Royal 'Tank Regiment and 3 Commando Brigade.
Significant progress has been made. We assess that coalition forces can now go to all parts of the city, albeit under the cover of armour. UK forces were warmly received by crowds of local people, demonstrating that
22
the coalition is winning the confidence and support of the Iraqi population. Power, water and food are now assessed to be available to the majority of the population. Key facilities are being secured by British forces in Basra, bringing much-needed security, safety and support.
In a very similar manner, the past few days have seen US forces make considerable progress in and around Baghdad, supported by coalition air and missile strikes which have degraded the regime's command and control capability and the Republican Guard's combat effectiveness. That strategy has worked remarkably well. The final 50 miles or so of the advance on Baghdad were completed at great speed. The US army's Fifth Corps defeated the republican guard's Medina division and seized Baghdad international airport on Friday. The first coalition aircraft landed at the airport yesterday. The First Marine Expeditionary Force overcame the Baghdad and al-Nida divisions of the republican guard in a matter of days, and is now on the south-east outskirts of Baghdad. US forces now control the major routes into and out of Baghdad.
Elsewhere, the men and women of the Royal Air Force continue to contribute significantly to the overall military campaign, providing close air support to US forces around Baghdad. Some 1,500 sorties have now been flown.
Our maritime forces, building on their early success on the al-Faw peninsula, and having created a safe channel for shipping into Umm Qasr, are now working hard to clear the whole Khawr Abd' Allah waterway of mines and obstructions. They are dealing not only with recent Iraqi mine-laying but with the legacy of the 1991 conflict. That is yet another example of coalition forces not only rebuilding Iraq for the future but improving on what was there before. Following the delivery by the Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessel Sir Galahad of 300 tonnes of food, water and other humanitarian assistance, RFA Sir Percival arrived this morning at Umm Qasr with a similar cargo.
The water pipeline constructed by the Royal Engineers is now delivering around 1.5 million litres of clean water a day and UK troops have delivered 170,000 sets of rations to people in south-eastern Iraq. While we should not underestimate the humanitarian problems that we face, we have not yet seen any indications that there are widespread shortages of food or water.
The United Nations security co-ordination department has declared Umm Qasr to be a "permissive" environment, an important step allowing UN agencies to begin operating there. In addition, the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs has announced that the 24 grain silos at Umm Qasr port are safe and ready for use.
At a local level, significant steps are being taken to help the Iraqi people to begin to take control of their own affairs and to deal with decades of deprivation. UK forces have purchased shoes, stationery and books for children in Imman Anas. An Arabic computer has been purchased to enable the production of a news sheet for the civilian population of Az Zubayr. British officers have met with local people at Rumaylah to discuss future reconstruction projects—the renovation of the local primary school has already begun. Those

23
developments, together with the fact that we are seeing the reopening of shops and markets, represent at least the beginning of a return to normal life in southern Iraq.
The pace of events over the past few days has been remarkable, but it will take time for the Iraqi people to adjust to the rapidly changing circumstances. We should not underestimate the traumatic effect of living under such a brutal and venal regime for so many years, its terror and corruption devastating the lives of Iraqi citizens at every level. Just as it is taking time for the people of Iraq to come to terms with the fact that Saddam Hussein's regime is coming to its inevitable end, it will take time, after so many years of relentless propaganda, for them to begin to trust the good faith of the coalition. We must all be patient as there are many difficult and dangerous challenges lying ahead.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: First, I associate the Opposition fully with the Secretary of State's comments about those of our servicemen who have given their lives during this conflict.
I join the Secretary of State in congratulating British and American forces on their spectacular progress both in Basra and in the attack on Baghdad over the past four days, capitalising on opportunities as they arise. The Secretary of State is right to be cautious about the future speed of events, even though the eventual outcome is not in doubt. I think of the evil King Balshazzar, who once ruled in that land and was slain. It is time that Saddam Hussein also saw the writing on the wall for his evil regime.
May I first ask about events around Basra? The Secretary of State makes no mention of 16 Air Assault Brigade; can he say anything about its role? There are also reports of increasing chaos and looting on the streets. The Secretary of State says that power, water and food are "assessed to be available", but is also clear that our armed forces' efforts to distribute food and water are severely limited because we simply do not have the manpower. I shall not press the right hon. Gentleman again on reinforcements, except to leave the issue on the table, and to note that the tasks for our troops are not getting any lighter, and that we are having to withdraw elements from front-line operations to give them rest. May I ask when he thinks that non-governmental aid organisations will feel able to join our troops' efforts to distribute aid? I note that the United Nations has declared Umm Qasr a "permissive environment"; so what is holding up NGO involvement? Is there sufficient port capacity to increase the flow of aid? When will Umm Qasr be open for the deep-water shipping on which the future flow of aid depends?
Turning to the question of post-conflict Iraq, in which the UK's armed forces will continue to play a significant role, can the Secretary of State clarify the Government's policy on the role of the United Nations? The Prime Minister has stated that the objective is for the occupying powers to return control to an interim Iraqi administration as soon as possible, and the United States clearly supports that view. However, what are the Government's plans for the pre-interim administration phase—referred to as the initial phase—which may last
24
as long as six months? Does the Secretary of State agree with the Secretary of State for International Development, who told the House last week that

"our armed forces are in Iraq as an occupying power … They do not, however, have the authority to re-organise institutions or establish a new Government. That requires a UN mandate"—[Official Report, 26 March 2003; Vol. 402. c. 277.]?

Will the Secretary of State for Defence explain what the Secretary of State for International Development means by "requires a UN mandate"? Although we would like the UN to play a role, surely the Geneva and The Hague conventions oblige the US and the UK not just to provide security and humanitarian relief, but to take the necessary steps to set up a transitional administration as quickly as possible.
Do the Government agree with the United States' National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice that the pre-interim administration should be run by the US Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, under the leadership of retired US General Jay Garner? Will the Secretary of State confirm that there will be a substantial British role in this, and can he say what it will be? Ms Rice further said at a press briefing on 4 April:

"The precise role of the UN will be determined in consultation between the Iraqi people, coalition members and the UN officials … the coalition will naturally have the leading role for a period of time."

Does that reflect the view of Her Majesty's Government?
Following the conflict, the coalition will be responsible for the destruction of any weapons of mass destruction that are found. Will the Secretary of State make it clear—unlike his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, on Saturday's BBC Radio 4 "Today" programme—that he does indeed hope to discover their whereabouts? Will he tell the House not what intelligence he may have, but simply answer this question: does he have fresh intelligence on the whereabouts of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction? Is it possible that weapons of mass destruction have been moved out of Iraq?
May I make it clear to the Secretary of State that the liberation of Iraq is a noble cause, but that the elimination of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction is the prime objective, and we will hold the Government to that task until it has been achieved?
Mr. Hoon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and in particular for his congratulations to UK and US armed forces, who have worked tremendously well together throughout this conflict, and who continue to do so. As far as 16 Air Assault Brigade is concerned, it is using its very considerable abilities and mobility to support other forces, and in order to be the key—especially in the operation to the north of Basra—to cutting off contact between Basra and other parts of Iraq.
The hon. Gentleman referred to looting, and I know that right hon. and hon. Members will be concerned about that issue; indeed, I have sought to identify the extent of it. Fortunately, it appears so far to be confined to Iraqi citizens—shall I use the word—"liberating" those items that are in the charge of the regime by entering its former facilities and the secret organisations, and redistributing that wealth among the

25
Iraqi people. I regard such behaviour as good practice, perhaps, but that is not to say that we should not guard against more widespread civil disturbances.
As far as power and water are concerned, I referred to British forces securing key facilities in Basra. That was specifically directed at locations that provide water and electricity. Until Saturday and Sunday, we were in no position to identify whether water shortages, probably the result of power outages, were capable of being repaired because we did not control that part of the city. Now that we do, we can take matters in hand to secure a more reliable electricity supply and, thereby, a supply of pure fresh water.
NGOs are beginning to enter the south of Iraq. Obviously, the more parts of the country are safe and secure, the more it will be possible for those NGOs to use their considerable ability to distribute food and other humanitarian assistance. That also depends on port capacity, and urgent efforts are being made both to widen the channel into Umm Qasr and to make more berths available in the port. For the moment, however, it is judged that there are some limitations on what can be achieved because of the continued threat from mines.
As to the role of the United Nations, we certainly want to see UN authority for operations in Iraq, but, equally and as quickly as it can be achieved, we ultimately want the Iraqi people to take responsibility for their own affairs, to take their own decisions and to engage in a form of representative government. That was set out clearly by the Government at the start of the military campaign, and it remains fundamental to our objectives.
The Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance will certainly be responsible in the early period for the distribution of humanitarian assistance, of which the United States has amassed a considerable stockpile, as well as for the early administration of areas freed from the Iraqi regime. It is common ground and shared between all members of the coalition that we want to see the ORHA move on quickly to allow an interim Iraqi Administration, which will lead to the Iraqis taking responsibility for their own affairs. That is what we are trying to achieve, and British participation in that process will he considerable, not least through the efforts of Brigadier Cross, who will be familiar to many hon. Members after his excellent work in the Balkans.
The destruction of weapons of mass destruction continues to be our priority. We are continuing to search the areas that have been freed, but our first priority must be an end—a successful end—to the military conflict. Thereafter, we will certainly pursue the location of weapons of mass destruction.
Mr. Paul Keetch: I thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of his statement today. I also welcome his attendance in the House, which has been assiduous, and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House are grateful for that during the current crisis. I also want to pay tribute to the men and women of our armed forces as they continue to do their difficult job in Basra and the surrounding areas. I also add my condolences to the families of all members of coalition forces who have been killed so far. I should also like to remember the Iraqi civilians who are caught up in the fighting. As the Secretary of State rightly said, we have no argument with them.
26
By all accounts the people of Basra have welcomed British forces into their midst, but I want to ask more about the looting to which the Secretary of State has already referred. There are appalling suggestions from some elements of the media that British troops may have condoned such action. Can the Secretary of State confirm that we have not done so, other than the understandable "liberation"—as he put it—of food stocks, and that we will endeavour to keep order in the parts of the country that we are liberating? As part of that process, what troops have been earmarked for peacekeeping operations in Iraq in the near future: have they been placed on standby, ready to go?
On weapons of mass destruction, there have been conflicting reports today that chemical agents may have been found. The Government's own military objectives recognise that UNMOVIC and the International Atomic Energy Agency will have a role in dismantling these weapons, should they be found. Is that still the case? Were the missiles that fell on Kuwait at the beginning of the conflict Scud missiles or al-Samoud missiles? Will he comment on the role—or, rather, the lack of role—of the Iraqi air force during the conflict?
Incidents of friendly fire have come to the fore, and I am sure that all hon. Members regret that. However, I have been approached by some of the relatives, as other colleagues will have been. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the US Defence Department refused to allow its combat soldiers to give evidence at British inquests into friendly fire incidents in the first Gulf war? Has agreement been reached in this conflict that all coalition forces will co-operate if there are to be inquests or inquiries in the UK or the United States? Finally, the thoughts of all hon. Members go out to our British men and women who are continuing the campaign in Basra; they are a credit to the whole nation.
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's observations about the role of British forces, and for his emphasis, which I share, on the fact that we have no argument with the Iraqi people. As I have said, British forces will keep control to avoid unnecessary looting, but they have not been specifically earmarked for peacekeeping operations. The House will be aware that British forces tend to see their role in offensive terms, when that is necessary, as well as conducting peacekeeping immediately thereafter. We are seeing British forces at their very best in providing both that offensive role in and around Basra and a peacekeeping role further south.
On chemical agents, some interesting findings are being investigated on which I will be able to report to the House in due course. I am not yet in a position to confirm that the missiles that fell on Kuwait were of a particular kind, although I can say that they did not travel in excess of the distance allowed under previous UN resolutions. I think it is fair to say that the Iraqi air force was confined to ground operations.
There will be inquests in due course.
David Winnick: Is it not the case that if we had listened to the critics, there would be no purpose in debating post-Saddam Iraq, since that tyranny would have lasted for years and years and, in time, that murderous dictator would have been

27
succeeded by one of his sons, no less murderous and thuggish? Would it not be wise for those criminal elements of the elite forces fighting the coalition armies to realise that if they do not surrender, they will be killed either by our troops or, given half a chance, by the Iraqi people themselves?
Mr. Hoon: I have long admired my hon. Friend's consistency and steadfastness on the issue, and he has been a pillar of support throughout.
Mr. Paul Goodman: In relation to the future government of Iraq, the Secretary of State for Wales said at the weekend:

"What is crucial is that the UN is put in charge after the interim transitional arrangements. That is vital to us and the whole of the European Union."

Is that the Government's view?
Mr. Hoon: I have made it clear that we want to see UN authority; that is a view shared between the United States and the United Kingdom. It is wholly consistent with the way in which previous peacekeeping operations have been conducted, such as in Afghanistan.
Mr. Ben Chapman: While pockets of agents loyal to the regime continue, and will continue, to provide resistance to coalition troops, the one cohesive mechanism that the Saddam regime seems to possess right across Iraq is the continued control of Iraqi state radio and television. What is our planning in relation to the seizure of mobile transmitters and fixed facilities, and in relation to increasing our broadcasts in Iraq so that we can bring this action to a speedier conclusion?
Mr. Hoon: Although coalition forces have not specifically and directly targeted the media as such in Iraq, my hon. Friend is certainly right to draw attention to the means whereby the regime has sought to disseminate information through broadcasting. In fact, other targets—often co-located with radio and television transmitters—have been addressed, especially those that have provided the regime with command-and-control facilities. The level of broadcasting has been significantly reduced. I anticipate that, today, little broadcasting actually takes place that reaches many people in Iraq.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: The enthusiasm with which it appears that British troops have been greeted in Basra goes some way towards vindicating those of us who believe that we are liberating Iraq, and I very much hope that it continues. However, can the Secretary of State tell us what use is being made of Iraqi exile groups both in assisting with the liberation of Iraq and in perhaps laying the groundwork for some form of democratic government in the future of Iraq?
Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the growing enthusiasm in Basra. As I have previously indicated to the House, it depended on people there having confidence and believing that coalition forces were there to stay, and would see the job through and remove those elements of the regime. I have
28
certainly given them that assurance. The growing presence of Iraqi exiles to assist in that process, not leas(by going into towns and villages and explaining what is taking place, is of enormous value. That is beginning to happen.
Mr. Neil Gerrard: Will the Secretary of State confirm whether searches have yet taken place of specific sites identified by US or UK intelligence as possibly containing weapons of mass destruction? Does he share the view that appears to have been expressed at the weekend by one of his Cabinet colleagues that it is possible that nothing will be found?
Mr. Hoon: I do not share that view. Searches are under way and obvious sites have been looked at. We have been aware for some time that the regime had removed many of the more obvious elements of its weapons of mass destruction and had sought to hide them in the more remote parts of the country as well as to keep them mobile. I have no doubt that those weapons of mass destruction will he found.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Would it not assist the armed forces in the difficult task that they face, and achieve more co-operation locally, if the Secretary of State and his United States colleague made it abundantly clear that they do not contemplate further military action of any kind against any other nation in the middle east?
Mr. Hoon: I am not aware of any such contemplation. Indeed, we have made it plain that action against Iraq was unique, not least because of Iraq's very, very long history of flouting the will of the international community and United Nations Security Council resolutions.
Mr. Tom Harris: Can my right hon. Friend give more details about the situation in Basra? The media tend to give a mixed picture: on one day, they say that British troops are entering and occupying Basra, while on the next, they say that we have experienced strong Iraqi resistance. Can my right hon. Friend give an overview of the different levels of security in Basra and tell us what coalition troops are actually doing to encourage security, and confidence in coalition troops in the city?
Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend makes an excellent observation. There are inevitably different levels of security, especially in this kind of conflict. I made it clear that the ground commanders of British forces going into Basra feel confident so far that they can go to any part of the city, provided that they are protected by appropriate armoured vehicles. The next stage is to be confident that they are sufficiently secure to conduct foot patrols. Thereafter, we may see them conducting foot patrols without helmets, perhaps patrolling with berets, as we have seen them do in other towns and cities in southern Iraq. It is a progressive effort, to build up the level of security for our forces; but my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the different degrees of security and the efforts being made by British forces to build on them.
Mr. Boris Johnson: Given the attention that people who oppose the war and the liberation of the

29
Iraqi people are increasingly drawing to the failure so far to find weapons of mass destruction, can the Secretary of State clear up a question that I am increasingly asked—as, perhaps, are other Members? To what extent does the legality of the operation depend on our finding these weapons, and might it retrospectively be deemed illegal if we fail to find them?
Mr. Hoon: As I have made clear, we will find weapons of mass destruction.
Angela Eagle: Will my right hon. Friend accept everybody's gratitude and admiration for the extremely professional way in which our armed forces have achieved their objectives to date? Does he also accept that none of us should be complacent about the end of the conflict, although it looks as though we may be approaching the end game? Can he say something about the likely period within which the oil-for-food programme that the UN voted to restart under the auspices of the Secretary-General could be put back into effect in those areas that have been liberated from Saddam's regime?
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's observations. She is right to be cautious, as I sought to be in my statement. A great deal of work still remains to be done to remove the continuing remnants of Saddam Hussein's regime. That work may well prove difficult and dangerous, so she is right to strike that appropriate note of caution.
As for the oil-for-food programme, the first stage—the renewal of the appropriate resolution—has been completed and is now in place. That will allow the release of some of the funds built up in trust, which can then be used to continue the previous efforts made to extend the benefit of the oil-for-food programme to the Iraqi people. Ultimately, and as quickly as possible, we want oil to be pumped again, not least from the oilfields in the south of Iraq for which we are responsible, in order to build up the wealth available for the people of Iraq. There is no reason why that should not happen quite quickly.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The Secretary of State referred to the use of minimum force and the need to minimise Iraqi civilian casualties. Does riot the continued use of cluster bombs make that more difficult, and in due course will it not make the huge task of reconstruction much more difficult and dangerous?
Mr. Hoon: As I have said on previous occasions when that issue has arisen, the use of all weapons involves striking a balance. All weapons are capable of damaging the civilian population as well as those against whom they are targeted. It is necessary to strike a balance between not only the risk to civilians, but equally the protection of coalition forces. In relation to the use of cluster bombs, I am confident that the right balance has been struck.
Colin Burgon: What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the residual strength of the Ba'ath party and the level of support that it will command? In particular, what are the implications for any future democratic regime or Government in Iraq?
Mr. Hoon: Some work is currently under way on that. It is a very difficult question to answer at this stage, not
30
least because the only way of assuring success in Saddam Hussein's Iraq was to be a member of the Ba'ath party and to operate under his rule. On the other hand, there may well be decent people who had no part in the excesses of the regime and who will, in turn, return to rebuild their country. I suspect that it will depend on their ability to persuade people in their own areas that they have not been involved with the regime and that they can therefore he relied on and trusted.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: In his most welcome statement, the Secretary of State paid tribute to the successes of our armed forces. Is it not particularly noteworthy that as well as being highly effective at prosecuting the war, they have already shown themselves to be extremely skilled at peacekeeping; and should we not note the experience that they have already brought to bear in. for example, differentiating between paramilitaries and civilians?
Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is right. As I said a few moments ago, it is a particular characteristic of Britain's armed forces that they can move very quickly from intense war-fighting to—if I can put it this way—intense peacekeeping. Not least because of their long years of experience in Northern Ireland, they are well used to mixing in with the local population, talking to people on the ground and treating people with the respect to which they are entitled after a conflict has come to an end. That is why they are already proving so successful in southern Iraq, and I anticipate that they will continue to be so.
Kate Hoey: Despite what the Secretary of State said earlier, how does he possibly think that we can win over the hearts and minds of Iraqi civilians by using cluster bombs?
Mr. Hoon: No one is suggesting that we win over the hearts and minds of Iraqi civilians by using cluster bombs other than in this sense: it is necessary to succeed in the military conflict in order to win over those hearts and minds. We will not succeed in the military conflict if we prevent our armed forces from protecting themselves when they are confronted by a determined and often ruthless opposition. I invite my hon. Friend to weigh that in the balance. Is she really prepared to put the lives of our forces at risk in order to prolong the conflict, and thereby make it more difficult, in the longer term, to win the hearts and minds necessary to rebuild Iraq?
Mr. Peter Viggers: Does the right hon. Gentleman share our respect for those who have expressed hesitation about and, indeed, opposition to the armed conflict? No one wanted the war, hard decisions had to be taken and we must respect those who expressed their opposition. Based on briefings at the United Nations two weeks ago and on meetings of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly over the weekend, two things are clear. First, our armed forces have won a new reputation for courage and skill, which is based, as the right hon. Gentleman said, on their experience in Northern Ireland. Their international standing has never been higher. Secondly—we should all unite

31
behind this point—the armed conflict should be brought to a conclusion as quickly as possible so that we can move on to peacekeeping.
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's observations about the skill of Britain's armed forces, but I would not want him to overlook the remarkable skill at arms that has been displayed by US forces. I anticipate that their advance from the south of Iraq to Baghdad will be lectured on for years to come in staff colleges throughout the world. I am told by those who know, that it is one of the most remarkable armoured advances ever seen in modern warfare.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman's second point. It is necessary to try to bring the conflict to a speedy conclusion, and that has always been our ambition. At the same time, consistent with observations of right hon. and hon. Members on these occasions, it is necessary to do so in a cautious and practical way while minimising risk to Iraqi civilians and safeguarding our forces. The operation in and around Basra that has been conducted by British forces is absolutely characteristic of that approach.
Mr. Win Griffiths: While welcoming very much the military successes in Basra and Baghdad reported by the Secretary of State, will he tell us a little more about the conflict elsewhere? Will he confirm reports that I have received from the National Council of Resistance of Iran, which I reported to his private office late on Friday afternoon and this morning, about four bombing raids on the military camps of the People's Mujaheddin of Iran? The group is dedicated to overthrowing the Iranian Government and notified the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in writing, through the foreign affairs chairman of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, that it would not get involved in the war at all. Why were the four raids carried out, during which three women were killed and four were wounded, and what evidence do we have about them?
Mr. Hoon: I thank my hon. Friend for the assistance that he has provided and I assure him that his observations have been followed up. The border areas, especially where Iraq shares a border with Iran, contain groups with shifting alliances, if I may put it that way. Some groups are regarded as terrorists, depending on the side of the border from which they operate. I assure my hon. Friend that we have regard to the different alliances as we prosecute the campaign.
Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: The Secretary of State spoke of the need for Iraqis to take control of their own affairs as soon as possible, and I am sure that everyone agrees with that. However, there is a timing issue. Do the Government feel that the opposition parties that exist, plus the exiles to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) referred, form a cohesive unit that is ready to be put into play to form a Government? If not, what are this Government doing to ensure that that will happen?
Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman quite rightly sets out the principle that we want the Iraqi people to take
32
control of their own affairs. Equally rightly, he points out one of a number of difficulties that we face—that of establishing a degree of cohesion between exiled groups and opposition groups inside Iraq. Because of the pervasiveness of the oppression conducted by Saddam Hussein's regime, it has been extremely difficult to find effective opposition groups. Opposition was stamped down on very hard by the regime. One of our challenges will be to find the necessary cohesion between exiled groups—who, as I said earlier, will come back into the country—and groups who have sought to oppose the regime from within Iraq. That will be a challenge.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: It has been reported that tanker drivers are collecting water from the military in the areas that we control and then selling it to a thirsty population. If that is true, does the Secretary of State agree that it is hardly the way to win hearts and minds, and will he look into the matter and get it stopped?
Mr. Hoon: There was an isolated account of that taking place and action was taken by British forces to deal with it.
Hugh Robertson: The Secretary of State may have seen the interview on television last night with a couple of Arab fighters from southern Lebanon, who I presume were from Hezbollah. Does the Secretary of State have a feeling for how large a problem that involvement now is in Iraq? What part does he feel such people might play in the battle for Baghdad?
Mr. Hoon: As I said in response to questions last Thursday, people have been willing to come into Iraq and offer themselves for various operations. We are addressing that issue, which we take seriously. However, I hope that, as the regime shows signs of collapse right across Iraq, we will be able to deal with the issue effectively.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: I want to return to the issue of high-level defections from the Iraqi military. How many approaches have been made to the United Kingdom Government and what inducements, if any, are being offered to those senior military people to encourage them to defect?
Mr. Hoon: For at least some of the senior figures to whom my hon. Friend refers, I suspect that survival is the most important inducement. We are pleased that some people have recognised that it is rather better to surrender than to continue to risk their own lives and the lives of those under their command. Obviously, we have to pursue such matters carefully and it has been extraordinarily difficult on this occasion. I know that some commentators were expecting widespread surrenders; however, over and over again we have heard that, although commanders in the field might be willing to surrender, they have not done so out of fear of what would happen to their families or their children back home, wherever they happen to live.
David Burnside: The Secretary of State will know that, in the next couple of hours, Air Force One will touch down in my constituency,

33
conveying the President to Hillsborough to join the Prime Minister in pursuing the successful conclusion of the conflict in the Gulf and then the start of the task of reconstructing Iraq. That is the important item on the agenda. However, the Secretary of State will also know that there will be a break in the proceedings tomorrow morning for a less important, although not unimportant, item, when the President and the Prime Minister will meet the Northern Ireland political parties. Will the Prime Minister convey the strong feeling of this House and the British people that we need the destruction of all the weapons that have killed and hurt people in Ireland? When the President and the Prime Minister meet the parties tomorrow morning, will they send out the message that we want an end to terrorism worldwide, including terrorism in Ireland?
Mr. Hoon: I am flattered that the hon. Gentleman is here rather than greeting the President of the United States in his constituency. He is right to suggest that we need to make progress, working with the United States, on a range of issues. We will not only be continuing the peace process in Northern Ireland, but holding important discussions on the middle east peace process and, obviously, on the military situation in Iraq. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the President of the United States will have a full agenda. High on that agenda will be the destruction of weapons wherever they are.
Glenda Jackson: If we do indeed owe a duty of care to the Iraqi people, how is it possible that we can still contemplate the use of cluster bombs, as it is well known that the greatest number of deaths and injuries are experienced by civilians from the hundreds of unexploded bomblets that lie around on the ground? What steps are being taken to ensure that civilians may not enter the areas where those bombs have been used before the bomblets can be removed or exploded?
Mr. Hoon: I have dealt with the general question on a number of occasions, so I will not repeat that again, but, on the specific point, careful note has been taken of where and when cluster bombs have been used and, as I have indicated to the House before, the people who most often risk their lives in dealing with the small failure rate of those weapons are members of Britain's armed forces.
Bob Russell: I thank the Secretary of State for his recent visit to Colchester garrison to meet the wives and other dependants there. That visit was very much appreciated. He rightly drew attention to the pride that we have in our armed forces and the way that they have performed in Iraq; in particular, I should like to draw attention to 16 Air Assault Brigade. However, does the Secretary of State agree that things are far from being over, and we must impress on the public the need for caution because there is a long way to go yet? With that in mind, does he have any plan to make an announcement about the possible replacement of those troops who are currently there?
Mr. Hoon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming me to Colchester to participate in an excellent meeting with the families of those in 16 Air Assault Brigade
34
based there. It was a remarkable occasion because it demonstrated the debt that we owe not only to members of the armed forces, but to their families. I was profoundly impressed by the support that they were able to give not only to their men, but to the country in its efforts. As for making sure that we go on providing that support and in respect of any replacements, I told the House last week that we will replace certain units, particularly those that have been in theatre for some months now, as and when necessary, but I shall not make any specific announcement at this stage. Some units will be rotated as a matter of routine, but there is certainly no need at this stage to complete any major reinforcement of our forces there.
Several hon. Members rose
Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask for the co-operation of the House. I can call every Member standing, provided that each Member asks one question and makes it as brief as possible.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Have officials at the Ministry of Defence brought to the Secretary of State's attention the work of a brave former Member of the House? I refer to Colonel Colin Mitchell and his work at the Halo Trust, and to the sheer difficulty of retrieving cluster bombs.
Mr. Hoon: I am well aware of the work of the Halo Trust. Indeed, it is an organisation with which the Ministry of Defence has worked—supplying equipment and providing advice and expertise—and I strongly support the efforts that that organisation has made.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Does the Secretary of State recall that as long ago as 1992, the Public Accounts Committee said that the Ministry of Defence should redouble its efforts in dealing with friendly fire? We now have a policy paper a decade later. Will he confirm whether it is true that all US vehicles in theatre are fitted with transponders that can respond to a threat of friendly fire, while UK vehicles merely have symbols, chevrons and the like? Is the problem foot-dragging in NATO? Will he put sufficient, commensurate resources into dealing with that problem as well as into developing high-technology weapons?
Mr. Hoon: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman continues to suggest that there is a technological solution to the problem of friendly fire. No one underestimates the tragedy of such incidents and, as we have seen in recent days, they are not solely confined to confusion between the forces of different nations. Very recent incidents demonstrate that those problems are also not solely confined to British military vehicles operating on the ground. It would be enormously helpful if he turned his mind to the wider problem of friendly fire and got away from the idea that there is a single technological solution. Indeed, I commend to him an article in The Times today in which Wesley Clark makes that point very strongly, as a very experienced senior military commander. If the hon. Gentleman would understand that, he would be able to see that the problem is much more difficult than simple technology can solve.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that those of us who

35
support the Government and our servicemen with our voices and our votes do not believe that our servicemen are risking, and in some cases losing, their lives so that post-war Iraq can become the fiefdom of the right wing of the United States Republican party and the reconstruction of Iraq can be the playground of American corporate capitalism? Will he also bear in mind that we look to our Prime Minister to push forward the peace process between the Israelis and the Palestinians, regardless of any obstruction from the Israeli Government?
Mr. Hoon: As I am sure my right hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the President of the United States will have a full agenda for their talks this evening and tomorrow. They will certainly consider the best and most effective means of restoring Iraq to its own people and of renewing the peace process in the middle east, while also giving thought to the need to reinstate the effective peace process in Northern Ireland. I am delighted that the United States President has come to the United Kingdom for that purpose.
Mr. Gary Streeter: I join the Secretary of State in praising the professionalism, skill and courage of all our armed forces during the liberation of Basra, which we have witnessed in the past few days. As he will understand, the west country is particularly proud of the role played by the Royal Marines, who have been at the forefront of that activity.
Has any evidence emerged of recent sanction-breaking by French or Russian defence companies, and of any munitions that they may have sold to Iraq in recent years? If so, what does the Secretary of State propose to do about it?
Mr. Hoon: I, too, pay tribute to the Royal Marines, who have done a tremendous job in doing all that we have asked of them in and around Iraq. I am not in a position to comment on possible breaches of any sanctions at this stage, but we continue to look at that carefully.
Mike Gapes: My right hon. Friend rightly mentioned the role of the British forces in liberating Basra, and that of the American coalition allies in beginning the liberation of Baghdad. He did not, however, mention the important role in the coalition of the Iraqi Kurdish forces—the peshmerga, who are, after all, Sunni Muslims—in liberating large swathes of northern Iraq from which the Kurdish people were ethnically cleansed by Saddam's regime. Does he agree that the carping critics should remember that the Kurdish forces are there and able to do this only because our no-fly zone has made their existence possible?
Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the close co-operation between American military forces and Kurdish forces in the north. They continue to work extremely effectively together, and I am sure that my hon. Friend's observations about their efforts to re-establish themselves in their traditional areas are entirely right.
Joan Ruddock: I echo the tributes and the condolences, but I must press my right
36
hon. Friend again on the question of cluster bombs. As he will know, the manufacturers accept a 5 per cent. failure rate, but in the battlefield it is likely to be many times that. As my right hon. Friend says, it is sometimes the forces' duty to clear up afterwards, but for many years subsequently that tends to be the job of the international community and aid agencies such as Landmine Action. Will the British Government pay for the non-governmental organisations that will do the work when the conflict is over?
Mr. Hoon: I have had regular contact with various NGOs that are engaged in this extremely important, demanding and often dangerous work. The Ministry of Defence has been able both to discuss with them the most effective means of dealing with unexploded ordnance and, from time to time, to supply appropriate equipment. I assure my hon. Friend that that will continue.
Mr. Shaun Woodward: I am sure that all hon. Members were horrified at the weekend by the pictures of the warehouse with over 200 coffins containing human remains. Reports suggest that those may well be the remains of Iranian prisoners of war. Given the catalogue of war crimes by the Saddam regime during that war, the first Gulf war and almost certainly the present Gulf war, what priority will be given to hunting clown those who committed war crimes, and under what jurisdiction will they be prosecuted and tried?
Mr. Hoon: Whatever took place in that warehouse was horrific, and it is necessary for us to identify the explanation. One plausible explanation may be, as my hon. Friend suggests, that they were prisoners from the Iran-Iraq war. There are other possible explanations as well. A British Army investigation team began work today to try to identify at least some of the explanations for those horrendous discoveries. If it is found that individuals are responsible, they will be arrested and dealt with in an appropriate way.
Harry Cohen: Does the Defence Secretary agree with what the International Development Secretary said on "Newsnight" last week—that until it is safe for aid agency operatives to work in Iraq, humanitarian aid is solely the responsibility of the military? If so, how is the medical aid to get to the hospitals, how is sustenance to get to the people, and how is law and order to be maintained? Is it all to be done by tank? If so, for how long?
Mr. Hoon: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) are right to draw attention to the responsibility of the armed forces for providing humanitarian support in the immediate period after a conflict. I am delighted at the excellent co-operation that exists between my right hon. Friend's Department and mine in that respect. The sums of money that I indicated were available for humanitarian action to be carried out by the armed forces when I made a statement on Thursday is part of that process. We are all working towards a situation in which non-governmental organisations—

37
the United Nations and others—can come in. That is why I regard it as so important that the United Nations has declared Umm Qasr a permissive environment. That is because the UN judges that it is now possible for the UN and other organisations to come in and begin the process of distributing aid. I assure my hon. Friend that the British Army and other members of the armed forces of the United Kingdom have an excellent record of delivering humanitarian assistance. They use their own doctors to provide medical assistance to the people on the ground, and they will provide a range of support and facilities in delivering humanitarian aid. Clearly, we want to see NGOs come in and continue that work, but h e should not underestimate the ability of our armed forces to do it.
Dr. Nick Palmer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in view of the manic-depressive nature of media coverage of the war, we risk seeing within 48 hours headlines saying, "Coalition bogged down again"? Do not most hon. Members, on both sides of the House, want the coalition to proceed at the appropriate pace to minimise losses to our own armed forces, losses to Iraqi civilians, and even casualties to Iraqi armed forces, so that we can end the war with the least long-term damage?
Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend is right. The word that I used at the end of my statement, which I think encapsulates what he describes, is "patience". We need to approach the matter in an appropriate, patient manner. I shall resist any temptation to criticise the media, because I find that they are remarkably sensitive to such criticism. They tend to react very strongly when we criticise them, although they routinely criticise us.
Ms Diane Abbott: With reference to an earlier question, is it true that at inquests into friendly fire incidents held after the first Gulf war, US soldiers refused to give evidence? Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that if inquests are held into friendly fire incidents after the present war, all coalition soldiers will give evidence, as appropriate?
Mr. Hoon: We are already examining some of the jurisdictional issues arising out of friendly fire incidents. They are not easy, as I suspect my hon. Friend's question indicates. The matter is something that I can come back to the House in due course and explain.
Huw Irranca-Davies: My right hon. Friend referred earlier to when the textbooks would be written after the war. Does he agree that one of the lessons written in those textbooks will be the way in which troops, often in conditions where they are under fire and in conflict, have carried out humanitarian and regeneration works? Will he also confirm that in reconstruction of the water and electricity supply to Basra, it is the intention of the coalition and any interim administration to extend water and electricity to the whole population and not just to the part of it that previously received them?
Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend is quite right. Indeed, as I said in my statement, our ambition is to improve the
38
situation that was, in effect, inherited by British forces. Equally, we want to ensure that other organisations—NGOs, the United Nations and the like—come in and play their part. Certainly, we believe that we can improve the level of assistance for people in southern Iraq over and above that which was made available to them by the regime.
Mr. John Smith: I thank my right hon. Friend for today's statement. We can all be extremely proud of the way in which British forces are conducting themselves in this war. Will he join me in paying tribute to the role played by Group Captain Lockwood, who has effectively become the highly respected and reasoned voice of British services in the Gulf? Finally, on a technical point, will he confirm that it is now possible to send 2 kg packages to British service personnel in Iraq by BFPO and free of charge?
Mr. Hoon: I am sure that the group captain would not want to be picked out from the very many people who are working extremely hard in Britain's forces, but I shall ensure that a copy of my hon. Friend's observations reach him. On the point about the packages, the new arrangements are not yet in place, but I shall certainly inform the House as soon as they are.
John Cryer: Further to two earlier questions asked from both sides of the House, my right hon. Friend is fully aware that comments have been made by certain American leaders in the past couple of weeks to the effect that the war could be widened to Syria and Iran. Will he take this opportunity to tell us about any discussions that he has had about the matter with the Washington regime? Will he make it absolutely clear that the British Government will have no part in this lunacy?
Mr. Hoon: I have had no such discussions with the democratically elected Administration in the United States, and as I have made clear, the campaign that is being conducted against Iraq is a unique campaign based on that country's failure to observe UN resolutions over a very long period.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House to take motions 1 to 5 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS
  That the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service draft Code of Practice on Time Off for Trade Union Duties and Activities, which was laid before this House on 10th February, be approved.
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  That the draft Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 31st March, be approved.
  AGRICULTURE
  That the Farm Waste Grant (Nitrate Vulnerable Zones)(England) Scheme 2003 (S.I., 2003, No. 562), dated 6th March 2003, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th March, be approved.
  FEES AND CHARGES
  That the draft Department of Transport (Fees)(Amendment) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 11th March, be approved.

  PREVENTION AND SUPPRESSION OF TERRORISM
  That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Code of Practice on Video Recording of Interviews)(Northern Ireland) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 12th March, be approved.—[Derek Twigg.]
  Question agreed to.

POLICE (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME) (NO. 5)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002],
That the following provisions shall apply to the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords] for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 10th February 2003, 4th March 2003, 5th March 2003 and 26th March 2003.

POLICE (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME) (NO. 5)
  Consideration of Lords Message
  1. Proceedings on consideration of the Lords Message shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement.

  Subsequent stages
  2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question put.
  3. Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—[Derek Twigg.]
  Question agreed to.

Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]
Lords amendments to certain Commons amendments considered.
Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]
  Clause 37

    ORDERS AND REGULATIONS
    Lords amendment: No. 48ZA, in Commons amendment No. 48, leave out "or (Belfast)(2)" and insert—

    ",(Belfast)(2) or (Appointment of constables with special policing skills)(7)".

    4.33 pm
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to deal with Lords amendment No. 49A.
    Jane Kennedy: The Government tabled amendments 48ZA and 49A in another place in response to a recommendation by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, under the chairmanship of Lord Dahrendorf. They provide for the affirmative procedure to apply to an order that the Secretary of State might introduce under the new clause that deals with the exceptional arrangements for recruiting constables with specialist skills. Hon. Members will recall that we debated that matter at some length last week.
    The exceptional arrangements will be available for two years, starting from the date of the Bill's Royal Assent. The Secretary of State may extend the life of the provision on only one occasion—by order in Parliament, to allow it to operate for a maximum period of four years. At the end of two years, the Secretary of State could consider extending the provision. Any such extension would require the unanimous agreement of the Policing Board. It is important for hon. Members to bear that in mind.
    Given the importance of the provisions and the strong views about the 50:50 recruitment arrangements that were expressed forcefully in the House and in the other place, we have agreed that it is appropriate for any order to renew the provisions for a further period of up to two years to be brought before both Houses of Parliament rather than be made by negative procedure.
    I commend the amendments to the House.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: We had a good opportunity to deal with the substance of the procedural amendments last week. I do not wish to reiterate those arguments. Clearly, the procedural change from negative to affirmative resolution is welcome. The Opposition therefore second the amendments.
    Lembit Öpik: There was considerable criticism of the Government's original proposals. All parties will be pleased that the Government have listened and tabled a late manuscript

    41
    amendment to provide for a change to an affirmative instrument. Given that policing is so sensitive, that is the right thing to do. The Liberal Democrats wholeheartedly support the good sense that Ministers have shown on the issue.
    Lady Hermon: I assure hon. Members that my colleagues are with me in spirit, if not in body. However, I could not possibly speak for members of the Democratic Unionist party. I am surprised that none of them has turned up this afternoon, given that we are considering policing.
    I should like reassurance from the Minister on one aspect. My views on 50:50 recruitment are well known. The Minister knows that my constituent, Mark Parsons, tested that recruitment procedure last July in the High Court in Belfast. The case will be heard on appeal towards the end of May. I have no quarrel with the special provisions and the recruitment of constables with special policing skills, especially detectives, which we desperately need in Northern Ireland. I voted for the amendment on that when we previously discussed the matter in the House.
    Will the Minister assure me that renewal through affirmative resolution, which I support, and extension by order of the Secretary of State initially for two years and possibly for a further four years, will not make inroads into section 46 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000? We should bear it in mind that section 46 is due for renewal in spring 2004, that the Mark Parsons case will be heard on appeal, and that its critical point was the temporary nature of the provision that permits the current discriminatory recruitment procedures. Will the Government consider removing that instead of extending it?
    Jane Kennedy: The hon. Lady asks a valid question and I know of her acute interest in the matter. The renewal powers for the special arrangements for the 50:50 recruitment of Catholics and non-Catholics for the Police Service of Northern Ireland are sensitive, for the reasons that we debated last week. Their purpose is to address a specific problem that we experience in Northern Ireland. The renewal powers will allow Parliament to consider whether those exceptional circumstances still remain. We are considering a special exemption for the 50:50 powers, and I would not foresee the measure that we are discussing today having an impact on the other arrangements. We shall still consider whether we need these special affirmative recruitment powers—these discriminatory powers, as the hon. Lady describes them—to address the specific problem. We shall still need to consider whether the circumstances exist to justify those powers, at the appropriate time.
    The measure before us will deal specifically with the circumstances that we were talking about, in which the Chief Constable has identified a particular shortfall and the Policing Board has agreed that such a shortfall exists. Such a situation should be dealt with using this exemption. The arrangements will not be exactly as the hon. Lady described. I did not wish to imply that the exemption would apply for two years, followed by four years. It would apply for two years for constables with specialist skills. There would then be consideration as to
    42
    whether it should be extended for a further two years—that is, the exemption itself, not the 50:50 arrangements as such.
    I hope that that will reassure the hon. Lady. She asked a very good question. I am grateful for the support that I have received from both sides of the House for this amendment. It is a sensible one that meets the concerns raised in another place, and I hope that the House will agree to it.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Lords amendment: No. 48A, in Commons amendment No. 48, at end insert—

    "(2B) No order may be made under section (Independent members: disqualification)(2) or Belfast)(2) at any time when section 1 of the Northern Ireland Act 2000 (c.1)(suspension of devolved government) is in force."

    Jane Kennedy: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Amendment No. 48A deals with the commencement of the new clauses dealing with disqualification and the Belfast sub-groups. We spent a whole day considering the clauses on Report last week, and, in particular, discussing the context in which they might come into effect. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I made it clear—we certainly sought to make it clear—that neither of these provisions will come into force when the Bill receives Royal Assent. They will be commenced only by means of a subsequent order, which will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure of both Houses of Parliament.
    The Government have consistently made it clear that we would envisage bringing the clauses into effect only in the context of acts of completion. That phrase, which I have used consistently throughout our deliberations, has attracted some criticism, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was even more specific on Report when he said of the clauses:

    "They will not come into effect unless we have agreement that those acts of completion have been dealt with." —[Official Report, 26 March 2003; Vol. 402, c. 361.]

    I recognise that many hon. Members have concerns about what is meant by the term "acts of completion". This debate was continued in another place when the Bill returned there last week.
    My own view, put simply, is that we need a situation in which the brave new world envisaged by the Belfast agreement is working properly and as it should, in which the institutions are working effectively, and in which the basis for politics in Northern Ireland is trust and mutual co-operation, not threats and fear. I sense that Members of both Houses of Parliament are looking to the statute to find a way of summing up those sentiments. Of course, there will be an element of political judgment for the Secretary of State as to when such a point is reached. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) made that point in his speeches on this issue. I know, however, that Members are concerned that the decision should not be left to the Secretary of State alone.
    We have said previously that the clauses would not be commenced without the explicit approval of both Houses, and that no commencement order would be brought forward before acts of completion had been dealt with. I think that I failed to reassure the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) on that point

    43
    last week. The Lords amendment before us today, which was tabled in another place in the names of Lord Smith of Clifton and Lord Glentoran, provides that the clauses cannot be commenced unless devolution has been restored—that is, unless the institutions are up and functioning. In our different ways, we are each aiming for the same thing.
    4.45 pm
    For devolution to be restored, trust must first also be restored, and it must be restored sufficiently to enable all the parties to feel that they can come together, once again, in collective government. For that trust to be restored, we must first see that the paramilitaries are serious. We must see acts of completion. The Lords amendment would add another element to the judgment that the Secretary of State would have to make on whether it is appropriate to introduce the commencement order—whether the time is right.
    In another place, the Government agreed that the amendment that we are considering would provide helpful clarification of the circumstances in which we might expect those clauses to become effective. I commend it to the House.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: Clearly, the Opposition agree with the amendment in the sense that we will not oppose it—indeed, it was introduced in another place by my noble Friend Lord Glentoran—although that is not the end of the story. I have a number of problems with the situation that could result from the amendment, and no others, coming back from the House of Lords, so I want to express them to the Minister, if I may.
    We had hoped that the amendment would be replaced by another, which we thought, as a result of the voting last week, would have considerable support in the Lords. Such an amendment would, of course, have removed the provisions in respect of allowing ex-terrorists to be independent members of district policing partnerships and the creation of the sub-groups in Belfast on the ground that it is quite wrong to hold out such concessions at present. We should wait and see whether Sinn Fein-IRA and other paramilitary organisations are indeed serious about decommissioning and disbanding.
    On that basis, there was considerable consensus on both sides of the Gangway on this side of the House, but, characteristically and as one could have anticipated—indeed, we did—the Liberal Democrats, who were prepared to use brave language last week, were rapidly rolled over in the Lords. They did not support in another place the amendment that they had supported here.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: Surprise, surprise.
    Mr. Davies: Of course, none of us in my party is in the least surprised at what happened, nor are Government Members. I am afraid that I have to say to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) that such behaviour simply reinforces a general impression that the Liberal Democrat party is essentially frivolous,
    44
    irresponsible and not prepared to stand up in one Chamber of this Parliament for the position that it has taken up in the other. Indeed, we know that in other cases it was not prepared to sustain the same position from one week to the next, even in this Chamber.
    David Burnside: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to give way to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), if he is prepared to intervene, so that he can tell the House why the Liberal Democrats have gone back on their word?
    Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman asks a pertinent question. No doubt the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Lembit Öpik: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Davies: If the hon. Gentleman wants to answer now, I shall give way.
    Lembit Öpik: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. To clarify, I am happy to explain the position, although that would more appropriately be done in my speech, should I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Mr. Davies: Well, at least we now have an assurance that we will get some explanation. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will use the rest of the time that I take up, which will not be very long, to prepare his explanation. An explanation of such a shift is certainly required in any democratic Parliament. Most of us who are elected to this place like to think that we stand for something, and we are prepared to be accountable for it. Indeed, our words are recorded in Hansard, presumably so that we can be held to account. For responsible politicians to behave as the Liberal Democrats regularly behave in this place is to make a mockery of our proceedings. It is extremely sad that that should happen on a matter of such importance.
    We do not, however, as a result of the Liberal Democrats' change of mind—that may be the politest way of putting it—have that amendment to consider; we have another one, which is not so satisfactory. It states that the Government would not bring forward a statutory instrument to give effect to the new provisions in the Bill in relation to disqualification of ex-terrorists and the sub-groups, while the devolved institutions have been suspended—while direct rule persists and while there is no Assembly and Executive in Belfast. At first sight, any restriction—which it is—on the Government giving force to those new provisions in present circumstances is welcome. I must say, however, that the restriction is extremely limited [Interruption.] If I may, I shall explain to the lion. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) the main deficiency in the amendment, which will enable her to respond to my view of it as a whole. If I am wrong, perhaps she will want to intervene, and 1 shall be delighted to give way to her so that she can correct me.
    The restraint is not very reassuring or adequate, because if the Government are to call elections, as they have said, on 29 May, they must, as I understand it, at least momentarily restore the institutions in order to dissolve the Assembly. If the Government were so

    45
    minded, therefore, they could take the opportunity at that moment to bring forward the statutory instrument giving effect to these new powers. When the new Assembly is elected, on 29 May, I presume that it will sit whatever happens in terms of the peace process. Under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which is basically the constitution of Northern Ireland, the Assembly has six weeks to agree on an Executive. During that period of up to six weeks, in which the Assembly is sitting, the circumstances might be that the necessary acts of completion, decommissioning and disbandment have not been carried out, and no real chance would exist of bringing together a power-sharing Executive including Sinn Fein. The Assembly might therefore meet under a considerable cloud, with a general sense of doom.
    As I have said many times from this Dispatch Box, in those circumstances, unless all these matters can be resolved, and it is clear that, after a six-week period, no agreement will be reached on an Executive, the only alternatives provided in the 1998 Act would be new elections or the suspension of the institutions and restoration of direct rule. Either of those would be a farce, and would send a clear signal to everybody that the whole Belfast process had failed. That would be very sad. Nevertheless, during that six-week period, the institutions would be working, devolution would be in force, and, under the amendment, the Government, if they so wished, could without further let or hindrance introduce the statutory instrument to give effect to the new powers in the Bill, of which we strongly disapprove in all circumstances except those involving a comprehensive and definitive settlement. Indeed, we have great reservations about those powers even in those circumstances.
    Two major lacunae therefore exist in the protections afforded by the Lords amendment, and it is right to draw attention to them.
    Lady Hermon: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way so gracefully. It is a lovely and welcome change, as he is sometimes resistant to taking interventions, so he is in good form this afternoon.
    May I ask the hon. Gentleman to address one particular aspect of the proposals? I noticed the words that he used: he said that that he welcomed what he regarded as an additional restriction. If an order were made by the Government lifting suspension, those Ministers who are currently suspended—which is a wonderful description—would go back into office. Two Democratic Unionist party members, however, who are unfortunately not here to speak for themselves—far be it from me to speak for the DUP—resigned before suspension was brought into force in October last year, and would not go back into office. Does not the hon. Gentleman regard that as a problem with the restriction, as he sees it, that we are considering this afternoon?
    Mr. Davies: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I try to give way whenever I can. I did not when she sought to intervene in the debate last week because I had already said that I could not take any more interventions. I know that she will agree that, when there are time constraints, it is important to stand by such a declaration. Rather more notably, I refused to give way to the Minister of State last week because she refused to
    46
    give way to me. As I said then, reciprocity must apply in these courtesies. It was important to make that point. However, I do not think that the hon. Member for North Down will find that I have ever been reluctant in principle to give way.
    The hon. Lady sets out the position with regard to the DUP Ministers. No doubt she is right but she would not expect me, the Opposition spokesman, to give her a legal ruling on that. Whether that adds to my concern about the inadequacies of the amendment I do not know, but it certainly does not detract from it. I think that she will agree that there are those two opportunities at least—others may come out of the debate this afternoon—for the Government to introduce the statutory instrument, without any constraint in the Bill.
    As hon. Members know, the Opposition are very worried about that. We are worried about statutory instruments being used for that purpose anyway. The Government know that, with their massive majority, they can always get them through. The problem with a statutory instrument is that one cannot amend it, whatever the circumstances and however they may have changed. Therefore, it is, as I have said before, a blank cheque. Nevertheless, this is a restriction. It does not go very far but it would be illogical, if we oppose a measure, to oppose some restriction on the measure. Therefore, we will not oppose the amendment.
    I have, however, two immediate concerns. One has been brought to the fore by some of the remarks by the Minister of State about acts of completion. She recognised, and I am glad that she did, that many of us in the Opposition and in Northern Ireland, which is perhaps even more important, have the gravest doubts about the use of that word and see considerable suspiciousness in the Government's determination to talk about an abstraction when a concrete act is what is required.
    As I have pointed out, to talk about acts of completion is a contradiction in terms. It is an oxymoron. One cannot have several acts of completion. If one is completing a process, that is one act. One cannot complete it again a second time the next day, the following Tuesday and the following month. It has either been completed or it has not.
    Why are the Government using that oxymoron? Again, that can only excite the gravest suspicions. My first concern is that the Government may still have in mind that they wish to settle for something less than full decommissioning and disbandment of the IRA and of other paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland. We should not settle for anything less than that.
    If the settlement that it is now widely anticipated will be reached on Thursday is based on anything less than full decommissioning and full disbandment, it will not be a definitive settlement. It will not be closure. It will not be completion. Why? Because there will have to be another round and perhaps another after that and another after that. Until the Government say, "We will not settle for anything less than full decommissioning and disbandment," there will always be a paramilitary organisation there that has weapons, there will always be a question of how to negotiate to persuade them to get rid of those weapons and there will always be paramilitary organisations involved in training, procurement, recruitment and all the other things that

    47
    paramilitary organisations do. There will be a continuing threat to peace in Northern Ireland and to democracy in Northern Ireland and we will continue to have political parties that have a private army at their back. Therefore, we will not have achieved anything.
    5 pm
    If the Government are to be taken remotely seriously, and if there really is a fork in the road—the Prime Minister used that phrase in his speech in Belfast in November—and a choice between peaceful and non'peaceful means, that choice has to be made 100 per cent. this Thursday. This is perhaps the last opportunity before Thursday for me to repeat what the Minister has heard me say countless times before in the past one and a half years: we must settle for nothing less than complete decommissioning and complete disbandment. It is therefore a mistake to suggest that we will settle for anything less. It is wrong to use some other intermediate term or abstraction; we should be using a phrase that is extremely definite, extremely clear and extremely unambiguous. For the Government to introduce an element of ambiguity where there should be none is not tactically clever; actually, it is tactically very foolish.
    I turn to my second concern. If, as the media tell us, matters are moving towards the crunch and we may get a settlement on Thursday—perhaps with the help of the honest brokerage of, or pressure from, the President of the United States in Belfast today and tomorrow—and if it really is the balanced, comprehensive and definitive settlement that we Conservatives have called for for a long time, we shall of course welcome it with great enthusiasm. However, we shall naturally examine it with scepticism, to make sure that it really is such a settlement.
    Whatever happens, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Parliament, as I know you will agree, will have to take a decision, and it should have the right to do so as soon as the facts are known. It is therefore very important—I hope that the Minister will forgive me for saying now what I have said to her privately—that a statement be made to Parliament on Thursday. If the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister are to make an announcement on Thursday—I hardly think that Mr. Speaker would not consent to interrupt business for such an important matter—we, too, should have a statement, regardless of the time. If the Prime Minister cannot be here himself, my opposite number, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, would be the natural person to make such a statement, in order to explain to Parliament what has happened, and to allow it to take a view. It would be utterly wrong for such a statement to be left until Friday, when everybody else has had their say in the media, and for us still not to have heard from an authoritative and unambiguous source about what happened in Belfast. It would be a crying scandal and an insult to Parliament for such a statement to Parliament to left until after a weekend of speculation.
    David Burnside: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that perhaps matters will not move quite as fast as he fears? In terms of deciding on the package and on acts of completion—I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the semantics of "acts of completion"; I would prefer the
    48
    phrase "complete acts"—the crucial element is the decision of the Ulster Unionist party. We will take the decision as to whether we rejoin an all-inclusive Executive. As our party's leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), has said often in this House, we will not be jumping first again, as we have done in the past three or four years. We need some time to see whether disbandment and destruction of illegal weapons and explosives is complete and absolute. Unless that is achieved, we will not enter into an Executive.
    Mr. Davies: I am reassured to hear the hon. Gentleman say that, and he is right to do so. He is also right to set out the score in advance, so that there can be no misunderstanding about what needs to be done. He will undoubtedly agree with me that any misunderstanding could be absolutely fatal. Any sense on the part of Sinn Fein, or of anybody else, that something less than the real thing will be settled for—that eventually, if necessary, 85 per cent. will be settled for–would be absolutely disastrous, and could cost us the last real chance to bring to its consummation the peace process launched by the Belfast agreement. We all know that, if we do not grasp this opportunity now, it will be very difficult to continue that process under any circumstances much beyond this summer. I am therefore glad that the hon. Gentleman has made his point so clearly.
    I of course understand that the Ulster Unionist party will need to take its time on this issue, and I am sure that we will hear its view, along with those of the other parties in Northern Ireland, in due time, which must be in their time. However, I was talking about the Government. If they publish the Hillsborough document on Thursday, come to some provisional agreement with another Government—I am thinking, of course, of the Government of the Republic of Ireland—and make a statement to the press, a statement must be made to this House at the same time. [Interruption.] I see that the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) is nodding, and all of us, as parliamentarians, must agree with that principle.
    When we are dealing with important matters that have been the subject of detailed negotiation, and when the moment comes for the Government to make a public statement, perhaps jointly with the Government of the Irish Republic, about what agreement has been reached, we cannot allow everyone except the House of Commons to be informed. The parties are told, along with the press, the local media in Northern Ireland, the media in the United States and Australia, but all sorts of speculation, as ever, gets mixed up in the reporting of these matters. The British public might be somewhat confused, but if the Government will not issue an authoritative statement to the House, it leaves us in an impossible position. I trust that the Government will not do that.
    Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for generously taking a second intervention from me this afternoon. In view of what he said earlier, does he agree that when the Secretary of State makes a statement on any agreement coming out of Hillsborough, it is vital to spell out any additional changes to policing in Northern Ireland? The hon. Gentleman will know that after the

    49
    Police (Northern Ireland) Bill had passed through the House and before it went back to the other place, changes were made to the Belfast sub-groups and further changes were made to allow people with criminal and terrorist convictions to become independent members. At the Ard Fheis in Dublin, Sinn Fein said that that had not gone far enough. It was still unhappy and its spokesman on policing, Gerry Kelly, is reported to have said that

    "they have not yet achieved the threshold for a new beginning to policing."

    Clearly, Sinn Fein is looking for still further advances. Does the hon. Gentleman expect the Secretary of State to announce even more changes in his next public statement?
    Mr. Davies: I hear what the hon. Lady says. She is always well informed about such matters, and she is right that policing is a sensitive subject for both republicans and Unionists in Northern Ireland. As the hon. Lady knows, in negotiating processes, none of the parties secures 100 per cent. of their desiderata. It would be an unnatural and peculiar negotiation if they did, because no negotiation would have been necessary in the first place. It is perhaps natural at this stage that various parties are saying that they do not like this or that.
    The Government have the responsibility to make a success of the peace process. I know that they want to do all that they can, but they must take their own decisions on the basis of their conversations, whether individually or jointly, with the political parties. We have said all along that it is a mistake to think that one can square with one party by giving away some concessions and then try to do the same with the next party. That is not possible because everything is interlinked. Only general and contingent conversations are possible: if we are to secure effective agreement, all the parties have to be taken along with the Government almost simultaneously. The Government must be the judge of their own tactics and they can decide whether they want to listen to us. When they have not done so in the past, they have come adrift, but when they have followed our suggestions, they have secured favourable results on the whole. Let us hope that they have learned their lesson.
    The Government must also be the judge of the right time to go public and make a statement about what progress has been achieved, and to clarify how they envisage the future of the process. We are told through the media—not through a statement to the House of Commons—that we are coming to a crunch this week and that a statement may be made on Thursday. I hope so: we all hope that sufficient progress will have been made to warrant such a statement. However, if a public statement is to be made, it must be made—ideally, first—to the House.
    I realise that a joint statement with the Irish Government presents greater difficulties, but I see no reason not to make a simultaneous statement—or within just a few hours—to the House, following any joint declaration, whether in Belfast or elsewhere, by the two Governments. That was certainly the procedure adopted by the previous Conservative Government after the Downing street declaration. Indeed, a statement was made to the House within two or three hours of that declaration. I hope that the Government will follow that good precedent. They have not said that
    50
    they will not, and I trust that they will. As I said, because of the difficulties in the past and in the light of the suspicions in some people's minds, it is right to make the point in public now. I hope that I shall have no further occasion to mention that, except, perhaps, to say on Thursday that I am grateful for such a statement being made as quickly as possible after any intergovernmental declaration.
    I hope that that is not controversial. Obviously, if the Minister wishes to respond, I shall listen intently. I hope that the Government's business managers and the Leader of the House have taken note of these feelings. On this, if nothing else, I believe that I speak with the support of a wide range of parliamentarians on both sides of the House.
    Lembit Öpik: The amendment was tabled by the Liberal Democrats and supported—grudgingly, I now realise—by the Conservatives. It would introduce an order preventing the powers on ex-prisoners becoming members of district policing partnerships and the Belfast sub-groups from coming into force until the Assembly had been restored.
    We all agree that we would not want such powers to be introduced until acts of completion had taken place. Everybody understands that, and it has been debated recently, but the argument is based on whether it is possible specifically to define "acts of completion" to the extent that that could be included in the Bill. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) does not have a full recollection of what I said, although obviously he can re-read my speech in Hansard. The crucial element was my challenge to Ministers to accept either that they had to include acts of completion in the Bill, or that they had to concede the apparently obvious point that every Secretary of State has chosen to maintain some political flexibility in defining acts of completion.
    That was a stark option and, in fairness, the Secretary of State went a long way towards implicitly accepting something that we already knew: that Secretaries of State would maintain that flexibility, which is no greater than that displayed by John Major when he was Prime Minister and by many of his Ministers when they were in charge of Northern Ireland policy.
    In the intervening time, I have been persuaded that it is difficult, legally, to define what can be construed as an act of completion. For me, it would need to consist of decommissioning, an end to paramilitary beatings, shootings and intimidation and a statement from paramilitary groups lifting the threats against those exiled from their homes and allowing them to return.
    For me to say that I am persuaded that it is hard to define acts of completion is not to suggest that I have changed my view. I never thought that it was easy to define. Had the Secretary of State asked my advice, it would have been for the Government to say that acts of completion were as much symbolic statements as they were measurable in any practical sense. To that extent, following consideration and discussion, it seemed appropriate for us to move forward in line with amendment No. 48A towards something that seemed to be significant progress on how the Bill was laid out.
    In my judgment, amendment No. 48A effectively adds considerable responsibility to the Northern Ireland parties in terms of the decision-making process and of

    51
    how far the paramilitaries have come. The fact that the restoration of the Assembly is an essential element provides us with a creative solution to at least part of the problem.
    Disappointingly, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford sought to gain party political capital from the fact that the Liberal Democrats have approached this issue pragmatically. I counsel him to he cautious. It was, after all, the Conservatives who signed the amendment. Clearly, Conservative Members who thought that we might gain a significant victory signed the amendment grudgingly. The hon. Gentleman himself said that the Conservatives were going to vote against some Northern Ireland measures on principle, although we established from his words—it is all there in Hansard—that they disagreed with only two of the 298 clauses of the Bill in question. However, the retreat was sounded and the Conservatives abstained. The Conservatives criticised the suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly, but were unable, during cross-questioning by me and others, to say what they would have done as an alternative, apart from some bluster about the fact that the Government were punishing the wrong people.
    On another occasion, the Conservatives, led by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford, voted against the extension of an amnesty that they had introduced. That is cynicism; it is an inconsistent approach to Northern Ireland politics. By comparison, the Liberal Democrats try to take an honest, transparent and constructive approach.
    5.15 pm
    Mr. Quentin Davies: Everything that the hon. Gentleman has said—every allegation that he has—made has been misinformed or fanciful. In parliamentary terms, I cannot put it more strongly than that. The suggestion that we criticised the Government for suspending the institutions without proposing an alternative is absurd. Last July, before the crisis—we expected there to be a further crisis, given the Government's tactics—I set out our alternative, which was to provide the Secretary of State with powers to suspend. All the hon. Gentleman's comments are completely nonsensical. My noble colleagues in another place accepted the amendment, albeit reluctantly—as I rightly and advisedly pointed out—because the more desirable amendment, which, given the assertions of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues last Thursday, we had every expectation would pass with Liberal support, was not accepted because the Liberal Democrats changed their mind. As always, they simply run away as soon as they hear sound of cannon fire. They only need a telephone call from No. 10 saying, "Please fall back into line" and they fall back into line.
    Lembit Öpik: I always enjoy the hon. Gentleman's words, even when they are directed at me. I am smiling only because his retort was so well constructed, but in response may I ask him whether it is beyond his capacity to understand the point that I made? I am sure that it is not, and that he is being mischievous. I remind him of what I said only a few days ago to the same Members to whom I am speaking now, standing in this very spot—or within six inches of it: the Government should either
    52
    include provisions about acts of completion in the Bill, or accept that they want to maintain political flexibility in defining acts of completion. I should have liked the Secretary of State to admit what every Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has known for the last 20 or 30 years: in such matters, Ministers always want latitude so that they can change their position based on expediency. I stated that if the Government were willing to admit that we would drop the proposal. In effect, that is what the record shows.
    The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford is entitled to say that he does not accept my binary alternative—of including provisions about acts of completion in the Bill, or accepting that political flexibility is required and doing something else. However, the Liberal Democrats are comfortable that the Government have implicitly accepted that point and that Ministers have accepted an amendment, proposed by Lord Smith of Clifton, that would reduce the latitude a little more and, crucially, would introduce an element of responsibility for the Northern Ireland parties themselves in the decision about when acts of completion had been fulfilled.
    Lady Hermon: When an order lifting suspension is made, only the 10 Ministers who are currently suspended will return to office. The two Democratic Unionist Ministers resigned before suspension, so they will not automatically resume office. The Policing Board is made up of 19 members, 10 of whom are Assembly Members. It would thus be difficult for DUP Members to continue their membership of the Policing Board. That is an important change from our previous policy and I am not at all happy with the amendment. Before the hon. Gentleman welcomes it so enthusiastically, will he address the issue that I raised?
    Lembit Öpik: If the hon. Lady will allow me to do so, I would be more inclined to intervene on her speech to respond to that issue in specific terms, because it has more than one element. In strategic terms, she is right. The amendment would introduce other issues, but those are less profoundly worrying, certainly to me, than not having the condition on the restoration of the Assembly in the first place. Any Government can play with legislation to get what they want if they are willing to move away from the spirit of that legislation. Perhaps partly because of the pressures that the hon. Lady describes, there is a genuine cost to Northern Ireland parties if they do not constructively participate in making the decision.
    The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford annoyed me a little by suggesting that there is a degree of cynicism among Liberal Democrat Members. He may question my list of criticisms of the Conservatives, but I wonder whether he would really deny that on one occasion he suggested that the IRA had initiated acts of decommissioning because the Conservative party had called an Opposition day debate on Northern Ireland policy. He may say now that that was a joke or that it was fanciful, but he cannot deny that that is what it says in Hansard.
    Moving on to the present day, the hon. Gentleman, in criticising the amendment and speaking more generally, said—I paraphrase—that were he Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, he would demand complete

    53
    disbandment and complete decommissioning. What does he mean by complete disbandment and complete decommissioning? If he can outline a clear process whereby we can understand that those two things have happened, he is not only in the wrong job—he should be the decommissioning commissioner—but he will have gone far further than anyone has so far been able to go in the course of this debate.
    Mr. Quentin Davies Mr. Quentin Davies rose—
    Lembit Öpik: The hon. Gentleman is about to give us another pearl of wisdom.
    Mr. Davies: I shall take the hon. Gentleman's point seriously because we are dealing with very serious matters. Disbandment means the end of the IRA, or the end of the paramilitary organisation concerned, as a paramilitary organisation—in other words, the end of any structures or activities that are directed towards violence. That must be absolutely plain. I cannot be straighter than that.
    As regards decommissioning, one of the great virtues of the Belfast agreement and the peace process is that we have the huge advantage of having an objective mechanism so that we do not have to argue until kingdom come about whether decommissioning has been completed and whether the odd shotgun is stuck up in someone's attic—that is bound to happen—because we have General de Chastelain and the international commission. When General de Chastelain determines that decommissioning has been completed, it has been completed.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I say to the hon. Gentleman, who is not alone in this respect, that interventions are getting longer and longer? In fact, they are starting to get longer than the contribution by the hon. Gentleman who has the Floor.
    Lembit Öpik: Furthermore, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are in danger of providing the world with a treatise on Conservative party policy on Northern Ireland, and I am guilty of that.
    I will conclude my defence against the Conservative outburst by highlighting the difficulty of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford, who, in trying to describe full disbandment, simply said the same thing using different words. Would he think that if 10 people in Northern Ireland who used to be IRA members happened to go for a drink together and talk about the good old days, it would mean that they had failed to disband? How would he define the disappearance of structures given that in many ways structures are both attitudinal and a passive, sleeping environment that could be restored at any time? A more serious point is involved. If the hon. Gentleman seeks to portray himself as having great clarity, he needs to be more understanding of the nature of attitudes in the republican movement. For him to demand complete disbandment is not only unmeasurable but counterproductive. By comparison, the proposal in amendment No. 48A is clear, measurable and deliverable, and it would reintroduce the Northern Ireland parties to the loop. I accept that the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) has raised
    54
    one of the amendment's problems and I do not say that it is perfect. However, we have made progress by convincing the Government that it represents the way forward.
    I understand that this week the British and Irish Governments are due to publish the package that was put before the parties at Hillsborough and I shall be interested to see what it contains. All sides will have to consider what the institutions of government are worth and ensure that their actions are sufficient to demonstrate that they are acting in good faith.
    The bottom line of the debate is whether we accept amendment No. 48A as a significant improvement to what we had before. The Liberal Democrats actively welcome it and it is, apparently, grudgingly accepted as a long second by the Conservatives. Alternatively, we could reject the amendment and retain the original provision. The Liberal Democrats have a practical approach on Northern Ireland policy. We are honest about what we say and open about what we believe. I am pleased that people in all parties share the same approach much of the time. John Major spoke to terrorists while they were still killing our soldiers, which was to his credit because if it had not happened there would have been no progress. It would be nice to see the Conservative party welcome—just once—a measure of substantial importance in good faith. If it does, when the Liberal Democrats are in government we shall be more sympathetic to its proposals.
    Lady Hermon: I apologise for my lengthy intervention on the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit mpik). I shall be delighted to give way to him later, and I look forward to him being in government, although I am not sure whether he will be a member of the Liberal Democrats. He will be a member of the Ulster Unionist party, of course. [Interruption.] He will join the Ulster Unionists before he joins the Conservatives. He has a lot of common sense.
    The agreement that I voted for and that I still strongly support is my benchmark. Under the heading "Policing and Justice", it spells out clearly the perceived new beginning for policing. It says that the parties

    "believe that the agreement provides the opportunity for a new beginning to policing in Northern Ireland with a police service capable of attracting and sustaining support from the community as a whole."

    The key words are:

    "from the community as a whole."

    On Report on 26 and 27 March, we made significant changes to the Bill to allow people with terrorist or criminal convictions to become independent members of district policing partnerships. We also changed the rules on the sub-groups in Belfast.
    I shall refresh hon. Members' minds about implications surrounding district policing partnerships. They will operate locally and every one of the 26 district councils in Northern Ireland will have one. Belfast will be divided into four sub-groups. There will be regular interface between a superintendent or chief superintendent and members of the DPPs. It is a matter of great disquiet, to put it mildly, that I regularly hear from constituents who are very concerned that people with criminal convictions, not only terrorist convictions, will be able to join a DPP and tell others how to police the district. That is a very sensitive issue.

    55
    The Minister was right to open her speech by referring to what she said on Report in March. She consistently maintained that changes would be made and that commencement orders for the sub-groups and DPPs would be introduced only in the context of acts of completion. However, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was not so consistent. It is worth bearing in mind where we have moved from and where we are today. Early on in that debate, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said:

    "We have made it clear that the commencement orders will not come into effect until after the acts of completion."

    I thought that that was clear. However, later in the day—perhaps he should not have been so generous in taking interventions—he seemed to change his mind. In relation to the commencement orders, he said:

    "They will not come into effect unless there are acts of completion. They will not come into effect unless we have agreement that those acts of completion have been dealt with."—[Official Report, 26 March 2003; Vol. 402, c. 317–361.]

    So it was with considerable surprise and huge irritation that I saw the amendment to change the sub-groups and district policing partnerships. The issue of independent members is sensitive and such changes should not be made lightly. It seems that commencement orders can be made if the Secretary of State brings an order before the House to lift suspension. That is a huge change from where we started in column 317 on 26 March.
    5.30 pm
    I am not happy with the change. I have alluded to the difficulties that the Democratic Unionist party will have with it. In addition, the Ulster Unionist party agreed unanimously—we do that occasionally—on the resolution of the Ulster Unionist Council when we discussed it in our meeting in Belfast on Saturday 21 September 2002. We had a lengthy and detailed discussion on two separate proposals, suggested by right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and my colleague, the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson), and decided to bring them together. The Ulster Unionist Council agreed unanimously last September—I am not inventing this—in paragraph 6 of its resolution that:

    "The Ulster Unionist Party will oppose further unnecessary changes to the policing legislation and gives notice that it will withdraw from the Policing Board in the event of the government capitulating to the unreasonable demands of Sinn Fein/IRA for further police reform including places for convicted terrorists on district policing partnership boards."

    Every time that Democratic Unionist party Members have been in the House when we have been discussing policing, I have taken my courage in my hands and intervened on one or other of them to ask what their policy would be if Sinn Fein were to join the Policing Board. They have consistently kept to the same line: that they will follow the Ulster Unionist party members of the Policing Board. They have never said what they will do when they stand alone, but they will come off the Policing Board if Ulster Unionist members leave it.
    The Government need to be sensitive to the difficulties that my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann has with any changes. He has an Ulster Unionist
    56
    Council resolution, agreed unanimously last autumn., and members of the council will be sensitive to changes to policing legislation. If the Government were to introduce an order lifting suspension of the Assembly, I repeat that it is a constitutional provision in existing legislation that only suspended Members—only 10 Ministers—will go back into office. The two DUP Members who resigned four days before suspension cannot go back into office; they remain resigned. That will put huge pressure on the Ulster Unionist Ministers: do they stay in the Executive or do they not? My difficulty is that unfair pressure will be put on the Ulster Unionist party—a party that has carried this process and taken risks time and time again.
    Lembit Öpik: I thank the hon. Lady for the offer of membership of her party, which I shall put to the good people of Montgomeryshire when I have a moment. The point that the hon. Lady raises is surely exactly why this proposal could work. I accept that it puts huge pressure on the Ulster Unionist party, but it also puts pressure on the Democratic Unionist party, who could be criticised by the people they represent for not participating, and, more than anything, it puts pressure on Ministers to work in partnership with those parties. The hon. Lady has described a mechanism through which all the parties will be tied into making decisions, and through which pressure will be put on Ministers.
    Lady Hermon: This point will be helpful and will address the point that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) has made: the Government must make it clear this afternoon that any order to lift suspension will be made only after acts of completion. To be frank, no order to lift suspension will be worth making unless there have been acts of completion. The Government should also make it clear that the statement of the Secretary of State on 26 March still stands even if we make the changes that we may make this afternoon. The Government must make it clear that commencement orders will not come into effect unless we have agreement that acts of completion have been dealt with. It is hugely important that a clear message is sent out—suspension will be lifted only after acts of completion and, therefore, commencement orders for changes to DPPs and the Belfast sub-groups will be made only after acts of completion. Such a message would be very helpful indeed in clearing away any suspicions that we have given ground too quickly on this issue.
    Jane Kennedy: As I said in my opening comments, the amendment that we are considering this afternoon builds into statute the extra consideration that the Secretary of State must give. The institutions in a power-sharing Executive must be functioning before he would consider the changes that the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) has been speaking about. She refers to the pressure that she thinks will be placed on her party. I accept that there is a perception that the Ulster Unionist party would come under particular pressure—indeed, the point was raised by one of the hon. Lady's hon. Friends in the other place. She refers to the party's policy, which would prevent it co-operating in a policing board if Sinn Fein were to join in this context.

    57
    I understand the depth of the sensitivities, emotions and feelings on this issue. However, when I have talked to all of the Unionist parties—and not just that of the hon. Lady—and to representatives of the police through the police associations, I have always done so in the context of a Sinn Fein party and a Provisional IRA that are reforming and moving away from paramilitary activity, and that have put paramilitary activity behind them and are prepared to embrace policing as the hon. Lady and I, and you Mr. Deputy Speaker, would understand it. There has been a willingness on the part of, I think, almost everybody, including the Democratic Unionist party, to say that they would consider—in that context—working co-operatively in the interests of the police, of policing and of Northern Ireland. That does not mean that things are any less difficult.
    The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) talked about his disappointment that an amendment was not carried in another place. I do not intend to comment on that—I shall restrict my comments to the amendment that we are debating today—but I am grateful to hon. Members representing all parties on both sides of the House for the thoughtful, constructive and detailed consideration given to the Bill. There has been genuine co-operation here and in another place in working together to improve the Bill in a spirit of seeking to assist the process, and the Government are grateful to both Houses for that.
    Last week, I met police officers in Dungannon, who police in an extremely difficult security environment, and we discussed such issues in a very open and frank exchange of views. There is no question that trust in the Governments and political parties has to be restored. There is no question that police officers must have confidence if they are to take forward these reforms, as we seek to make this final step that will involve the fullest implementation of the Belfast agreement. That was starkly illustrated to me by those very genuine police officers, who expressed their deeply held views.
    It has been one of the greatest privileges of my political career to work with the highly professional, dedicated police officers, who work in that very difficult environment in Northern Ireland and who put aside even these most difficult issues to work together. Indeed, they are prepared to work with those whom they find it very difficult to work with, but they do so in the spirit of working towards the benefit of everyone in Northern Ireland.
    The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford talked about the potential for doom and the gloom that may hang over the Assembly. Of course, we may spend time considering that, but he is wrong in the sense that the Secretary of State is not required to restore the institutions before dissolving them. However, it is difficult at this stage to say exactly what will happen. It is important for the House to bear in mind the fact that a great deal of work is still being done and a great deal remains to be completed before we move into the completely new environment that we are seeking to establish.
    The date for dissolution was set for 28 April, to give the parties the maximum time possible to reflect on the shared understanding presented by both Governments,
    58
    and it is important that the parties have as much space as possible to consider the way forward. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford commented on what may happen. We all spend time considering what may happen and what circumstances may apply. All that we can say at the moment is that we expect the two Prime Ministers to return to Northern Ireland within the next week to publish their proposals. At that time, all those involved can say whether they accept and endorse those proposals.
    We do not know what the IRA or any paramilitary group will do, but, obviously, every hon. Member hopes that everyone will engage in the acts of completion that we have struggled to define in considering the Bill.
    Lady Hermon: Will the Minister clarify an issue that has also caused considerable disquiet at home? Let us suppose that the suspension is not lifted, that the Assembly is dissolved at the point that she mentions and that the election takes place on 29 May. Is there any point in holding an election at the end of May if we cannot guarantee that the Assembly could work on 30 or 31 May? Will the Government make it absolutely clear that they intend to hold the election on 29 May come what may?
    Jane Kennedy: That is absolutely our intention. We have made that commitment and there is agreement that that should happen, but there is no guarantee about what may happen as a result. There is no guarantee about anything that may happen between now and the election date itself.
    5.45 pm
    As for what we mean by acts of completion, I think the hon. Gentleman was wrong to say that the Government had indicated that they might accept somewhat less than what would be acceptable elsewhere. It is important to remember what the Prime Minister said in his Belfast speech in October. He made it absolutely clear that the paramilitary organisations must end their violence, their preparations for violence and their planning for violence, and that it must be a complete and permanent end. While I accept that there have been a great many questions about that definition, I think it is comprehensive.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: This matter is so important that we had better be precise. I did not say that the Government had indicated that they would accept something less than complete decommissioning and complete disbandment. Thank God, they have not said in advance that they would accept something less, and I pray that they never will accept something less. I spoke, in fact, of the danger of not referring to the completion of decommissioning and disbandment and preferring to use some intermediate symbolic term—some abstraction such as "acts of completion", with all the problems of definition that I mentioned. I said that it might give someone the impression—a false impression, I trust—that the Government could settle for something less. Were that danger to materialise—were anyone to suppose that the Government might settle for something

    59
    less—the chance of securing what we need to complete the settlement would, I am afraid, disappear. I have never suggested—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point.
    Jane Kennedy: I agree with the vast majority of what the hon. Gentleman has said. It is indeed a question of carrying all the parties with us.
    The hon. Gentleman pressed me on the issue of a statement to the House. He will appreciate that I have no authority to give him a commitment now, but we have heard his comments. We will talk to colleagues about what has been said today, and I will tell my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State how strongly the hon. Gentleman feels.
    I am grateful for the latitude you have allowed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in letting us deal with issues that are not defined specifically by the amendment. I hope that President Bush will encourage all parties to endorse the way forward proposed by the British and Irish Governments, and that everyone will become involved in the carrying out of acts of completion on all sides. We are taking nothing for granted. The President's stay today and tomorrow shows how important this week is for Northern Ireland, and the influence of the United States Government can never be underestimated.
    This is indeed a critical week for Northern Ireland. It is, I think, the most important week since the Good Friday agreement. It gives us our chance to implement the rest of that agreement in one final step, something that not just those of us who represent constituencies in England, Wales and Scotland hope to achieve.
    David Burnside: How can the President of the United States—in Hillsborough, tonight or tomorrow; I believe that the discussion will last for about an hour and a half tomorrow morning—endorse a package that the House has not yet received and at which the Northern Ireland parties have only glanced without being told of the details? How can he do that in the next two days when the House and the parties involved are being asked to look at the package on Thursday, having not seen it previously?
    Jane Kennedy: I said that I was sure that the President would encourage all parties to consider the package very carefully, and to endorse it. As the hon. Gentleman will no doubt agree when he has a chance to see the package, it offers the best opportunity for the final move towards the final and fullest implementation of the Belfast agreement. That, I believe, is no less than the people of Northern Ireland deserve.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Lords amendment No. 49A agreed to.

  Industrial Development (Financial Assistance) Bill
  Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Industrial Development (Financial Assistance) Bill

    Clause 1
    INCREASE IN LIMIT ON SELECTIVE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
    5.50 pm
    Mr. Andrew Lansley: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 4 leave out

    'The limit shall be £3,700 million'

    and insert—

    'The said limit shall be £3,440 million'.

    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 4 in page 1, line 5 leave out from 'than' to end of line 7 and insert—

    'six occasions and with no more than one occasion within any twelve-month period, by order made with the consent of the Treasury increase or further increase that limit by a sum specified in the order, being a sum not exceeding £200 million.'.

    Mr. Lansley: I am grateful for the opportunity to return to issues that we debated on Second Reading. The Bill is short, so there is not much room to stray from its content. Reflecting on the debate on Second Reading and in Committee, I found that we had not yet completed the process of scrutinising the judgment to which the Government came in the Bill. We ought to return to it, and I hope that discussing the two amendments will help in the process of further examinating—further examining, rather—what the Government are trying to achieve.
    To avoid confusion, and to assist those who read our proceedings and save them having to look back at Second Reading and Standing Committee, let me explain that amendments Nos. 1 and 4 would provide that, instead of what is proposed in the Bill, section 8(5) of the Industrial Development Act 1982 would read:

    "The said limit shall be £3,440 million, but the Secretary of State may, on not more than six occasions and with no more than one occasion within any twelve-month period, by order made with the consent of the Treasury increase or further increase that limit by a sum specified in the order, being a sum not exceeding £200 million."

    That would be the content of the Bill.
    It is obvious that the amendments introduce three substantive changes. First, the limit to be specified on accumulated expenditure under section 8 would be £3,440 million. Secondly, instead of the four further tranches available under the affirmative resolution procedure, six such tranches would be available. Thirdly, instead of tranches of £600 million being able to be authorised in that way, the sum would be £200 million.
    Let us recall the context of the Bill. The history of the provision goes back to the Industry Act 1972. On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) reminded us of the vexed political history of that Act. The 1972 Act provided for a sum of £150 million, with four further tranches of £100

    61
    million to be available. It is interesting, and it has not previously been mentioned, that those were not the original terms of the 1972 Bill. That Bill, as drafted, specified a sum of £250 million and four further tranches of £150 million, but in the course of consideration of the Bill, the sums were significantly reduced from those proposed by the then Government.
    The 1972 legislation was not intended to last for 30 years. The then Minister, Mr. Christopher Chataway, summing up the Second Reading debate on 22 May 1972, said:

    "In preparation for entry into Europe the Government have made it clear that they believe that there is a job of modernisation to be done in various sectors of industry. It is in recognition of this factor that the powers under Clause 8, which enable the Government to assist in the modernisation process, lapse at the end of the transitional period."—[Official Report, 22 May 1972; Vol. 837, c. 1130.]

    The transitional period was to last until the end of 1977, as Mr. John Davies, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, said earlier in that debate, so the powers to which we are referring and the expenditure that was contemplated were for only a four-year period.
    All that changed in 1976, when the sums were changed and the caveat that no expenditure was to be undertaken after the end of 1977 was removed. The sum in question went up from £150 million plus four £100 million tranches—that is. a cumulative total of £550 million—to a limit of £600 million. In other words, the tranches were consolidated into that limit, and provision was made by order for four additional tranches of £250 million.
    Mr. John Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as is the entire House, no doubt, for the history lesson that he is helpfully providing. I, for one, am anxious to complete my education on this important subject. The subsequent ratcheting-up of the available funds in the course of the Wilson-Callaghan Government is no surprise, but would I be right in thinking that the original change downwards that was made from the time the Bill was first presented was the result of activity from the Conservative Back Benches, led by economic liberals including Mr. Enoch Powell?
    Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The latter point is correct. It was Mr. Jock Bruce-Gardyne who led the antagonism to the sums that were intended to be spent and the purposes for which they were to be spent. I do not recall any reference to Mr. Powell in the Second Reading debate. Mr. Bruce-Gardyne was instrumental in questioning the Bill.
    Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: Has the hon. Gentleman calculated the effects of inflation during that time? Would not the sums mentioned in the 1972 Bill be much smaller in real terms and as a proportion of gross domestic product?
    Mr. Lansley: As a proportion of GDP the sums would be smaller, and to a greater extent than would be the case if one were simply to calculate in real terms. It is true that a significant part of the uprating of the amounts specified in the legislation in 1976 and again in 1982, which we shall come to, was the result of substantial increases in inflation in the 1970s. As a
    62
    Labour Member, perhaps the hon. Gentleman should not dwell too long or too hard on the ravages of inflation during the 1970s. In addition to other factors, inflation cost his party dear in 1979. It has cost Parliament and the taxpayer dear as well.
    Rather than saying that the sums got out of control and the amounts were disproportionate to the purpose, I am trying to illustrate the mechanisms in question. In 1976 the mechanism was to consolidate the previous intended expenditure and to make provision for additional tranches subsequently. The intention at that time was that the subsequent tranches would be reached quite quickly. The implied total in 1976, of £600 million in the first instance and four tranches of £250 million by extension, meant a cumulative total of £1,600 million.
    In 1982, not least because of the impact of inflation, and because of the impact of substantial expenditure under the section 8 provisions, which were continuing, the then Government, in a consolidation measure which does not afford us much opportunity to see what was intended at the time, consolidated the previous Industry Acts and uprated the sums in question. The original limit—the said limit under section 8—was raised to £1,900 million, which is a very big increase over the previous £600 million, but was only a small increase—little more than one tranche— in excess of the £1,600 million, which was the cumulative total implied by the 1976 amendments. However, not only were those provisions consolidated, but further provision was made to make further tranches available—£1,900 million in the first instance, along with four further tranches of £200 million.
    6 pm
    It is interesting that the size of the tranches was not further increased. The £200 million tranches were smaller amounts of additional funding than the £250 million that had been provided beforehand. That makes the position slightly different from what the Minister told us on Second Reading:

    "While maintaining the four tranches, we want to increase the ceiling on those tranches—as, indeed, did the previous Government in 1982".—[Official Report, 24 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 49.]

    Of course, the previous Government did not increase the ceiling in 1982, but lowered it from £250 million to £200 million. That indicated the desire in 1982 for regular parliamentary scrutiny of the additional sums. If the Government had intended to move to £2,700 million and beyond without parliamentary scrutiny, they could have done so without providing for such relatively low limits on the tranches.
    That took us to £2,700 million, which is, of course, the figure that has applied until now. Interestingly, given the sums that were spent in the late 1970s and early 1980s, it is astonishing that the sums provided in 1982 lasted as long as they did and applied until 1996, before the additional four tranches of £200 million were called upon. Of course, as the Minister will no doubt tell us, at or before the end of this year, having passed the final of the four tranches, the Government will take us to that £2,700 million level, but the question is this: how much further should they be allowed to go?
    There is an argument that the Government should not be allowed to go any further at all, as when the money was introduced it was transitional restructuring money

    63
    for industry. I do not propose to advance that argument, however, and my Front-Bench colleagues have not sought to do so either. Whether or not that was the intention when the original powers were introduced, we have seen events move on and a range of schemes have been introduced under section 8 that are clearly not geared to the transitional restructuring of industry to meet the requirements of a competitive marketplace, but are intended to provide for specific measures to deal with perceived market failures that would otherwise inhibit industry's competitive abilities. Examples include the smart scheme, which relates to the promotion of research and development, and the small firms loan guarantee scheme, which deals with the availability of unsecured capital for small businesses. I understand the rationale for those schemes, and although they must be examined carefully, I shall not argue that they can be entirely dispensed with.
    We need to think long and hard about the sums involved and the accountability that applies. The purposes of my amendments are therefore as follows. First, they seek to constrain the amount that is to be provided for under the Bill and which will be available to the Government without further substantive debate in this House. Secondly, they seek to constrain the rate of spend, as it seems clear that, since the Government came to office in 1997, that rate has increased. I do not recall the Minister previously informing us of the level of expenditure in relation to section 8 schemes on an annual basis since 1997, as compared with preceding years. It is clear, however, that the level must have increased, as we have reached the next tranches so quickly since 1996. Thirdly, through the mechanism of limiting the additional tranches of money and ensuring that not more than one can be introduced in any 12-month period, the amendments seek to increase accountability. In effect, in the later stages of the expenditure that the Bill would authorise, the Government would either have to constrain their rate of spend or come to Parliament at least once a year in order to secure through the affirmative resolution procedure the necessary ability to continue the expenditure.
    In case it is not obvious—I am sure that the Minister will have worked it out—I should explain how I arrived at the figures. The cumulative total of £3,440 million is the product of consolidating the existing approved expenditure of £2,700 million and providing for four years' worth of additional expenditure at the rate at which the Government themselves say that expenditure under section 8 is forecast—£185 million a year. Amendment No. 1 would therefore ensure that, if this Government or a succeeding one continued at the current rate of spend, they would probably have to secure parliamentary approval for additional tranches of expenditure in between four and five years' time. That seems a reasonable period, especially when one considers that, in the first 10 years after which the powers were conferred, the Government came to Parliament three times to introduce primary legislation to maintain the expenditure. It is only because of the constraint and limited recourse to section 8 expenditure in the 1980s that such a long period passed—from 1982 until now—before primary legislation was required.
    64
    The provisions relating to additional tranches of £200 million are proposed simply because I see no justification for the assumption that as much as three years should pass in each case before the Government must have further recourse to Parliament. I did not have the privilege of being a member of the Standing Committee, but I know that it carefully discussed accountability and sought to introduce some sort of debate about annual reports. However, instead of a purposeless debate about an annual report, a purposeful debate about the extension of the power to spend section 8 moneys would be far more effective and would concentrate the minds of Parliament and Ministers more. Such a debate would probably be informed by the annual report, but would not relate only to that report. Such a debate would happen pretty much annually and, because of the provision referring to six occasions rather than four, the arrangement would take us about 10 years hence.
    These are all matters of judgment. The Government's assumption is that, because the last consolidation measure, which was introduced in 1982, lasted 20 years, the new power should also last that long. There is no rationale or logic behind that position, which is based merely on an assumption that, because it was good enough to last 20 years last time, it should last 20 years again. My contention is that, if anything, there is a strong rationale for requiring Ministers to consult the House more frequently as time passes where they are simply extending powers without any fundamental revision of the legislative framework.
    The provisions were basically devised in 1972, but 30 years later, Ministers are contemplating the idea that they should simply be left in place and that the funds should be made available so that they can do what they like with them for another 20 years. Accordingly, in 20 years' time, we will be considering legislation that was framed on a temporary basis and intended to last four and a half to five years, but will have been around for 50 years—and Ministers will be continuing to spend the money. Why are Ministers so happy to extend the power and for it not to be subject to more regular scrutiny? The answer is that the legislation was phrased in such a way as to be virtually an enabling power allowing them to spend whatever they like for whatever reasons they like, subject nowadays to the agreement of the European Commission.
    Mr. Bercow: Given the desirability of avoiding the incentivisation of the subsidy junket, has my hon. Friend made any assessment of the displacement effect of the financial assistance in deterring other productive investment? Does he agree that, in the next few years, we should be more effective in the private sector at reacting to the changing economy in terms of employment patterns and new investment? We should not continually need such a function to be carried out by the state.
    Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Ministers have always professed to aim for a competitive market economy free of subsidies, which distort the markets to which they are provided and the businesses from which the money is taken. We examine the latter point too rarely. The Bill's object is to enable the Government to spend £3,700 million on pretty much

    65
    whatever they like. The distorting effect of taking £3,700 million out of the pockets of British industry in the shape of one company to spend it on another is rarely taken into account. The opportunity cost and industrial disruption that high taxation causes are becoming increasingly apparent to business. [Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) says from a sedentary position, business knows that well this week because of the way in which the process affects pay packets and employers' costs.
    The Government may claim that the national insurance increases are to pay for the national health service. Perhaps they will tell us precisely out of which business taxation the £3,700 million will come. Business representatives could then make a more balanced judgment about the merit and amount of expenditure under the schemes, as compared with the disruptive, distorting and damaging effects of the taxation to gain the money. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) happily distracted me from my purpose and I shall therefore revert to my more mundane task of trying to ascertain the origin and destination of the figures.
    On Second Reading and in Committee, the Minister tried to explain that the Government simply took the cumulative total expenditure of £2,700 million under the 1982 Act and rolled it forward, with a gross domestic product deflator for 20 years. The number of years is arbitrary. The Government have simply decided that, since the 1982 Act lasted for 20 years, the Bill might as well last for the same time. Does it make sense simply to roll forward a previous figure? Is the figure in the Bill an accurate reflection?
    I confess that I am not a mathematician and I have not had the time or the opportunity to go away and consider carefully the effect of a 2.5 per cent. GDP deflator on £2.7 billion. The Minister implied in some of his remarks that £2.7 billion, deflated by 2.5 per cent. for 20 years, equals £6.1 billion. I am not sure that that is correct. The figure is more likely to be £4.5 billion. If I did a net present value calculation, a figure of approximately £4.5 billion would be right.
    The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the Government have taken the figure of £2,700 million, discounted it for the 20 years of inflation ahead, reached the figure £4,500 million, decided that it was too large and that the period before Parliament had to reconsider it would be too long, and therefore discounted it to £3.700 million. They then added the £800 million left over to what would otherwise be tranches of £400 million and were in excess of the figure that they had reached. A net present value of £200 million is more or less the same as a discounted figure of £400 million in 20 years.
    Ministers are not only asking us to endorse the effective doubling of the cumulative total for the benefit of inflation so that it can all be spent in the next 20 years, but are offering us four additional tranches, which have been added to the sum. In 20 years, the money that has been spent will be significantly more in real terms than the sum for which the Bill provides.
    I confess that my comments are complicated and that I should have done my mathematics before I arrived, but I suspect that I have accurately outlined what has happened. In a sense, it is neither here nor there, because
    66
    the calculations refer to funny money. They are statistical calculations, but the point is that the Government plans mean spending the substantial sum of £3,700 million in the next 20 years. That is £170 million a year and means maintaining the current rate of spend for the whole 20 years. There is no suggestion of any substance that the Government believe that it might be desirable, over time, to reduce expenditure.
    The Government show no recognition of the necessity to move to more competitive markets over time. For example, £450 million will be spent on the urban post office reinvention programme—I know, before I am reminded, that it should be called the urban post office closure programme.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: The figure is £210 million.
    Mr. Lansley: It always used to be £450 million; presumably the figure has decreased.
    6.15 pm
    Mr. Robathan: The figures are: £210 million for urban reinvention; £450 million for rural post offices; and £15 million for urban deprived post offices.
    Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend is always reliable. I cannot remember which figure applies to the section 8 money. I presume that it is that for the urban post offices closure programme. The Government cannot keep spending the money year after year. When they have spent the section 8 money on the urban post offices once, the process is completed, and they cannot close post offices all over again. Perhaps the Government can; they close hundreds of post offices every year.
    There must be a limit to the number of industries on whose restructuring or closure the Government propose to spend section 8 money. Governments have used such legislation for 30 years and they propose to use it for another 20 years. If they want to do something substantively different from introducing a measure whose purpose is not to allow Ministers to spend what they like on restructuring industries, but to promote research and development in industry or small business regeneration, they should do that. Such a measure should be tighter and more directed towards the effect that it wishes to achieve.
    I am tempted to make comments that are better expressed on Third Reading. I shall therefore avert later to the way in which the money is spent and the range of the DTI schemes, of which section 8 schemes form a part. The Government continue to fail to provide us with information about restructuring section 8 and other DTI schemes, yet we are asked to support the Bill.
    I urge hon. Members to accept that simply rolling forward the measure for 20 years is untenable. Ten years is a far better basis on which to expect a return to Parliament for primary legislation. Four or five years—early in the next Parliament—is a better point at which it would be right for Ministers to secure the ability to add to their expenditure powers. The total amount of money is £4,644 million. Even my amendment would allow nearly £1,750 million to be added to the amount that Ministers will spend. That is a more modest and

    67
    responsible amount of additional empowerment for expenditure than the £3,700 million that the Government propose.
    Mr. Hopkins: I welcome and warmly support the Bill and I oppose the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). The hon. Gentleman is trying to tie my hon. Friend the Minister's hands, and I want to give him a freer hand. The hon. Gentleman suggests that the amounts involved should be halved and that the timing for introducing new tranches should be constrained. Therefore, in a crisis, if my hon. Friend wanted to release more money more quickly, he might be unable to do so, and we would regret that at such a time.
    Mr. Bercow: Given that the Department of Trade and Industry has accepted the principle of the sunset clause to the extent that it included such a clause in the Electronic Communications Act 2000 during the previous Parliament, what objection does the hon. Gentleman have, in principle, to the incorporation of such a clause in this piece of legislation? If the case is strong enough, surely the Government can come back and get a decent hearing from Parliament. Of what is the hon. Gentleman afraid?
    Mr. Hopkins: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. My hon. Friend the Minister will answer for the Government and the Department of Trade and Industry, but I am happy to take a much more relaxed approach to these matters. I would not necessarily have a sunset clause in legislation such as this. I would like to see Governments given a freer hand in relation to the extent to which they can provide assistance to industry at times of industrial modernisation or economic difficulty. I could be described as a more old-fashioned socialist than some of my more modern friends.
    Mr. Lansley: Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), the whole point is that, when this legislation began, it had a sunset clause. It was all going to stop at the end of December 1977, yet we are debating it now, some 26 years on, and the sunset clause was done away with.
    Mr. Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman mentioned that the original legislation was meant to last for a transitional period during our entry to the European Union, or the Common Market or whatever it was called at that time. I was very pleased that the Labour Government of the 1970s sprung the legislation forward and took what was a good idea and carried it on. That is what we are doing now. The hon. Gentleman laughs, but it was a Conservative Government who brought forward the legislation in the first instance. I suspect that that Government did not have quite the same political flavour as the present Conservative Opposition, but they were certainly called a Conservative Government. I welcomed the Bill then, I welcomed the Labour legislation that followed it, and I welcome this Bill now.
    The Government have done a good job in skirting round the constraints of the European Union, because state aids are now very tightly circumscribed by
    68
    European legislation. When there is scope to use appropriate state aids, I believe that the Government should do so. They have, indeed, carried on with the Bill. I understand that it was at the Berlin European Council that they negotiated the scope for continuing such state aids until at least 2006.
    I have two reasons for believing that the Bill is important now. First, it is clear that, in spite of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's optimism about our economy—one hopes that it is well founded—world conditions are certainly more difficult at the moment. We are looking at something of a downturn in the world economy. In those circumstances, Governments have to have instruments with which they can at least assist their own economies in such difficult times. One hopes that times will not be too difficult for this country. Indeed, we are better placed to face the future than almost any other developed country in the world, and one hopes that these happy circumstances will continue. The world economy is bound to have an effect on our own economy, however, and we want to give our Ministers and our Government as much scope as possible for providing appropriate assistance to our economy during such times.
    The other concern that I have—the reason that I am against the amendments—is that we cannot predict the consequences of the enlargement of the European Union. At the moment, we receive certain payments from the EU in respect of structural funds, but, inevitably, with the accession to membership of the EU by many countries that are much poorer than ours, there is bound to be a major shift in the fiscal transfers across the EU. It is probable—indeed, I would say certain—that we will be net losers at that point. I think that that is appropriate, in that we are one of the richer countries of the European Union, and there will inevitably be some transfers to poorer nations.
    At that time, such transfers might have an impact on our economy and our industries, particularly in those regions that currently receive structural fund assistance, and we will need more scope for Government intervention to assist those regions and the businesses in those regions. The Bill will provide a basis for doing that. It is, therefore, a good thing that we are introducing the scope to provide substantially greater sums to assist the needy parts of our economy. Indeed, I believe that we could go further.
    Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again; he is being very courteous. I would be slightly worried if the Minister were to endorse his argument even for a second, because if the European Commission were presented with such an argument for section 8, it would simply strike the whole thing out. The measure, in its current form, should not be available to provide competitive subsidies for UK businesses to compete in the single market. The restructuring involved should not impact adversely on the single market. Furthermore, if such restructuring is related to specific regions, it should be covered by section 7 rather than section 8.
    Mr. Hopkins: The European Union is well aware of this legislation, and well aware of what our Government have done to provide appropriate assistance to our economy from time to time. I would suggest that other

    69
    members of the European Union have caused greater offence to the principles of the EU. For example, when France attempted to subsidise its state airline, it caused much more upset than a modest measure such as this would do. I suspect that the spirit of the European Union's competitive philosophy is adhered to more strongly by our Government than by many other EU Governments. I do not, therefore, have any fears that the EU will be upset by the Bill.
    I was about to make the point that I would like the Bill to go further. It is a relatively modest Bill and it could be improved by increasing the numbers still further. However, I do not imagine that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor would want to give me the opportunity to spend his money willy-nilly. I would simply encourage him in that direction, and hope that, in future years, he will be more inclined to provide appropriate assistance to our economy in this way and in others. I shall leave that argument there.
    I emphasise that I do not speak for the Government. I speak for myself as a member of the Government party. I am just trying to encourage my Minister to go further even than the Bill suggests, and to reject the constraining amendments tabled by the Opposition.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) for tabling the amendments. He has a huge amount of experience in these matters, he is very highly regarded—after all, he worked in the DTI for a while—and he is an expert on this subject. As he pointed out, the new limits were chosen by means of a 20-year roll-forward of the existing limit of £2.7 billion in real terms, using a 2.5 per cent. GDP deflator. The Minister explained on Second Reading that, based on current spending and assuming that the rate remained constant, the new ceiling would last for six years before the first order would be needed, with increases by order every four years after that.
    That is the nub of the issue, because, in spite of the claim in the DTI's briefing note that the new regime would lead to more parliamentary scrutiny, the reverse will be the case. It based the claim on the premise that it was 14 years before the first order was needed in 1996. Of course, the 1982 Act was a new initiative that set a brand new ceiling of £1.9 billion. To be honest, the previous Government would have had to spend at an unbelievably frenetic and furious rate to have hit the ceiling before 1996, when the first tranche was needed.
    6.30 pm
    As the Minister will be aware, the three orders after that came hard on the heels of each other. The first came in 1996, followed by others in 2000 and 2002. Of course, another was introduced only the other day, which means that, during the past seven years, Parliament has had the chance to scrutinise the 1982 Act every 20 months. That compares favourably with the 4.5 years, or 54 months, anticipated under the new Bill's regime, however, so accountability is the issue and my hon. Friend is absolutely right.
    70
    If we have to wait six years until the House has a chance to scrutinise what has been going on, that will be far, far too long, which is why I tabled a commencement and continuance enforcement clause in Committee. The Secretary of State would have had to bring the matter back to the House every two years or the legislation would cease to have effect. My hon. Friend's amendment would have roughly the same outcome, which is why we will support him if he forces it to a vote. We must try to increase scrutiny and accountability.
    Another point is highly relevant to the debate, and it concerns the Secretary of State's business support review, which obviously includes many section 8 schemes. I do not know the state of play, but perhaps the Minister will give us another update, as the review involves all the industry and business support measures operated by the DTI. A number of important changes may be recommended and some schemes could be abolished, reconfigured, finessed or whatever, but what, for example, would be the case should the Secretary of State decide to abolish some section 8 schemes?
    That is not completely improbable, and if it happened the Minister may have trouble spending taxpayers' money under section 8, despite his keenness to do so, within the six-year period. In such circumstances, the date of the debate on the first tranche could be pushed back further than six years, so it might be seven or eight years before the House has a chance to consider the legislation, what is happening under section 8 and the 1982 Act. Accountability would be reduced still further.
    It is quite possible that various changes may be made to some section 8 schemes when the Secretary of State completes her review. We have pushed hard for an early look at such schemes, particularly those involving venture capital. I ask the Minister to address our concerns, especially on venture capital funds and, for example, the UK high-tech fund and the early growth funding programme, whose first fund, the London seed capital fund, was launched in December last year with a £2.65 million investment from the Small Business Service. It may eventually build up to £50 million.
    A lot of money is going into those schemes, and I simply submit that the Opposition are not convinced that the Government should be in the business of trying to pick winners and acting as a substitute for this country's mature, enlightened and proactive venture capital sector. It does a superb job and the Government should not be in that space at all. If the Secretary of State takes our advice, some of those schemes—perhaps the two or three that I have mentioned—will be seriously reviewed, which could immediately take out quite a tranche of the section 8 funding.
    It could be 2010 before the House considers what has been going on, holds the Government to account and scrutinises them, which is why I support what my hon. Friend is trying to do. If we do not have a vote this evening, we will return to the issue in another place, because although we support the principle of what the Government are trying to do and although we would find it difficult to vote against some schemes, including the urban post office reinvention scheme, we feel strongly that we are considering a large increase in the amount of money in the well, as the Minister calls it. The ceiling is being increased substantially as are the

    71
    tranches, but accountability and scrutiny are to be reduced. That is why I urge the House to support my hon. Friend.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: May I say a few words in support of the amendment, which is eminently sensible and modest? It is perhaps too modest, but it is still well worth supporting.
    I regret that I did not participate in Committee. Obviously, there are occasions when we all miss a Committee for reasons of double booking, forgetfulness or constituency engagements, but neither I nor my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Brian Cotter) was informed about the Committee. When we discovered that it had taken place, we went back over the records and discovered that we had received cards inviting us to proceedings on something called the international development Bill.
    A mistake had been made, which was subsequently rectified through the Government and Conservative Whips Offices, but not through ours. The Bill is modest, but it is important and I would not want the Minister and other Members to think that the fact that I was not present, which I regret, reflects any lack of interest in it.
    On the substance, I argued on Second Reading, and do so again, that the problem with the Bill is that the sums are too large, too long a period is involved, the tranches are too big and there is a lack of accountability. The measures built into the amendment seem sensibly to address that, however, and I want to make three substantive points. Most of them have already been made, but I want to add emphasis.
    First, the rather lazy assumption is being made that, because we have been spending a large amount on industrial assistance for the past 20 years we should continue to spend it for the next 20. Why should we make that assumption? A few moments ago, the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) addressed the issue by saying that we need a reserve facility in case of crises, but the problem with that argument is that one is more likely to try to sort out a crisis with public money if it has already been allocated.
    Mr. Hopkins: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when there are inevitable occasional downturns in the economy, the time to ensure that the investment goes in and new businesses are encouraged to start is on the upturn? Indeed, those occasions sometimes happen in concentrated time spans, so one needs instruments to be available at that time.
    Dr. Cable: There is an argument for counter-cyclical management, but that is not the argument that the Government have advanced.
    Mr. Hopkins: It is my argument.
    Dr. Cable: I realise that, but I am not sure that such legislation is necessary even if we have emergencies. A few weeks ago, we had the example of a major crisis in the British nuclear power industry. I was one of those who opposed the bail out, but, even without recourse to such legislation, the Government were able to take
    72
    legislation through Parliament within weeks and it was closely scrutinised, as it should have been. That, surely, is the way to deal with an emergency, rather than having open-ended facilities such as those in the Bill.
    There is also the question whether we should continue to see such industrial assistance as necessary. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) made those points today and has done so previously. The industrial development system was seen as important, particularly in the 1980s, because we had labour-intensive, highly concentrated industries such as coal, steel and shipbuilding with a real need for adjustment assistance, but they have largely gone—the process may have been brutal—and they will not recur. Such traditional industrial assistance has largely passed.
    Industrial assistance was also seen as necessary because of specific market failures. We should particular examples where legislation has been used to disburse large sums of money. We must ask why we should assume that such market failures will continue indefinitely. One of the examples is the use of venture capital financing. In the past, a strong argument has been made that the British venture capital market was deficient, particularly at the smaller end. As I follow it, however, the venture capital institutions have advanced considerably. It is not at all clear whether, in the next 10 to 20 years, the same need will exist that exists today.
    More importantly, there is the issue of banking. The small industry loan guarantee scheme, which was generally welcomed by all parties, arose from a specific analysis that the banking system was defective in providing loans to medium-sized business, and charged an excessive risk premium to them. After that assumption was made, the Government conducted a full analysis, in the form of the Cruikshank report, which addressed that specific failure. Some of us have been frustrated that the Government have not followed through the Cruikshank report's conclusions—I secured an Adjournment debate on the matter—and that they have still not addressed the issue of the payments regulator. None the less, I do not understand fully why we should assume that, for the next 10 to 20 years, there will be a deficiency in the ability of the banking sector to lend to small business, and why the scheme should continue indefinitely.
    My third substantive point, which I made on Second Reading, and which I will repeat, is that to justify this level of commitment we need a more rigorous system of evaluating the expenditure that has already been made. I appreciate the Government response, and the Minister has been very courteous in following up the comments made on Second Reading, particularly with much detailed information on the small loan guarantee scheme. None the less, I sense in this whole area an absence of rigour in the way in which funding is evaluated. Little attempt has been made to establish what difference such assistance would make to companies, or, as the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire put it, to examine the opportunity cost. The £3.4 billion could be spent on education and skills or on transport facilities, which could raise the productivity of British industry, and probably more so than spending through this Bill. Who will ask those questions, however, in relation to the rigorous evaluation needed to make a sensible assessment of the legislation?

    73
    I remain very doubtful about the Bill. I welcome the attempts to establish a greater degree of accountability, and I will therefore support the amendments if they are to put to the vote.
    The Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions (Alan Johnson): I welcome the debate. This is a very small Bill, on which I did not expect to spend much time, but the time has been well spent. We have heard some very constructive comments and, as the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said, some history lessons. I was grateful to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) for taking me back, with names such as Chris Chataway and John Davies, to the days of flares and tank tops in the glam rock era of British parliamentary life of the 1970s.
    The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire said that the Bill had not received sufficient scrutiny. That is wrong: we have subjected it to a great deal of scrutiny. He departed from his normal eloquence by saying that it was not "examinated" properly, but I think that it was examinated properly. The amendments may be different, but our basic argument has been about whether the Government are being profligate with taxpayers' money in business support measures under section 8, whether we are seeking to avoid proper parliamentary accountability and whether we should be coming back more often for extra tranches of money. All those are covered in the amendments. As I explained in Committee, we want to strike a balance between retaining the concept of parliamentary control and bringing the limits in the Industrial Development Act 1982 up to date to take into account the growth in the economy since 1982, without making the process too burdensome for Parliament. The limits proposed in the Bill reflect that objective.
    The hon. Gentleman said that the effect of the two amendments taken together would be to make three changes. I think that there is a fourth. He said rightly that they would set a new initial ceiling of £3,440 million—not too wildly dissimilar from ours of £3.7 billion—and I understand the logic of using £185 million, which is our forecast spend, to reach that figure. I will not therefore fall to the floor sobbing about that change, but we think that £3.7 billion is more sensible than £3.44 billion. He suggests six tranches of up to £200 million, whereas we propose higher tranches of £600 million—we rejected the Treasury proposal.
    6.45 pm
    There is one consequence, however, that he did not mention specifically: under the amendment, the legislation would expire about 10 years earlier than provided for by the limits in the Bill, and would halve the expected life of the new legislation. That is based on taking the average of the forecast spend for the four financial years, 2002–03 to 2005–06, and the assumption that the rate of spend of £185 million per year remains constant over subsequent years, once we have reached the current limit of £2.7 billion early next year.
    We propose a longer-lasting piece of legislation, subject to periodic scrutiny by Parliament. We discussed in Committee how long Parliament had spent scrutinising the Bill. We made the point that, on average, parliamentary debates have taken place every
    74
    five years, and, on average, have lasted less than half an hour. The hon. Gentleman feels strongly about these issues, but all the evidence is that the amount of parliamentary scrutiny that we give to section 8 of the Industrial Development Act is about right. There is no evidence that not enough time is available for such parliamentary scrutiny.
    An estimated period of six years would seem appropriate for the initial limit to last, bearing in mind the scrutiny that we have just had in this place and another place. The effect of the limit proposed in the Bill would mean that we would return to the matter after six years, given that Parliament will have had opportunities for detailed scrutiny during its passage.
    As I have explained, the hon. Gentleman was absolutely right—he may not have done his sums in advance, but he did them correctly—that we could have gone for a higher initial limit of £4.5 billion, but we chose not to do so. That is based on rolling forward the existing limit of £2.7 billion in real terms—using the famous 2.5 per cent. figure as a proxy for the long-term GDP deflator—for a 20-year period, which would have given a ceiling of £4.5 billion, and four subsequent tranches of up to £400 million. We have set a lower initial ceiling of £3.7 billion, however, and bigger tranches of up to £600 million each, resulting in the same ultimate ceiling of £6.1 billion.
    Amendment No. 4 proposes that the tranche sizes remain at £200 million. As I argued in Committee, however, prices have more than doubled since 1982, increasing by a factor of 2.2. That would have the effect of almost annual parliamentary scrutiny of the use of section 8. After the first order, the three subsequent orders would be needed every 12 to 15 months. I accept that that is a difference between us, but we believe that that is not a proper use of Parliament's valuable time. It would be too restrictive to retain the tranche size at £200 million, and, significantly, to introduce a requirement that not more than one affirmative order in a 12-month period could be made, as amendment No. 4 proposes. That would mean that not more than £200 million could be spent in any 12-month period: in effect, a ceiling on the annual rate of spend, which would introduce a completely new concept into the Bill and, indeed, into the 1982 Act.
    Forecast expenditure for the current uses of section 8 for the current financial year and the next, however, exceeds £200 million. In the financial year that has just started, we predict that we will need £208 million, and, in the following financial year, £221 million. In the financial year just gone, we budgeted for £160 million but used £130 million.
    The amendment would have serious consequences. It would mean that the limit available to us would be exceeded by the schemes. Apart from some mild criticism about venture capital funds, all the evidence during all the scrutiny—we have had three orders since 1997—has not suggested huge controversy about the way we are spending the money. The amendment would prevent us from being able to do that.
    There is no rational basis for saying that no more than £200 million should be spent in any one year. It is in the nature of schemes that expenditure fluctuates from year to year. The amendments would be unnecessarily burdensome for the House and could disrupt DTI

    75
    spending plans on longer-term business support such as the small firms loan guarantee scheme, which we expanded last week—we announced last November that we were expanding it. It could also disrupt the plans of other Departments and the devolved Administrations, who also use the facility of section 8. The Government's proposals represent a far better balance between scrutiny and efficiency.
    I pick up two important points made by hon. Members, including the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham). The first relates to an update of the business support review. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be writing to members of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry and to all other hon. Members when we have finally worked out how it will operate. However, we closed 20 schemes last week. We will close 84 schemes by the end of this year. None of the section 8 schemes has been affected, apart from the expansion of the small firms loan guarantee scheme that I mentioned in Committee, which was widely welcomed, including by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk. No other section 8 schemes have been affected by recent developments under the DTI business support review.
    The second point that was raised—it has been raised before—was about venture capital and the fact that we have such a mature venture capital fund market. Hon. Members have asked whether we really need those schemes. The evidence, not least from the British Venture Capital Association, is that venture capital companies have moved relentlessly up the value-added chain and are now more involved in management buy-outs or management buy-ins. The latest BVCA report on investment activity in the UK shows that only 3 per cent. of total private equity investment was at the start-up stage in 2001 and only 8 per cent. in early-stage investments. In comparison, management buy-outs and management buy-ins accounted for 60 per cent. of the spend of venture capital funds. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development figures indicate that, despite having a much larger private equity industry in total, UK private equity investment in early-stage companies as a proportion of GDP is relatively low compared with other OECD countries.
    Therefore, there is a need for the venture capital fund schemes that we have, although I have accepted, and I will say it again on Third Reading, that we need to report on the matter more fully and to give hon. Members the chance to see how schemes are faring, as we did in the KPMG report on the small firms loan guarantee scheme as recently as 1999. We need to do much more and I have accepted those points.
    We believe that the Bill as currently structured offers the best basis for providing continued support for industry as well as accountability to Parliament. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire will withdraw his amendment.
    Mr. Lansley: I will not detain the House too long because we have the opportunity to make further points in relation to the Bill generally on Third Reading. I thank the Minister for responding to the debate. I know that he covered similar issues in Standing Committee but, not least by virtue of the presence of the hon.
    76
    Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), we have benefited from the further debate about the specific numbers in the Bill. We elicited from the Minister a rather damaging admission that the Government's intention is for expenditure to go above £200 million and above £220 million. In his view, it may damage the argument for amendment No. 4, but in my view it reinforces the argument for the amendment.
    We are dealing with legislation that was always intended to be for an exceptional purpose and over a transitional period. It has been appropriated by Ministers, in some cases correctly, as a mechanism for providing support to industry. I heartily endorse the points that were made by the hon. Member for Twickenham that far too little scrutiny is being given to the underlying question of whether Ministers ought to have a power to spend in this way. There is far too much recourse to section 8 as an omnibus mechanism for paying out money for various schemes. The fact that it is being used for the closure of post offices demonstrates that it is simply a well, as the Minister is fond of describing it, of money into which Ministers are want to drop their bucket for all sorts of purposes that do not necessarily have appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. It seems all the more obvious that we should come back to Parliament more regularly to examine what is going on. If we are not doing it on the basis of scrutiny of annual reports, we should do it on the basis of scrutiny of regular orders to add to the sums of money that are available to Ministers.
    It is purely a matter of judgment as to whether the first of the orders should happen in six or four years' time, and whether the length of the further extension of spending power should be 20 or 10 years. I do not resile from my view that 10 years is a perfectly sufficient—in fact, rather generous—length of time, during which Ministers should be free to spend only with affirmative resolution scrutiny of their powers from Parliament.
    My mechanism would at least have meant that, at the present rate of spend, Ministers came back before the House early in the next Parliament, whereas they may come back at a later part of the next Parliament. We shall see when that happens and who it is who does it, but I hope that Ministers, whichever Government they serve, will begin—perhaps not least because we have spent some time arguing our points in these debates—to think far more rigorously about section 8 as a legislative framework for the expenditure of the DTI. It is long overdue for the DTI to think again, to restructure its legislative framework and to find a more modern definition of what the DTI's purposes are, rather than resting on one that is about the restructuring of the smokestack industries of the 1970s.
    I do not want to let down my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) or the hon. Member for Twickenham but, notwithstanding their generous support, I do not propose to pursue the amendments to a Division. Ministers and my colleagues have had plenty of opportunity to express their views. I hope that they will be regarded with seriousness. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Order for Third reading read.
    6.58 pm
    Alan Johnson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    The Government believe that we can best support business by encouraging its competitiveness and creating a favourable climate in which it can operate. We believe that financial assistance has a part to play in that, where it will drive up productivity and where there is clear evidence of market imperfection.
    It is a small, modest Bill of just two clauses, but it is essential to enable the section 8 power to continue to be used to give financial assistance to industry for the purposes specified in the 1982 Act. The Bill will increase the cumulative limit on financial assistance that may be provided under section 8 of that Act. The Bill retains the accountability to Parliament contained in the existing legislation through the need for affirmative orders of the Commons. It replaces the existing limits with new, higher ones reflecting the growth in the economy over the past 20 years, without making it too burdensome for Parliament. We want to strike a balance between retaining proper parliamentary control and bringing the limits in the 1982 Act up to date.
    A transformation of the DTI's business support activities is under way, and eventually all existing business support schemes will be run down, including the eight Small Business Service schemes set up through the use of the section 8 power. New products will be introduced, some of which will incorporate the best elements of existing schemes. We have begun to roll out the new approach to business support with the release of the first of the new products on 1 April. This included the launch of the new extended small firms loan guarantee. Further products will be released over the coming months, and announcements will be made by the Secretary of State.
    We need the new limits in place to ensure a legislative base for existing schemes, as do Secretaries of State and Ministers in the devolved Administrations, who are able to use section 8 to fund their own activities. Without the introduction of new limits, the legislative basis for the current section 8 schemes would be exceeded when the £2.7 billion limit that is allowed for by the 1982 Act is reached—we forecast that that will happen early next year—rendering unlawful further use of this power by Ministers.
    I am pleased that hon. Members on both sides of the House have been supportive of the Bill's main aim, which is to allow financial assistance, under section 8 of the 1982 Act, to continue to be offered to industry throughout the UK Even though the Bill has not had a detailed or lengthy passage, it has certainly undergone scrutiny on Second Reading and in Committee. In addition, section 8 was the subject of a Standing Committee debate last month, in order to raise the ceiling for a fourth and final time under existing legislation.
    I am grateful for the constructive approach that Opposition Members have taken, and I hope that they feel that, for the most part, the Government have listened to their views and taken action on many of the issues that they raised, even if the proposed amendments and new clauses were not accepted. In response to their comments, I have committed to including more detail on each section 8 scheme in the future annual reports
    78
    required by the 1982 Act, and to including the conclusions of any explanations published in the reporting year. My officials are already taking forward this initiative for the 2002–03 report. Moreover, I wrote to those who spoke on Second Reading and in Committee, outlining progress on the current DTI section 8 schemes since the annual report was published for the year ending 31 March 2002.
    I cannot commit to laying the annual report before the House much earlier than we currently do. It takes time for the information and statistical data to be gathered from throughout the DTI, as well as from other Departments, devolved Administrations and regional development agencies. The 1982 Act requires an annual report to be laid before Parliament

    "not later than six months after the end of the financial year to which it relates".

    By laying the report before Parliament in June or July each year, we are fully meeting the requirement laid down in the 1982 Act.
    I also said that I am in full agreement with Members about the importance of the evaluation of schemes. Following the DTI's review of business support, in future all the Department's business support products, including measures that use section 8 as their legislative base, will be subject to ongoing monitoring and analysis to measure whether they have achieved their objectives and offered value for money. Evidence from this analysis will help the newly formed investment committee to target business support funds where there is a clear rationale. It is expected that this evidence will be published in full.
    With these assurances, I commend the Bill to the House.
    7.3 pm
    Mr. Bellingham: I shall be brief, obviously, and I should begin by declaring my interests, which are listed in the Register of Members' Interests.
    We support the principle of this Bill, and we certainly accept the need for some industry-specific intervention—after all, the original Act was ours. I do not accept the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow)—albeit from a sedentary position—that it was among the worst of the legislation that we introduced. [Interruption.] Well, it certainly numbered among our better legislation. Indeed, if one looks at the good that has come out of it—the number of jobs saved, and the number of schemes that have brought substantial business success—one can conclude that it is very good legislation.
    There has been considerable debate about the different ceilings and tranches and the need for greater scrutiny, and I do not doubt that there will be further debate on those issues in another place. The same applies to the points that I made about the business support review. The Minister did not give a satisfactory answer to the questions that I posed. If that review comes up with various fairly significant and far-reaching conclusions, the actual date for initial scrutiny under the legislation could well be pushed back beyond the six-year period. He did not deal with that point, and hopefully it will be re-examined in another place.
    I am very grateful to the Minister for what he said about trying to improve the level of reporting on the different schemes. As he pointed out, KPMG produced

    79
    a very good report on the small firms loan guarantee scheme, which we all appreciated enormously. It added a great deal of material, and contributed to wider knowledge of that scheme. Why cannot the same be done in respect of many of the other schemes under section 8, particularly those carried out by the Small Business Service?
    The Minister said that it would be unrealistic to bring forward the annual report any further. I take on board entirely the point that, under the legislation, the report has to be published within six months of the end of the financial year. However, in the light of modern IT and the information retrieval systems that the Minister has at his disposal, surely it is not asking too much for the report to be published within four weeks of the end of the financial year, say, probably in May. We need to know exactly what is going on, particularly given the extra money that the Government will be spending. So perhaps the Minister could have a look at that issue.
    We had a good discussion about the small firms loan guarantee scheme on Second Reading and in Committee. It is a flagship scheme and, as the Minister pointed out, to the end of January this year almost 84,000 loans averaging £37,000 had been guaranteed, totalling some £3.24 billion. On Second Reading, we debated the problem whereby some sectors do not qualify for the scheme. The Minister pointed out that the Minister with responsibility for small businesses—he was here earlier this afternoon—has announced that some of the sector restrictions have been lifted. In fact, I understand that the scheme has been expanded to include, for example, retailing, catering, coal, hairdressing, libraries, museums, motor vehicle repair and servicing, steel and travel agents. However, what about education schemes and medical health services—the two sectors for which I pushed for inclusion very hard? They appear not to have been included, but they certainly should be.
    I want to say a brief word or two about the urban post office reinvention fund, which was introduced to deal with the fallout from the proposed implementation of automated credit transfer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), who is shadow spokesman for Post Office matters, pointed out, the total fund committed is £210 million, of which £180 million will constitute straightforward compensation, with £30 million going into matched funding schemes. Presumably, the £15 million that will come from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is not covered under section 8, and will actually come from that Department. Perhaps the Minister knows the answer to that question. The chairman of the Post Office, Allan Leighton, pointed out in a speech of 14 November last year that some European money would be brought in to match the money coming in under section 8. He presumably knows what he is talking about, or perhaps it was simply wishful thinking on his part.
    We are looking at the law of unintended consequences. The Government worked out that a fairly juicy saving could be made by moving over to automated credit transfer. I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), who is very experienced in these matters, that the total potential saving to the Department for Work
    80
    and Pensions is in the region of £430 million. That may sound like a significant sum, but in the light of how those savings will be made—mainly through clawing back payments made to sub-postmasters—one needs the urban post office reinvention fund, and that is to say nothing of the money that will be put into rural post offices. So through the law of unintended consequences, one part of government is looking at a juicy sum that can be saved, and another is simply coming to the rescue of the victims of that ill-thought-out scheme.
    The post offices in my constituency do not have enough information to hand at the moment. Many people are asking for details of how to have their benefits or pensions paid into bank accounts. I have recently received many letters from constituents telling me that many post offices do not have the information available. Perhaps the post offices are trying to fight a rearguard action because they do not want people to move over to automated credit transfer. As I said, we are seeing the law of unintended consequences at work.
    We must take the wider economic and industrial context into account. The Chancellor will tell us some good news about employment and inflation on Wednesday, but the Opposition have set out five tests to assess the wider economic context. One test is business investment, which is unfortunately falling at its fastest rate for 36 years. Another test is jobs in manufacturing industry, and 600,000 jobs have been lost since 1997 with the CBI predicting another 40,000 job losses in the next month. We have the biggest deficit in traded goods since 1697, when William of Orange was on the throne—
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. The hon. Member is straying rather wide of the debate currently before the House.
    Mr. Bellingham: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for putting me right, but we have to take the wider economic context into account. I will be brief, but I want to mention two more criteria. First, productivity, which is growing at half the rate under the present Government—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have just ruled the hon. Member's comments out of order, so I would be grateful if he would return to the debate.
    Mr. Bellingham: I will, indeed, return to the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I apologise for being over-zealous, but it is important to put the debate into the right context. Unless we consider the grant aid that is available under section 8 within the wider economic context, it does not make much sense.
    The Government should be aware—it is a relevant point—of how the Department of Trade and Industry is regarded. What Business Wants recently carried out a survey—I see you looking a little nervous, Madam Deputy Speaker, but this is relevant to section 8—based on the responses from 600 companies. One question was

    "Does the DTI do a good job at helping UK firms?"

    81
    In response, 4.5 per cent. said, "Yes, by and large", which is not very encouraging. Another question was

    "Does this Government understand enough about what business needs to thrive?"

    Some 61.2 per cent. said "No, not at all"; and 1.9 per cent. said "Yes". It also asked:

    "Do you think Trade Secretary Patricia Hewitt has a grasp of how business operates and what it needs?"

    We should not forget that the survey was based on the views of 600 companies, ranging from multinationals to small businesses and 47.8 per cent. said "No, not at all".
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Once again, I am afraid that the hon. Member is straying rather wide of the mark for this particular debate. Perhaps he could come back to it.
    Mr. Bellingham: I will come back to order, Madam Deputy Speaker, but only a staggering 0.5 per cent. said yes, the right hon. Lady did understand completely. [Interruption.] It is one business in 200. That shows that, if the DTI wants to justify the different schemes under section 8 and the huge extra expenditure involved, it has to do much more explaining to the business community. There is some potential good will for the different Government schemes, but they need to explain what they are doing much better. On the wider issue, we will come back to the importance of scrutiny in the other place and we shall keep on pressing our points, which were fairly and comprehensively encapsulated in the amendments proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire.
    In conclusion, we support this small Bill, which is necessary, but it needs more scrutiny. In the light of the recent, wide-ranging and important survey to which I referred, we also believe that the Government should explain their case to business more clearly.
    7.14 pm
    Mr. Michael Weir: My contribution will be brief. I expressed some reservations about the Bill and the intentions behind it on Second Reading. Although it has been described as a small Bill that does not achieve a great deal, it is still another step—as I thought then and still do now—in the direction of providing assistance to industry on a sectoral and national, rather than a regional, basis. I think that that is wrong and that it could have important implications for the future.
    I was particularly interested on Second Reading—the Minister referred to it again tonight—in the role of the devolved Administrations in the use of section 8. I followed up my interest with a letter to the Minister asking for further details and I received a full and fairly detailed reply about how the devolved Administrations could utilise section 8 powers without necessarily having to secure Treasury approval. Reading between the lines and after going all around the houses, it appears that there will be little benefit for the devolved Administrations, because no more money will be made available to them. Once again, we come back to the block grant from this place to the devolved
    82
    Administrations, which is decided in advance of any need to utilise section 8 powers. There may not be much benefit from the provision, so it provides another argument for the full fiscal autonomy of the Scottish Parliament. I hope that we will move towards that in the near future. Having said that, the power has been used to good effect in some areas of Scotland. I supported the Bill on Second Reading and I will continue to support it, but with some reservations.
    7.16 pm
    Mr. Lansley: I do not want to repeat what I said on Report, but to make one or two additional remarks about the purposes to which section 8 scheme money is put. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir). If I do not agree with him about the extent to which expenditure should be made on a devolved basis, particularly in respect of the English regions, I can still recognise a conflict between the Government's expressed intention to devolve budgets to the devolved Administrations—and, in England, to the regional development agencies in a single pot—and their attempt to spend considerable money by assuming powers for national spending through national rather than regional schemes. That is an inherent contradiction in the Government's approach, which the Bill does nothing to resolve.
    My points are straightforward. I do not share the enthusiasm of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) for the principle of spending Government moneys. It may be a small Bill, but it has a quite a large price tag. By the time we finish, we will have spent just over five hours in the House and in Committee scrutinising the Bill: that amounts to £10 million a minute in relation to the expenditure that the legislation will allow, so our scrutiny is not excessive. The Government fail to acknowledge that in extending the ability to spend—and in making the financial resources available—they have strayed far from the spirit of the legislation, and have in fact used it even more widely in recent years.
    The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) pointed out on Second Reading that in 2001–02 approximately £113 million was spent on section 8 schemes, and the Minister told us earlier that it will increase to £220 million—a worrying acceleration in the rate of expenditure. As my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk illustrated so well, businesses have little confidence in the way in which the Department of Trade and Industry has spent its money, and at the same time they are expressing rising concern about the extent to which they have to pay taxation in order to fund Government activities. They do not want a merry-go-round in which money goes out of the pockets of successful businesses to be spent through section 8 on subsidising failing businesses. We must ensure that section 8 money is spent well. There is no doubt that the Minister or the Secretary of State will tell the House how 183 schemes will be compressed into 30 or 40, but there is no evidence, so far as section 8 is concerned, of a diminished desire to spend on the part of the Government. If anything, there is an increased desire. It had better be good expenditure.

    83
    I am not impressed by my personal experience in my constituency of the so-called post office reinvention programme. First, there was an attempt to define the post office at Ickleton, one of the smaller villages in South Cambridgeshire, as an urban post office—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman seems to be straying a little wide of the debate.
    Mr. Lansley: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am simply referring to the way in which money is being spent under section 8, which the Government want to top-up. The urban post office reinvention programme is precisely the sort of the scheme whose money the measure is designed to facilitate. It seems relevant whether that money is spent well or badly.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: That is fine, so long as we do not get into a discussion about rural post offices.
    Mr. Lansley: I am looking forward to the debate tomorrow in Westminster Hall, in which my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) will discuss rural post offices, a subject close to the hearts of my hon. Friends and me. In Ickleton, those involved ignored where the post office was and persisted in doing so until I practically had to take them there to show them that it was not in the middle of Saffron Walden, as they believed.
    The Wulfstan Way post office, in the Queen Edith's ward in my constituency, serves the southern part of Cambridge and is the closest post office to Addenbrooke's hospital, the principal destination of those working in Cambridge. There is not a post office on the Addenbrooke's site, and there is now a proposal to close the nearest one. Those involved are following a rationale based on which postmasters want to get out of the business and paying for that, rather than restructuring around a rational understanding of markets and businesses. I shall be taking up that matter vigorously with the Post Office; it seems to be an unwise choice.
    I am not expecting a reply now, and we can debate these matters at another time, but it is important that we get an indication of where the Government are going with regard to section 8 schemes. The Minister seems to be saying that there are no proposals to change section 8 schemes under the DTI review of business support. I understand that the Smart scheme, which the Minister knows well, is changing. The feasibility studies that can be part of Smart hitherto have had a possible subvention of up to 75 per cent., or £45,000. It is proposed that that should go down to 60 per cent., although the maximum grant could be increased. The development grant can go up from 30 per cent. to 35 per cent. of the project funding. That is surprising and undesirable.
    Recently, the thrust of science and technology policy has been towards pre-feasibility and feasibility stages and away from the development phase. That is the point at which those promoting their project should expect to provide the funding themselves to a greater extent. It is at the feasibility stage that one should expect Government support and help for people in
    84
    universities—in my case, the university of Cambridge—to the point at which a business plan can be put together and research validated. That is where the Government ought to be.
    The Government seem to be looking to a smaller number of such schemes, with more money going to the development phase. That is undesirable and I hope that the Minister will have another look at it. There have been something like 80 such schemes around Cambridge. We are pleased to be recipients of Smart money, but it has to be spent in a smart way.
    The Minister wrote to those of us who spoke on Second Reading and responded to a number of questions. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) said that section 8 would not be used in relation to British Energy or the restructuring of the nuclear power industry. However, the legislation in relation to British Energy was not designed to provide a power to spend money; it was a power to change the way in which the Government occupied their shareholding position in relation to British Energy in particular. The measure, in effect, removed constraints upon spending money.
    I am still slightly unsure about the matter; perhaps the Minister will give an answer now, as I have written to him about it. Where will the money come from for British Energy, as the original guarantee to British Energy's borrowing will run over the year end and will become, effectively, a permanent guarantee? On the face of it, it looks to be the kind of thing that section 8 was designed to do. I am surprised that section 8 is not the vehicle that Ministers have chosen.
    Alan Johnson: First, the legislative basis of the Smart scheme, to which the hon. Gentleman refers, is the Science and Technology Act 1965 and not section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982. Secondly, on the use of section 8 for British Energy, we have not decided to use that route yet. However, in terms of the urban reinvention programme, any scheme that exceeds £10 million will be subject to scrutiny by this House. The post office urban reinvention scheme is a bad example in terms of parliamentary scrutiny because we debated it in November of last year.
    Mr. Lansley: I think it was on 15 October, and I remember the debate very well. At that point, we did not have the benefit of seeing how it was working, which we do now. Parliamentary scrutiny in advance is a good thing, but scrutiny in arrears also has its merits. I thank the Minister for his clarification. I should be interested to know where the money will come from and what the statutory cover is for the expenditure on British Energy. However, I do not propose to hold up the House any further.
    I have expressed my reservations about the scale and character of the funding. I hope that Ministers will not simply take the legislative vehicle as an opportunity to spend with abandon, but will think hard about what they are spending under section 8.
    In 1987, when Lord Young was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, he set up the enterprise initiative, which was geared towards remedying market failures among small businesses. It lasted for three years. The intention was to provide a pot of money that would, in effect, go back to the Treasury, with the DTI stopping

    85
    doing what it was doing and diminishing its activity. Far from it; every three years thereafter, and every subsequent three years, the DTI has reinvented itself, spending about the same amount of money, using about the same numbers of staff and—in the view of many in business—having the same impact in science and technology. The measure is directed at science and technology this time, but it was small businesses that time and it might be consultancies next time. It is about time that the DTI was much clearer about what it wanted to do and how it was going to do it.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  High Hedges (No. 2) Bill [Money]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  7.28 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty): I beg to move,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the High Hedges (No. 2) Bill ('the Act'), it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (1) any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of the Act; and

  (2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums which are payable out of money so provided by virtue of any other Act.

  First, I am enormously grateful to be speaking to this money resolution at this hour. I have looked through a previous debate when a ministerial colleague had to wait until five minutes to two in the morning before moving the motion. Secondly, I must offer the House the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound), the proposer of the Bill, who cannot be here this evening. He sends his love and best wishes.
  The motion relates to a private Member's Bill promoted by my hon. Friend. The Government support the Bill; it will bring relief to thousands of people in England and Wales whose quality of life has been blighted simply because they cannot persuade their neighbours to cut back hedges to a reasonable height.
  The measure will give people the opportunity to refer their hedge disputes to their local authority. The local authority will consider whether the hedge causes a serious problem and will be afforded the means to ensure that those bringing cases have exhausted all other channels, thus preventing capricious or vexatious claims. The local authority will be given powers, in appropriate cases, to require the owners of hedges to cut them back to a reasonable height and to ensure that they have done so.
  The Bill also provides right of appeal to the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales against a local authority decision. The complainant as well as the hedge owner can exercise those rights.
  Our assessment of the financial implications of the Bill reflects responses to the consultation held in 1999 and subsequent discussions with local authorities and the Local Government Association. It has been assessed that there is a backlog of 10,000 cases, which would cost £3 million to deal with over three years, and we think that is right.
  I commend the motion to the House.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Philip Hammond: As the Minister implies, there is general support for the Bill on both sides of the House. The measure has had a long genesis, with the active involvement of Members on both sides of the House.
  It appears that the Government have thrown their weight firmly behind the Bill. We have heard many protestations of their intention to legislate when time allowed. There have been pamphlets, but so far, no legislative action, and the Government have chosen to

  87
  achieve their stated objective by providing support for the reincarnation of a private Member's Bill that has already gone around the loop.
  Will the Minister explain why the Government have decided that a stand-alone Bill is the only way to deal with the issue? Why could not it have been dealt with under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill that he recently took through the House?
  The Government support the Bill and will provide time for it to proceed to Committee where we shall have the opportunity to explore some of the remaining issues and to knock some of the rougher edges off the proposals. It is important to note that the measure will not ban high hedges; it is designed to provide a resolution mechanism when high hedges are the cause of dispute between neighbours.
  Several important issues remain to be ironed out in due course. We need to weigh up the benefits and disbenefits of high hedges. They are often intrusive and cause loss of light and loss of aspect, but they also provide privacy. My constituency postbag is mixed. Some constituents are concerned about the implications for loss of privacy.
  We shall want to probe the necessity for criminal sanctions in legislation such as this. There is a body of opinion that such sanctions are not really appropriate in these circumstances.
  We need to discuss the degree to which there has been prior effort to negotiate before a complaint will be taken up by a local authority. For example, would it be considered appropriate or necessary in certain circumstances for a potential complainant to have offered to carry out the work themselves, perhaps where the landowner is elderly, disabled or otherwise unable to carry out any required remedial work? We are all anxious that the measure should promote negotiation and consensus, although, on Second Reading, the Minister noted that he was not necessarily a fan of consensus solutions.
  We shall need to consider whether objective tests are to be set down, perhaps in a code of conduct. I shall also want to question the Bill's promoter on the definition of high hedges. The Bill specifies 2 m, but if we had been considering the measure 15 or 20 years ago that figure would have been 6 ft or 8 ft. How was the figure of 2 m arrived at? Is it an accurate figure or simply a rounding up?
  The framing of such provisions will have an impact on the cost of the Bill in relation to the amount of local authority involvement and the number of times that local authorities will be required to intervene. Clause 20 provides for a change in the definition of high hedges and the scope of clause 1 by secondary legislation. That, too, could have a significant impact on the cost of the Bill—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. The hon. Gentleman is now coming back to the costs of the Bill—I was hoping that he would do so.
  Mr. Hammond: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  The intention—the hope—is that many disputes will be resolved without the necessity for local authority
  88
  intervention. The more the legislation is drafted in a way that encourages that intention, the less local authorities will have to intervene, the fewer appeals will be amounted, and the lower will be the cost to public funds. However, I am alarmed that the kernel of the Bill—the definition of a high hedge—could be changed subsequently by secondary legislation, with a commensurate increase in the cost burden.
  All those issues can be properly addressed in Committee. They are worthy of detailed exploration and with good will on both sides they are capable of resolution so that we end up with a robust piece of legislation. We shall not oppose the motion, but I have some questions for the Minister on the financial aspects of the Bill and the regulatory impact assessment.
  There are two main costs to public funds: the costs to local authorities of undertaking the primary work on dispute resolution; and the costs of the authority that deals with appeals. The explanatory notes suggest that there may be a backlog of 10,000 unresolved hedge disputes. As several Members suggested on Second Reading, that may be a serious underestimate. At present, there is no resolution mechanism, other than negotiation with neighbours, and I suspect that the number of disputes to be resolved will be substantially higher.
  The regulatory impact assessment suggests that the cost of resolving the estimated 10,000 disputes in the pipeline would be about £3 million, or £300 per dispute. Anyone who has been involved with contentious local planning issues might consider that that reflected a rather optimistic view of the speed with which such matters are resolved. Much officer time is likely to be used up dealing with and intervening in such disputes.
  The RIA notes that the cost per dispute will be offset, to some extent, by the fee chargeable to the complainant. Can the Minister indicate his Department's current thinking about the likely amount of that fee and thus the degree to which public funds would be offset?
  What is certain is that there will be a cost to local authorities. As the Licensing Bill shows us, if local authorities are to be given new duties and responsibilities, they must have funding to ensure that they can discharge them properly. Will the Minister tell the House how the net costs to local authorities will be met, so as to ensure that the money actually reaches the authorities that are doing the work and dealing with the disputes? On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) referred to a local authority in his area that was not in receipt of formula grant and would thus not benefit from generalised funding. It would benefit only if the money were targeted on authorities doing such work.
  The second source of cost to public funds is the appeals procedure. The Government have estimated that 20 per cent. of complaints might give rise to appeals. That is a tremendously optimistic underestimate. The form that the right of appeal will take is somewhat akin to introducing a third party right of appeal to the planning procedure. The right of appeal will be open not only to the complainant whose complaint is turned down, but to the defendant—the landowner who is required to take remedial action.

  89
  Assuming—as the wording of the Bill and the explanatory notes require us to assume—that complainants will be required to have exhausted normal negotiating and dispute resolution procedures, the cases that come to local authority determination will be the hard cases where people have deeply entrenched and hardened views. I suggest to the Minister that many more than 20 per cent.—perhaps more than 50 per cent.—of those cases are likely to go to appeal unless there is a substantial financial disincentive to the losing side to take a case to appeal. Will the Minister clarify whether the Government intend to create a financial disincentive through a costs regime and, if so, whether he agrees that the 20 per cent. estimate is likely to prove very conservative?
  I note that the regulatory impact assessment says that the average cost per appeal is estimated to be £1,100, and there is a suggestion that no more than three or four hours of inspectorate time would need to be spent on an appeal. That presumably implies that it is envisaged that the inspector conducting an appeal would not need to make a visit to the site. Has the Minister satisfied himself that an inspector making a decision without visiting the site would constitute the independent tribunal to which human rights legislation provides an entitlement?
  Can the Minister tell the House whether he has made any estimate of the likely cost to local authorities of carrying out remedial action themselves? I am aware that where they have to do so they will register a charge over the property in question as they currently do, for example, in dealing with derelict land. However, it may be a very long time before there is a transaction relating to the land that enables them to recover that cost, and in the meantime that is a revenue cost that has to be funded. I do not see any estimate in the regulatory impact assessment of the direct costs to local authorities of carrying out the remedial work.
  I suggest to the Minister that the cost to the public purse, if local authorities are properly funded for carrying these responsibilities, and before any net-off of fees received, could easily be much higher than the regulatory impact assessment suggests—let us say, given a backlog of 20,000 cases rather than 10,000, and a more realistic estimate that the cost of dealing with a case will be £600 per case, that it might be £4 million or £5 million In the first three years. If 50 per cent. of those cases went to appeal, with an appeal cost of between £1,000 and £2,000 per appeal, we would be looking at another £3.5 million to £8 million per year, with the cost of local authority remedial action on top. The cost might be somewhere in the region of £7 million to £20 million a year of public funds. I readily accept that in the context of public spending that is not a vast sum of money, but it will require funding, particularly proper funding for the local authorities that will primarily incur the costs.
  The critical issues are whether the Government will provide adequate funding to local authorities and how the Government are going to distribute that funding between local authorities—in other words, whether the permissive power that the Bill's money clauses give the Secretary of State to expend moneys, where it creates additional burdens, will be translated into the real distribution of hard, as opposed to notional, cash sums to the local authorities that have to implement Parliament's intentions.
  90
  A number of issues remain unresolved. We look forward to debating and, I hope, resolving many of them in Committee. In the meantime, I hope that the Minister will make some comments in response to my specific questions on the money-related issues.
  7.44 pm
  Mr. Alan Meale: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister, who presented a very good case. I am grateful to the Government for taking this action in supporting a private Member's Bill so as to pass legislation on this particularly important subject. I say that it is important not only because I have had to take up individual cases as an MP, especially in connection with the now infamous leylandii conifer tree, but because when I was at the Department I had to pick up the issue that had been cast aside by the previous Government, who said that nothing could be done in any way, shape or form to try to alleviate the problems connected with it. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend, who has worked assiduously to try to bring a resolution before the House and to encourage hon. Members to take it forward through a private Member's Bill.
  In response to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), I believe that the Bill refers to a height of 2 m because that was viewed as the maximum eye-line for vision outside one's downstairs window. It is as simple as that. That was the mechanism that was introduced to the argument by local design planners.
  Mr. Hammond: I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that the 2 m limit is already present in planning legislation about fences and boundaries. However, it was not 2 m in pre-metric days—it was 6 ft, which is somewhat less than 2 m.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps we can now get back to discussing the additional costs to local authorities envisaged in the Bill.
  Mr. Meale: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  I support some of the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge about costs, which have been greatly underestimated. There is a reason for that. The figure of 20,000 is far below all the evidence that has been presented to previous Conservative Governments and, indeed, Labour Governments. There are thousands of these cases, especially concerning the more modern problem of the leylandii conifer. Local authorities know that it has been a problem in all matters connected with building land and local authority services for many years. We should not view this as something that has just arrived owing to the invention—in Britain, I may add—of a particular species of conifer tree. The conifer in question, which causes most of the despair among homeowners, is the leylandii conifer. Contrary to what has been suggested, it is not a foreign species from Canada, but a product from Wales that originated in the late 1800s. It has been around for a long time. I am pleased that the Government have managed to get out some sensible information to people who buy products that grow very quickly in their gardens, but my hon. Friend the Minister has realised that that is not nearly enough to deal with the scale of the problem that we face.

  91
  The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge talked about costs. The costings that have been put forward are greatly underestimated. For example, the estimate of costs to people who take up cases is extremely low, given that this is ultimately a planning matter that follows the normal lines in terms of the rights of appeal of both parties—that is, under normal circumstances large numbers of people will take that course, which will run up high costs. One of the reasons why local authorities are now tied down as to whether they accept planning applications or seek to overrule them is that under best value they must first face up to the district auditor. If someone receives a wrong decision, then wishes to take their appeal further, the local authority has to estimate whether it is likely to win, as with any insurance policy, and how much money it might subsequently lose. In those cases, the cost is usually between £12,000 and £14,000. If 20 per cent. of cases go to appeal and the backlog is between 10,000 and 20,000, the cost will be enormous. However, I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will deal with those matters in Committee.
  I am also worried that not enough regard is being paid to the amount of money that will have to be made available for local authorities to make a case for funds when they have many cases with which to deal. I represent an urban authority that does not have many cases, and they can be dealt with under the procedure. However, the cost to a local authority in a rural community could be enormous. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider including in one of the new standard spending assessments the ability for local authorities that have a definite case to bid for funds. Money has been tweaked in the SSA to help local authorities to bid for extra money to deal with the problem of large areas of floodplains that have been built on so that they can do the work before a disaster occurs.
  I welcome my hon. Friend's fine work. The measure is not before time. I am grateful to those members of the Opposition who have taken a great interest in the subject for their support in resolving the problem, which makes the lives of many thousands of people in Britain a misery.
  7.51 pm
  Mr. Christopher Chope: The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) makes two important points. The first is that the Bill will have a differing financial impact on different local authorities depending on whether they are urban, rural or suburban; yet the Government have proposed a standard distribution of grant through a standard formula that will not be proportionate to the needs of local authorities in implementing the legislation. The second is that the costs of appeal will be much more significant than the Government have so far recognised. The hon. Gentleman could have added that unlike ordinary planning appeals, either side will be able to appeal. If the local authority grants planning permission, there is nothing that people can do about it. They cannot appeal. However, if a local authority makes a decision, irrespective of what it is, on a hedge,
  92
  there will be a right of appeal and the proportion of appeals will increase, as my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) said.
  I spoke on the subject on Second Reading, although there was not much time for the Minister to respond to the debate. I hope that he will have a chance to respond this evening to the concerns and questions raised. Without repeating my hon. Friend's questions, I ask the Minister to spell out the fee structure that the Government have in mind for the complainants and what they will do about the concerns expressed on the differing impacts of the Bill on local authorities. I also hope that he answers the question that I raised on Second Reading about how East Dorset district council, which does not receive formula grant funding but only redistributed non-domestic rate, is to be reimbursed by the Government for the costs incurred as a result of implementing the provisions.
  As a matter of common sense, I hope that the Minister accepts that it seems likely that there will be more than an average of fewer than 20 cases per English constituency, which is what 10,000 cases would amount to. If the Bill is as significant as some of its supporters suggest, the number of cases could be far higher than that.
  I have one constructive suggestion. As the hon. Member for Mansfield said, there are precedents for the Government to reimburse the costs to local authorities on a specific basis. Some local authorities incur large sums in carrying out coastal protection work, which is refunded in whole or in part by the Government. Surely there is every reason why the scarce resources of the taxpayer that will be distributed by the Government to help to ease the burden of local authorities should be distributed to meet costs incurred rather than on a notional basis. Money distributed on a notional basis for concessionary fares resulted in grave injustices in both local authorities in my district, Christchurch borough council and East Dorset district council.
  I hope that the Minister can respond constructively to those concerns so that the mood on the Standing Committee will be positive. He said that he does not necessarily believe in consensus, but if the Bill is to have the support of local authorities, the Government need to spell out clearly the basis on which the reimbursement of costs will be paid.
  7.56 pm
  Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: I support the Bill wholeheartedly and am pleased that the Government also support it. Like other hon. Members, I have some questions and think that aspects of it need scrutiny, especially if elderly or vulnerable people are unable to tend their hedges. We need to take care when we deal with that—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Lady to relate her comments not to the Bill, but to the money resolution.
  Mrs. Brooke: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  I want to reiterate what has been said about the necessary finance for local authorities. That is important. I am in an unusual situation: instead of the finger being pointed at the Liberal Democrats for asking

  93
  for more resources, I am echoing and supporting the call by the Conservative party for that. There is a huge demand for action. Some cases are tragic and there are high expectations of local authorities. They need resources not only for the planning process itself, but to facilitate a good mediation process, which will take up staff time.
  There will be much work to do in the first few years before precedents have been set by appeal results. The process will be resource intensive, not just because of the number of applications, but because those precedents and guidelines will not have been established. It is important to have money up front and to make it clear to local authorities that they will have sufficient resources to carry out that work because they are already short of resources for essential enforcement action on, for example, planning conditions. I would hate one problem to be solved at the cost of a host of other problems in the community.
  7.58 pm
  Mr. McNulty: With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I should like to respond to the debate.
  I do not remember saying that I eschewed the notion of consensus, but I am sure that if it was reported twice, I probably did. I should qualify that by saying on most issues. I would certainly hope for consensus on this subject. I know that we are talking about the money resolution, but it would be remiss of me, as alluded to by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), if I did not endorse what he said about previous attempts to secure such legislation on both sides of the House. It is by no means a partisan measure and I am more than happy to acknowledge, as I did on Second Reading, the role played by the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), the former hon. Member for Mid-Kent and Faversham and my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham). I look forward, in the nicest possible way, to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge or his colleagues probing my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) in Committee, with all that that entails.
  The money resolution, and the cost structure in the impact assessment, have to be seen in the context of a range of other things. It is inappropriate to pooh-pooh advice given in pamphlets—although I am sure that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge was not doing that. "The right hedge for you: a guide to choosing a garden hedge" was an important piece of work, although it may well be that it should have followed legislation rather than preceding it. Nevertheless, through that sort of advice and information pack, we are trying to work closely with local authorities. There will be guidance on the legislation—it will not simply drop from the sky—and it will include guidance on how local authorities might assess the various issues that may be raised by complainants. That guidance will be widely available. There is a desire for some degree of education and awareness-raising, as well as simply legislation.
  Mr. Chope: Will the Government issue draft guidance to be considered at Committee stage?
  Mr. McNulty: As I said throughout the stages of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, I hope that
  94
  such draft guidance will be issued. That is the best way of doing things and I will do all that I can to ensure that that happens. I may stretch that guidance to include other things as the Bill goes through both Houses, but I will ensure that it is available at some stage—Committee stage or Report stage—in this place. It will be an important element of scrutiny.
  The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge—I apologise for nearly saying Runnybridge and Weymede—was right to say that this Bill is not about banning high hedges. The Bill is about putting in place a regulatory framework for mediation. The costs reflect a stand-alone mediation process. With previous legislation, difficulties with costs and effectiveness have arisen. Part of the reason for that has been that measures were tagged on to the criminal trespass regime, the planning regime or other regimes, rather than—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I will treat the Minister in the same way as Back Benchers and ask him to relate his remarks to the additional costs for local authorities.
  Mr. McNulty: I will do that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was going to refer to the costs of a stand-alone system of mediation as opposed to a system attached to the planning or criminal trespass regimes.
  The elements that are referred to in the regulatory impact assessment relate to evidence from previous consultations. The 20 per cent. figure for the rate of appeals is higher than the 5 per cent. figure that was used in previous regulatory impact assessments; and it is double the rate of appeals in cases of nuisance—an equally important and troublesome area—and some seven times the rate of appeals in planning applications. I would not describe this as a third-party right of appeal; it is a mediation process, and it takes two plus the mediator to tango, as it were. We have inflated the figure to 20 per cent. rather than using the lower figures because the fact that each party can appeal against the mediation will be reflected in the costs.
  Mr. Hammond: I have never seen the Minister dance but the mind boggles at the thought of two plus the mediator tangoing. Will he tell us about the costs of appeals? Will a disincentive to appeal be put in place through the possibility of award of costs against the appellant?
  Mr. McNulty: As I said earlier in response to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), there will be regulations for the fee structure and all the other elements if the Bill is successful. Those regulations will be available in draft form and they will certainly be consulted on before they are presented to the House. One assumes that they will reflect the evidence of cost structures that we already have. Despite protests from hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, that evidence remains the evidence of the 1999 consultation. The structures will have to include some kind of disincentive to prevent capricious or vexatious appeals after the mediation process.
  Hon. Members should bear in mind the fact that costs are calculated in the context of the mediation service actually working. It would be remiss of us to make

  95
  calculations assuming a 90 per cent. or 100 per cent. appeal rate. There is also a tripwire because the local authority will not entertain the mediation process unless it is clear that the complainant has exhausted all other means available. There will not be an open house: if someone does not like the leylandii or whatever other kind of hedge next door, they will not be able simply to bung in a complaint to the local authority and expect it to succeed. Things will not work in that way. We intend a stand-alone mediation system.
  Many of the issues that hon. Members have raised are worthy of further exploration in Committee. Based on the evidence, we believe that the statements in the regulatory impact assessment on costs to local authorities and appeal authorities, and the assumptions in the assessment on the costs of subsequent appeals, are correct. I will not be tempted down the route of a debate on clause 20 on definition and scope. Those issues can and should be investigated further in Committee. That is route, not root, I hasten to add. Any shortfall in our calculations will be covered by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister under the new burdens principle and through a system that has yet to be determined but which will embrace both elements of the financial regime for local authorities.
  I take the point about the difference in the impact on rural and urban authorities, or on urban and suburban authorities. That difference will have to be reflected in any assumptions that are made in the financial regime. However, we are talking about a significant cultural change.
  Mr. Chope: I am grateful to the Minister for referring to the different impacts. Will he go further and address the concern of East Dorset district council, which does not receive any formula grant funding at all? How will that council be reimbursed?
  Mr. McNulty: We are talking about a money resolution but I cannot be drawn on whether East
  96
  Dorset district council receives grant or not, or on what its proportions are in terms of the national non-domestic rate and the rate support grant. That would lead me into money areas that would cause you, Madam Deputy Speaker, quite rightly to pull me up again. I know that "pull me up" is not a very parliamentary term but it was the best that I could think of. However, shortfalls will be covered. Opposition Members do not seem happy with that comment, but it was an attempt to answer the question that they have rightly asked.
  The thrust of the Bill and the associated money resolution is rooted in evidence. The Bill covers a very important issue and we intend, through consensus—however much it sticks in my throat to say that—to secure its passage through the House with the appropriate costs to the public purse, which will be reflected in the money resolution and the regulatory impact assessment.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the High Hedges (No. 2) Bill ('the Act'), it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (1) any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of the Act; and

  (2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums which are payable out of money so provided by virtue of any other Act.

  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): With permission, I shall put together motions 10 and 11.

  High Hedges (No. 2) Bill [Money]

    Ordered,
    That Mr. Brian Jenkins be discharged from the Broadcasting Committee and Jim Sheridan be added.

    That Mr Alan Williams be discharged from the Committee on Standards and Privileges.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

    Kent and Canterbury Hospital
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
    8.9 pm
    Mr. Julian Brazier: I am delighted to have another opportunity to extol the virtues of a great hospital and its dedicated staff. It saddens me, however, that, after five Adjournment debates, so many years of public outcry and protest and so much evidence, the future role of the Kent and Canterbury hospital should still be in doubt.
    It is perhaps worth looking back at the beginning of a long, sorry saga that affects a hospital that has served the local community and, through it specialties, the wider region so outstandingly well. The story started in 1996, shortly after the opening of the new development at Margate—the Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother hospital—when the then East Kent health authority,EKHA, made a proposal to run down the children and maternity units at the Kent and Canterbury hospital and focus them on two other sites.
    EKHA's argument for that dramatic change was the need for concentration to ensure that training recognition continued with the royal colleges. I should say that no royal college has threatened to remove training recognition at any point from the Kent and Canterbury hospital. At that time, the Kent and Canterbury was by far the most efficient of the seven hospitals in Kent. In 1995, a national league table showed that it was the third most efficient hospital in England.
    The proposals for that partial run-down were firmly rejected by the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), who Insisted on a more imaginative approach, whereby the three main sites—Canterbury, Ashford and Margate—carried out joint training. Immediately after the 1997 general election, however, EKHA leapt into a process of fervid activity and within a matter of months, in December, came up with an ill-founded proposal to reduce Kent and Canterbury hospital to a day centre with one solitary ward of geriatric beds.
    Battle was joined in earnest. A campaigning organisation—Concern for Health in East Kent—was established, drawing support from prominent figures, Including all three political parties locally, and I cannot pay it strong enough tribute to the battle that it has fought. EKHA modified its proposals and decided instead to keep roughly half the hospital, but to close the accident and emergency unit and remove almost all the specialist facilities.
    The proposals were put to the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). He modified the EKHA proposals yet again, insisting, in particular, that coronary care should be retained at Kent and Canterbury hospital and pledging that it would remain a joint cancer centre with Maidstone. Indeed, that joint centre underpins the cancer outstations at the other five main hospitals in Kent.
    After that, EKHA decided that the proposals were unworkable and began the consultation process all over again—jointly this time with the newly created East
    98
    Kent hospitals trust. There was another long, bitter round of campaigning, with CHEK leading the way again. Astonishingly, EKHA brushed aside the all the proposals on which it had consulted and introduced an unheard of fifth proposal for a diagnostic and treatment centre at Kent and Canterbury hospital, but it still proposed to focus the accident and emergency units on the other two hospitals, leaving only a minor injuries unit to deal with accidents at Canterbury, while keeping a sizeable bed capacity to cover elective care.
    Cancer was left out of the document and confined only to an uncosted annexe, and the trust responsible for delivering cancer care at Kent and Canterbury hospital was not even a signatory to the document. For some months, that proposal has now been with the Department of Health, where Ministers are, no doubt, rightly giving it very thorough scrutiny. I am delighted to see the Minister in her place to respond to this debate, as we have exchanged views on a number of occasions. Indeed, last July, the Secretary of State received a delegation of MPs and specialists, led by me, to discuss the proposals.
    Fortunately, things have moved on. With the demise of EKHA and the much more open and straightforward approach of the new Kent and Medway health authority, the impetus for change appears to have altered. Since our meeting with the Secretary of State, two important developments have taken place—one national, the other local.
    At national level, the Government have published the White Paper, "Keeping the NHS Local—a New Direction of Travel", which represents a reversal of the trend towards ever larger centres and emphasises the importance of access. I welcome the document, which applies directly to our own case. Let me quote two of three core principles; I shall return to the third in a moment. First, it demands a

    "focus on redesign, not relocate".

    Amen to that. Secondly, it refers to the need to

    "take a whole systems view … to exploit the contribution of different hospitals, primary and intermediate and … social care providers".

    Both those principles would rule out the proposals currently before the Secretary of State. Indeed, the reason that all the Kent branches of the Royal College of Nursing rejected the latest consultation document was that it had been prepared without the involvement of community health services. That is made explicit on the covering page of the Royal College of Nursing commentary. Perhaps the Minister may be able to tell me in her winding-up speech whether the proposals before her will be referred to the reconfiguration panel, which forms an important part of the White Paper. Indeed, it is the note on which the White Paper ends—a very important body.
    At local level, the parallel development, which is also welcome, is that the East Kent hospitals trust has introduced some interim proposals that represent an important step forward in two respects. First, that document effectively recognises the stark reality that the health authority will not get the money—figures of £100 million, £200 million and even £300 million have been bandied about—required for that sort of radical proposal. As a result, it seeks to build on existing arrangements, rather than on greenfielding. Secondly,

    99
    there has been a genuine attempt to engage with medical staff in a way that did not happen in earlier proposals, although that process has been uneven.
    None the less, even those interim proposals suffer from several severe faults. First, the costings are completely unrealistic, and I confess to having a background in corporate finance. For example, the actual removals cost for each facility is listed at £5,000—less than Pickfords charge for moving the contents of a large house. The building estimates, too, bear no resemblance to reality. In combination, the building cost budgeted—about£15 million—probably amounts to less than the actual cost of relocating one or two of the departments.
    The truth is that NHS capital projects have tended to overrun massively, and the most recent in east Kent—the Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother project—was no exception. This project would certainly be no exception even on those provisional costings. The net saving for option 3, which would involve the largest move away from Kent and Canterbury hospital and is the only one fully financially assessed, amounts to only £3 million a year. In practice, given the vast underestimate in capital costs and the interest charges inevitably associated, that option would almost certainly worsen the already dire financial position in east Kent, rather than improve it.
    Cancer has been excluded, presumably because it is the responsibility of another trust. It is, however, dependent on 28 other facilities provided in the Kent and Canterbury hospital, so it must be brought into the picture.
    The most important weakness of all, in my view, goes back to the original flawed proposals for children's and maternity services in 1996. More than a third of the population of east Kent live in villages. Many rely on buses to Canterbury, or on volunteer drivers, many of whom are elderly and, while willing to give their time generously, are understandably willing to drive only so far. Hardly a single village in east Kent has decent access to Margate. One or two provide access by public transport, but most are a long way away.
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) pointed out in a speech that many villages that, as the crow flies, are closer to Ashford than they are to Canterbury have decent bus access only to Canterbury. In fact, the vast majority of villages provide the best access to Canterbury on buses. Canterbury is the hub of the east Kent bus system. Moreover, there are two railway stations, one on each of the two main railways lines through east Kent. A number of small coastal towns also have much better access to Canterbury—Whitstable, which I represent, Herne Bay and Faversham. I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson), who I hope will say a few words later. He has been a stalwart supporter of the campaign.
    The number of patients who cannot reach hospitals by buses or volunteer drivers would inevitably increase greatly, even with the interim options; yet the heavy extra cost to the ambulance service, which is already overstretched, seems to have been ignored, perhaps
    100
    because it comes from a different budget. The price in lost access to the family and friends of patients cannot be costed—but it will be paid, in terms of a lower recovery rate for patients whose loved ones cannot get to their beds. The truth is that, for roughly half the population of east Kent, Canterbury is by far the most accessible of the three sites.
    Further problems arise from the consideration of individual service configurations. I do not want to go into detail, but I will say something about accident and emergency services, which are most important and which have simply not been thought through. As I have said, Canterbury is at the centre of east Kent, and Margate is inaccessible. The interim accident and emergency proposals for Margate, however, are flawed in principle. What sort of A and E centre would have no facio-maxillary, no vascular surgery, no ear, nose and throat services and no eye facilities? If that is what is proposed for Margate A and E, surely it is not viable in the long run. Who would want to work in an accident and emergency system that was supposed to provide a full service with consultants, but whose structure was so incomplete?
    In fact, the interim proposals leave east Kent with only one real. long-term A and E centre, at Ashford. Ashford is an important place and is expanding, but it also happens to be the only place in east Kent with excellent road access to another A and E service—at the huge hospital at Maidstone, just 15 minutes up the motorway. It is surely ridiculous to propose that east Kent's main A and E facility should be at Ashford, the only east Kent population centre with really good access to west Kent's premier A and E centre.
    Two weeks ago there was a multi-car pile-up at Brenley Corner in the morning fog. Mercifully, there were few injuries, largely because of the extraordinary bravery of a crane driver who risked his own life to avoid the crash. Had it not been for his heroism, there would probably have been many serious casualties. That is the view of the ambulance service; it is not just my view.
    Where would those people have been sent? Getting to Ashford would have meant a long, slow journey down a tiny country lane. Had Canterbury lost its A and E centre, would the ambulance crews have ended up picking and choosing according to category? Would those with minor injuries have been taken to Canterbury—by far the closest destination—while those with facio-maxillary, vascular, ENT or eye injuries were sent to Ashford, the least accessible point, down the little winding country lane? The rest, presumably, would have gone to Thanet.
    It is worth considering overstretch, which has featured so much in the national press. Last year, sadly, east Kent repeatedly made the national news with stories of people in their eighties and nineties waiting for two or even three nights for a proper bed in A and E. Blind statistics hide the individual humiliations and tragedies of people such as Connie Jones, who, in her nineties, waited two days for a bed, and octogenarian Ray Gilson. His family, who have owned a little seafood shop on the Whitstable waterfront for many years, in desperation scraped together the money to get him into the Chaucer private hospital so that he could spend his last few days in some sort of dignity rather than hanging on without a bed in A and E.

    101
    Mercifully, this year the overstretch has been greatly reduced, partly through some innovative changes in the hospital, for which the hospital must take due credit, partly because of extra money that the Government have provided and partly because of a considerable shifting of the burden on to our community hospitals, which hitherto have provided an excellent service, yet find themselves increasingly struggling to meet the extra challenges placed on them by the acute hospitals—challenges that they are not equipped to face. I have never had a complaint about the Whitstable and Tankerton hospital, until the past year or so, when there has been a drip-feed of people saying that it is overcrowded and overstretched. Interestingly, there are also signs of over-administration under the new arrangements.
    The worst case that I have received in the past 12 months involves the Queen Victoria hospital, the cottage hospital in Herne Bay, and the interface between the Queen Victoria hospital and the Kent and Canterbury. I do not wish to go into the details of the case here, save to mention that my constituent, Mrs. Florence Jones, a 73-year-old suffering from dementia, twice fell over while she was at the Queen Victoria hospital awaiting an operation at the Kent and Canterbury because she was not escorted to the lavatory, and on the second occasion she broke her wrist. She suffered a multiple fracture. She was left for three days, apparently without fluids, and has, sadly, died. Her son and daughter brought the case to me.
    The extent to which inappropriate problems are being pushed on to our community hospitals, and the extent to which the interface is not working, are partly demonstrated by the administrative muddles in the paperwork in that case as it went to and fro, but, worst of all, by the fact that Mrs. Farnham, Mrs. Jones's daughter, virtually had a stand-up fight in A and E to prevent her mother from being transferred back to the Queen Victoria from A and E overnight, when her operation was delayed until the following morning.
    I do not want to criticise any medical or nursing staff at the Kent and Canterbury. They are desperately overstretched. So many former patients have had so many words of praise for them over the years, right up to the present time. However, we must recognise that we are still desperately short of capacity, and any proposals for capital expansion must take full account of the fact that, with our huge financial overrun, we cannot afford a further debt burden and the interest charges that that would bring.
    We must also recognise that Canterbury is not just the most accessible site in Kent, and the one with the concentration of regional specialties, but remains the main centre for surgery in east Kent. I have a graph of surgical operations at the main hospitals in east Kent over the most recent 12 months. Of the in-patient cases—the major surgery cases—Canterbury carried out more surgery than the William Harvey hospital in Ashford in every month of the past 12, save one. In some months it carried out as much as a third more than the William Harvey.
    Compared with the Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother hospital in Margate, the disparity is much greater. In the two most recent months for which figures are available, January and February this year, the Kent and Canterbury carried out 1,466 in-patient operations,
    102
    almost double the 802 achieved by the Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother hospital in Margate, yet it is Kent and Canterbury hospital that is threatened.
    I am anxious that this should be a constructive exchange, and I welcome the willingness of Ministers to discuss the problem. I particularly welcome the fact that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), has been down to see for herself. Her Government's new framework is based on looking at services as a whole and—I quote again—"redesigning, and not relocating". It is time to realise that Canterbury is by far the most accessible point in east Kent. It has the hospital with the greatest success in recruiting medical staff—a hospital that continues to remain the premier surgical facility and is the centre for all east Kent's regional specialties.
    I do not think that anybody still thinks that the proposal that theoretically remains before the Secretary of State will ever fly, not least for cost reasons. It is time to bring to an end this five-year saga of proposal and counter-proposal, and to all the misery that that has brought to our overworked staff at the hospital. We need to build on what we have in our three acute hospitals in east Kent and focus on reinforcing strength—and by far the strongest hospital is the Kent and Canterbury.
    The good things that can be picked out of the trust's interim proposals should be picked out, including ideas for consolidating one or two services at individual hospitals where that can be done without compromising interlocking dependencies. Any change must be implemented in a way that leaves our acute health facilities available where patients can best get to them without saddling our local budget with the heavy interest charges that come from huge capital spending.
    In the words of the third guiding principle of "Keeping the NHS Local", options for change should be developed

    "with people, not for them, starting from the patient experience"

    and by

    "working with staff to find new ways of delivering services."

    Let us shift the emphasis back to the hospital that is most accessible to the largest proportion of people by far, where the largest output of major surgery is achieved and which has the greatest concentration of specialities—the Kent and Canterbury hospital: and, please, it ain't broke, so don't let's break it.
    8.31 pm
    Hugh Robertson: I rise to speak in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). In doing so, I should like briefly to pay tribute to the work that he has done on behalf of the Kent and Canterbury hospital over very many years. He has done an enormous service to his constituents in Canterbury and to many from throughout the wider east Kent population. I should also like briefly to pay tribute to all the members of the Campaign for Health in East Kent—I do so not least because they are present—who have done marvellously well in keeping up their enthusiasm and keeping the campaign going. They have been a tremendous tonic to those of us who have been fighting the political battle.
    I wish to represent the interests of my constituents in Faversham and the surrounding villages, who will be severely affected by any changes to the Kent and

    103
    Canterbury, perhaps more than anybody else in east Kent in many ways, for six reasons. I shall confine my remarks to concerns that are specific to my constituency, rather than to the much wider issues to which my hon. Friend referred. Of course, he made some very specific points, and I should like in particular to draw the Minister's attention to his comments about cancer, which is a huge problem area.
    My particular concerns are as follows. The first is transport. Transport links in east Kent are known to be extremely poor. It is sometimes difficult enough to make a journey from Faversham to Canterbury, but it is always difficult to travel from Faversham to Margate. To make a journey from Faversham to Ashford, as many of my constituents will have to do, is almost impossible on many days. As my hon. Friend said, the road is small and winding and is used by farm traffic. Lorries regularly jam the road and a protest group is currently forming to express concern about its current traffic level. If we were to add all the traffic that would travel along it carrying people to hospital, the situation would become intolerable. Public transport provision in that part of Kent is also hugely inadequate.
    Secondly, on the question of location, as my hon. Friend said, Canterbury is at the hub of east Kent. It has a cathedral and a huge student population. By any judgment, it is the correct location for a hospital in that part of the world, regardless of where the others are situated. Neither Margate nor Ashford has any of those advantages.
    Thirdly, there is the question of capacity. The Government have announced huge house-building plans for much of the south-east. Many of the houses will be built just to the south of my constituency border. That will clearly bring an enormous number of extra people into the county, and they will have health needs. With that capacity increase in the wind, surely it is not time to be shutting, downgrading or closing hospitals.
    Fourthly, there is a lack of alternative facilities for my constituents. Faversham cottage hospital is an excellent small local hospital to which I pay tribute. However, it is not and was never intended to be the Kent and Canterbury. I should have thought that it was eminently sensible to build up local facilities before downgrading the Kent and Canterbury. Clearly, that has not happened.
    Fifthly, there is a problem of deprivation. Although some areas of east Kent are extremely wealthy, others are extremely poor. My market town of Faversham has a relatively prosperous mediaeval core and a Victorian part, which was built with the arrival of the railways. A third generation of people came from the east end of London to pick fruit in the summer. It has a huge area of social housing. Downgrading the local hospital will lead to many people feeling excluded from the health service. They will feel that their local hospital has gone and they will suffer from that loss because they are often heavy users of the health service.
    Sixthly, delay is a problem, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury has already alluded. The saga has gone on for a long time and has undoubtedly affected the confidence of many of the excellent people who work in our hospital. It has certainly affected the
    104
    confidence of many constituents. I hope that the Under-Secretary and the Department can soon bring it to an end.
    Given the bigger political picture in the national health service and in population growth throughout Kent, I am surprised, if not amazed, that the Government should even consider downgrading the Kent and Canterbury hospital. In my view, it is simply the wrong option at the wrong time. Perhaps I would say that as I was born there 40 years ago. I urge the Under-Secretary, in the strongest possible terms, to reconsider the decision.
    8.36 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I congratulate the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) on securing the debate on a matter of concern to him and his constituents. I also acknowledge the passion with which the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) made the case on behalf of his constituents. Health service issues always cause concern. That is right because our constituents greatly value the health service.
    The people of Kent deserve a fully modernised health service, which provides them with the highest quality services. Everybody acknowledges that reconfiguring acute services is an integral part of the agenda. I stress to all hon. Members who have contributed to debates on the subject that the decision will be made in the interests of all the residents of east Kent. It is right and proper to say that.
    For that reason among others, the Secretary of State has decided to refer the case to the independent reconfiguration panel for consideration. The new advisory body was announced in the NHS plan to help ensure that decisions on the outcome of major health service reconfigurations are fair and objective. The panel's remit is to consider three main items: whether the proposed service configurations are sustainable., whether they fully support modernisation and whether they result in improved service for patients. The panel will provide advice to the Secretary of State, who will then make an informed decision, taking the panel findings into account.
    The NHS plan sets out a challenging 10-year programme for NHS reform. Far-reaching changes are inevitable to try to provide the best possible services for patients. We all acknowledge the pressures on the service, not only in east Kent but throughout the country, of trying to increase capacity so that patients can get ready, quick and responsive access to services. We want not only to increase capacity but to raise clinical standards generally.
    There are major inequalities in the health service throughout the country and we are committed to tackling them. We must also ensure that services are accessible and flexible. We want to design services around the needs of patients. The NHS must no longer be configured around the needs of institutions. We must follow the patient pathway and wrap services around the patient's journey.
    As part of the modernisation programme, many NHS trusts are considering changes to the way in which they organise their services. I believe that we all recognise that hospital services need to change if we are to

    105
    continue to fulfil patients' needs and improve access. Things cannot remain in aspic. There are a number of different pressures on the service, including the working time directive and certain clinical governance issues. All those issues need to be taken into account as the health service changes.
    We want to try to help trusts that are developing their plans for service expansion and redesign to have a direction of travel in their minds when they were considering the changes. That is why we have published the new guidance, "Keeping the NHS Local: a New Direction of Travel", to which the hon. Member for Canterbury has referred. This is a significant piece of guidance for the health service, in which we try to say that the drive towards "big is best" is not always the direction in which we want to travel, and that we will try to make services responsive to local people.
    In providing advice to the Secretary of State, the independent reconfiguration panel will be asked to take into account the contents of the guidance and, in particular, the three core principles that the NHS should consider when planning reconfigurations. The hon. Member for Canterbury has referred to these. They are first, the need to involve the public and staff in developing options for change. This is a big change for us. It is about saying that the public and staff should be involved in the design of services right from the outset—not just when preferred options are developed—because we believe that, in that way, the partners will sign up to change and that change will be sustainable in the longer term.
    The second principle is the need to redesign existing services rather than simply going for relocation, with primary care trusts increasingly taking the driving seat with the budgets. They are doing some incredibly innovative work on providing services closer to people's homes out in the community, and making them more accessible to people. The third principle involves trying to take a whole systems view of the whole health economy. This involves looking not simply at the role of the acute trusts, but at how they integrate with intermediate care in community hospitals and how they relate to services at primary care level. So we are looking at the whole health economy when designing services and trying at every step to work in partnership with other health providers in the area.
    The document sets out the importance of public involvement, and says that any change must have support and engagement from staff and patients. The hon. Member for Canterbury highlighted one of the most important phrases in it, which states that the NHS needed to develop options for change "with patients" and local people, rather than for them. Again, it is a real culture change for the NHS to be working together with local people. We also now have the section 11 duty under the Health and Social Care Act 2001, which provides that every part of the NHS is under a statutory duty to involve patients and the public. We have issued guidance as a result of that statutory provision, and are now beginning to develop a proper framework against which trusts can measure their proposals.
    The involvement of the public has always been a key factor in the proposals for east Kent. I know that the hon. Member for Canterbury feels that the proposals have not taken account of the views of local people, but it was a pretty comprehensive process. It aimed to
    106
    ensure that the proposals were widely disseminated to staff, patients and other key stakeholders. The chief executive wrote to every member of the trust's 8,000 staff, inviting their views, and all staff received a summary consultation leaflet. Three rounds of staff seminars were held at each of the trust's five hospitals, with evening seminars for night staff, and 12,000 summary leaflets were distributed to members of the public. These were available at GPs' surgeries, hospitals and pharmacies, and a range of other public outlets. The leaflet was also included in a local newspaper delivered to 227,000 households in east Kent. More than 100 voluntary groups were invited to take part in seminars, and around 2,000 people attended a series of public meetings. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, I was delighted to visit Canterbury last July. I spoke personally to health professionals, patients and representatives of the local authorities about the proposals. It is certainly fair to say that, during the consultation, the issue was well ventilated in the community, even if the process did not deliver a result that either of the hon. Gentlemen would support.
    Mr. Brazier: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, and I am particularly grateful for the announcement that she made at the beginning of her speech. That was excellent news. However, I put it to her that, however many people went to the meetings—most of which were actively hostile—the central weakness of the whole process was that it did not involve the community hospitals and health care provision in the area as a whole. That was the explicit reason that every branch of the Royal College of Nursing in east Kent rejected it. It is now central to the Minister's own White Paper.
    Ms Blears: I am sure that that is one of the matters that the independent reconfiguration panel will want to take into account. It is part of the guidance on keeping the NHS local, and the integration of the service will clearly be a key factor for the panel.
    I want to say a little bit about the proposals, and what they mean in terms of service delivery for patients. The four shortlisted options included in the consultation document set out an important role for Kent and Canterbury. Three propose the retention of an acute hospital role, while a fourth proposes the provision of community-based services at the Canterbury site. A 24-hour nurse-led minor injuries unit would still be provided at Kent and Canterbury under all the options. I want to give local people the reassurance that the role for the Kent and Canterbury would still be substantial.
    Under all options, a number of core services would be provided at Kent and Canterbury. As well as those for minor injuries, they include day surgery, out-patient paediatrics, services for older people, community assessment, intermediate care, a day care hospital, out-patient clinics, midwifery-led services and cancer services, which are hugely important to people in that community. I want to say a word or two about those.
    First, I commend the good work done by hospital. There is a major programme of investment in cancer care, involving both equipment and staff. Recent developments include a new £1 million breast screening unit and a new £1 million linear accelerator for radiotherapy treatment, which will make an important

    107
    contribution to improving detection and treatment of cancer. I reassure Members that cancer services will remain a central part of the services that Kent and Canterbury will offer.
    Key points need to be made. First, Kent and Canterbury hospital is part of the Kent cancer network. It will remain so under the recommended option. The network, which is very successful, serves a population of nearly 1.8 million people, including residents of Kent, Medway and Hastings and Rother. East Kent's service for radiotherapy and chemotherapy day attendees will continue at Kent and Canterbury, supported by high-quality diagnostic and treatment services.
    Under the recommended option, Kent and Canterbury will develop an ambulatory and out-patient model of care, which will allow the vast majority of patients to continue to receive their cancer care locally. In fact, it is the model that most patients undertake now in terms of their diagnostic, screening and initial treatment options for cancer. Therefore, it is right to say that the cancer option that has been set out means that Kent and Canterbury will still be part of the Kent cancer network and will be providing high-quality services to people in the area.
    Mr. Brazier: I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way once more. Does she accept that, during the consultation process, two of the three consultants responsible for delivering those cancer services spoke out most vehemently against the weaknesses in the proposals? At the end of the process, when Professor James, who has overall responsibility from Maidstone, alleged that medical staff were in favour, the third was so angry that she too spoke out vehemently against them. No consultant at Canterbury believes that the proposal on the table would deliver long-term, viable joint cancer centre services.
    Ms Blears: I am aware that the proposals are controversial, as are the rest of the proposals for Kent and Canterbury, but I am also aware that the national cancer director, Professor Mike Richards, went down to the hospital and his information is that the consensus was perhaps larger than the hon. Gentleman suggests in terms of the reassurance given to local consultants on the quality and safety of the services that would be available. Inevitably, when there is change—I understand this—local clinicians are extremely concerned, because they have the real interest of patients at heart in trying to provide those high-quality services. In terms of the cancer network, reassurances have been given on ensuring that Kent and Canterbury remains a key part and that it can provide good-quality services to local people.
    I want to say a word or two about transport, which is another key issue. The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent has emphasised that. On my visit, I had the opportunity to travel some of the area's winding roads, so I appreciate the transport difficulties there. The matter has been reviewed by the Kent county council scrutiny committee, which has done an extremely thorough job in considering the proposals. The trust has now accepted that further work is needed on the feasibility of expanding NHS transport in the area, and
    108
    it will continue to work with public transport providers to try to maximise travel opportunities to the hospital sites.
    The Kent county council review found that services should be tailored to the needs of local people in terms of transport arrangements for patients and visitors. It is crucial for visitors to be able to attend hospital, as access to them is often a key factor in a patient's recovery. Such arrangements should be developed and implemented within the wider plans for reconfigurations. This is not an isolated issue in respect of east Kent, as a recent social exclusion unit report shows that people in many communities up and down the country often do not attend hospital appointments because they cannot get there using existing public transport options. We need to be much more imaginative in trying to find ways to facilitate easy access. The problems in rural areas are clearly sometimes exacerbated due to sparse rural transport.
    The response from the trust has highlighted the positive steps that have already been taken. It is working on two projects to try to improve patient and visitor access, and is examining other rural transport schemes. It has plans to implement a green transport plan to address problems on-site, and intends to carry out further work to examine whether transport links can be improved across the region. Under the options, on which, clearly, Ministers have not decided, and which are subject to advice from the independent panel, I understand that 85 per cent. of patients would still be treated at Kent and Canterbury who could normally expect to be treated there. I am not seeking to minimise the transport problem: although not everyone will have transport problems, clearly it is a significant issue in this area.
    The interim delivery strategy, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, has not been the subject of consultation and is certainly not the subject of decisions by Ministers. I am pleased, however, that he welcomes aspects of that strategy. It is being developed by a working group from the trust and the primary care trust., involving clinicians and public representatives. A draft strategy was presented to the East Kent hospitals trust board on 14 March, and three options were set out. I understand that the hon. Gentleman takes exception to the third option that has been set out, but welcomes some of the other proposals. It is an important strand of the overall programme to modernise and update services, and it demonstrates the commitment of the trust and the primary care trust, which, ultimately, will have to find the resources to sustain the changes—to make sure that services in east Kent are safe and sustainable—and, given the pressures within the system. attempt to have a best-value approach to ensure financial efficiency.
    The hon. Gentleman mentioned the financial difficulties that the area faces. Services there will benefit from an increase in investment of around 30 per cent. over the next three years, which is similar to other areas in the country—the biggest ever investment in the NHS—but I recognise the pressures that the whole health service is under. We have a long way to go in terms of increasing capacity, dare I say, after many years of under-investment and a lack of capacity in the system.

    109
    All three options outlined in the interim strategy will mean that Kent and Canterbury will retain a number of core services. There are proposals to enhance emergency services with the introduction of an emergency centre, under which vascular surgery, urology and clinical haematology would be provided together at Kent and Canterbury. A clear, important and sustainable role for the hospital is therefore envisaged in some of the proposals.
    In relation to the interim delivery strategy, the local health community has been engaged fully in the process to try to meet the third core principle of our new guidance: that there should be a whole systems approach to these decisions. The plans have also been shared with senior clinical staff and presented to the Canterbury and Thanet community health council.
    In conclusion, I want to say a few words about the next steps in the process, as those will be of great concern to local people. I am very conscious of the length of time that it has taken to resolve these matters. For clinicians, the public, the patients and everyone who works in the trust, certainty is very important. Although, as I have said, the matter will be referred to the independent reconfiguration panel, which is the right thing to do, we will make it clear, as a matter of urgency, that we want
    110
    the independent reconfiguration panel to report to us with their advice. We will be writing as a matter of urgency to the panel. We will set out the terms of referral. We will also write to the community health council chairmen who referred the case originally to inform them of the action that is being taken. We will certainly try to let local people know far as we possibly can that this matter is drawing to a conclusion. I expect the independent reconfiguration panel to look at the case quickly and to provide its advice to Ministers as a matter of urgency because, as I say, I am hugely conscious of the need to get some certainty into the process.
    Regardless of the final decision that is taken, new facilities and models of care in this area are needed. They will enable the trust to provide health care to Canterbury residents. What is important for all of us involved is that those services be sustainable in the long term. They must provide an improved and better service for patients and the local community. That is what we are all aiming to achieve for the residents of the whole of east Kent. That is our overriding duty.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Nine o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Aggregates Levy
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how much of the aggregates levy sustainability fund has been spent in relation to(a) the freight facility grant and (b) the transport action clean up programme; what percentages of the fund these payments represent; and if she will make a statement; [105342]

  (2) if she will list the projects (a) approved, (b) rejected and (c) awaiting a decision for funding under the aggregates levy sustainability fund for the stated purpose of (i) supporting cleaner and quieter aggregates lorry transport and (ii) encouraging the use of rail and water transport; what funding has been allocated; when each application was made; and when each decision was made. [105298]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 27 March 2003]: None of the aggregates levy sustainability fund has been spent so far on promoting environmentally friendly aggregates transportation. The Department for Transport, which is the distributing body for the freight facilities grant and the transport action clean-up programme, is considering their compatibility with state aid provisions. Around £1 million of the 2002–03 allocation for these schemes has therefore been diverted to funding for reducing the local effects of aggregates extraction.

  Agricultural Regulations
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many regulations relating to agriculture were extant(a) in 1997 and (b) on the latest date for which figures are available. [107270]

  Alun Michael
  This information is not available in the form requested as it would involve looking at all legislation, both EC and UK, introduced by different Government Departments to consider whether it related to agriculture. Such information could only be assembled at disproportionate cost.

  Local Environmental Problems
  Mr. Tim Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will include railway property in future reviews of(a) public litter problems and (b) the effects of degraded environment. [106887]

  Alun Michael
  Railway property is included in our current review of litter and local environmental problems. Defra's consultation document Living Places—Powers, Rights, Responsibilities, described 2W
  several options for reforming the legislative framework relating to the local environmental management of private land, including railway property.

  We are currently evaluating responses to that consultation exercise, which closed on 14 February, and will then consider how to take matters forward.

  My officials are meeting representatives of Network Rail to discuss their response in more detail.

  Last year, in conjunction with Defra, ENCAMS (Environmental Campaigns) carried out a detailed survey of the state of England called the Local Environmental Quality Survey of England (LEQSE). The survey included elements of a range of land uses including transport facilities. ENCAMS are now building on the LEQSE to carry out a similar survey at district level, by local authority. This potentially would allow both the Government and local authorities to identify elements that require further investigation or remedy.

  Fur Farming
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what measures she proposes to take as a result of the Court of Appeal's recent ruling regarding compensation for fur farmers; and if she will make a statement; [106361]

  (2) if she will ensure that the compensation scheme for fur farmers includes (a) a higher standard payment for female mink than was offered in the original scheme, recognition of the higher value of specialist breeds, (c) compensation for male animals and (d) a specified date for the cessation of fur farming after the end of the consultation period in 2001. [106362]

  Mr. Morley
  On Thursday 13 March 2003 the High Court gave judgment quashing the Fur Farming (Compensation Scheme) (England) Order 2002.

  Application has been made to appeal to the Court of Appeal. If permission to appeal is not granted or the decision of the High court is upheld on appeal the Government will consult interested parties to implement a compensation scheme under the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000.

  There was no suggestion from the ruling that the overall level of compensation was inadequate.

  Mr Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action she intends to take as a result of the judicial review into the Government's fur farming compensation scheme; how the Government will ensure that it complies with(a) common law and (b) the European Convention on Human Rights; and if she will make a statement on the judgement. [106854]

  Mr. Morley
  Application has been made to appeal to the Court of Appeal. If permission to appeal is not granted or the decision of the High Court is upheld on appeal the Government will consult interested parties to implement a compensation scheme under the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000.

  IACS
  Mr. LIwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many farmers registered for the purpose of IACS there were in 1997; and what the current corresponding figure is. [107227]

  Alun Michael
  The number of farmers registered for the purpose of IACS for England and Wales is as follows:

  England

  Wales

  1997

  77,829

  19,300

  Current corresponding figure (2002)

  69,535

  16,800

  Landfill Tax Credit Scheme
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how many of the stakeholders she consulted over changes to the landfill tax credit scheme recommended(a) no changes, (b) minimal changes, (c) major changes and (d) abandonment of the scheme; [106463]

  (2) if she will make it her policy to ensure that stakeholder opinions are taken into account when deciding upon the successor to the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme. [106470]

  Mr. Meacher
  The joint Treasury/Defra consultation on the future of the Landfill Tax Credit scheme went to 3,468 individuals or organisations and generated 683 responses. Of these 550 (82 per cent.) opted for keeping the Scheme as it is or with minor modifications, 59 (9 per cent.) opted for a major change and 58 (9 per cent.) did not comment. A clear majority (65 per cent.) were in favour of increased funding for sustainable waste management projects.

  A consistent message also arising from the consultation was the need for a more strategic approach to funding sustainable waste management objectives. The Government fully endorse this view and will set out how they aim to achieve this in their response to the Strategy Unit Report 'Waste Not, Want Not' which will be published shortly. The Government will take into account the opinions of stakeholders in deciding on the new public expenditure programme.

  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how much money she estimates will be lost from the sustainable waste sector as a result of funding formerly distributed through categories C and CC of the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme being distributed by a public body and losing the capacity to be used to draw further funds from private sources; [106465]

  (2) what figure she uses to estimate the leverage or gearing ratio between landfill tax credit scheme funding and further funding secured from other sources against it. [1064641

  Mr. Meacher
  The evidence available suggests that the vast majority of levered in funds have been directed at projects in category A—land reclamation, category D—public parks and amenities and category E—building restoration. A survey carried out by Glasgow 4W
  Caledonian University involving 1,053 Environmental Bodies (with a 40 per cent. response rate) indicates that over the period 1997–2002, waste management projects (categories C and CC) levered in 34 per cent. of LTCS expenditure from other sources.

  The Government believes that a public expenditure programme can work well with private sources (e.g. retailers or equipment manufacturers) to achieve a similar or better increase in total resources. Moreover local authorities can benefit from a public expenditure programme. Government will also be better able to direct how and where funds are spent through the public expenditure programme to ensure they are focused on areas which will contribute towards achieving our overall aims on sustainable waste management identified in the Strategy Unit Report "Waste Not, Want Not".

  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action she will take to guarantee transparency in a successor to the landfill tax credit scheme. [106467]

  Mr. Meacher
  Details of the nature of the new public expenditure programme which will replace some parts of the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme will be made alongside the government's official response to the Strategy Unit report, which is planned for around the time of the budget.

  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what consultations she has held to ascertain the(a) nature and (b) scale of (i) the transitional rump fund and (ii) the successor scheme to replace the landfill tax credit scheme. [106468]

  Mir. Meacher
  Because the transitional rump fund is a short-term measure and had to be put into place very quickly there was no formal consultation. However, discussions with interested parties did take place and their views have been taken into consideration. As indicated in the Chancellor's Pre-Budget Report, the proposals in the Strategy Unit report "Waste Not, Want Not" have formed the basis of the consultation for the public expenditure scheme. A large number of stakeholders were involved in the production of that report and, since its publication, we have received a number of written comments.

  National Air Quality Strategy
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement about how the National Air Quality Strategy will be applied to coal fired power stations. [107035]

  Alun Michael
  The Government's policies and measures for reducing air pollution from industry, transport and other sources are set out in the 'Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland', published in January 2000 and the Addendum to the Strategy, published in February 2003. The Strategy contains ambient air quality standards for nine key pollutants and the dates between 2003 and 2010 by which they should be met. The Environment Agency is responsible for the regulation of larger power stations and other major industrial processes in England and Wales. The Environment Act 1995 requires that the
  5W
  Agency takes account of the requirements of the Air Quality Strategy in discharging its pollution control functions.

  The larger coal fired power stations are currently regulated by the Environment Agency through the Integrated Pollution Control ("IPC") regime. IPC was established by the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and regulates industrial pollution through a system of authorisation. IPC is being superseded by the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control ("IPPC") regime, which implements an EC directive of the same name. Power stations that came into operation before 31 October 1999 will be regulated by IPPC from 2006. New installations or those undergoing substantial change are required to apply for an IPPC permit with immediate effect.

  Sulphur dioxide from power stations is controlled by system emission limits that restrict the amount that can be discharged in any given year. Limits are set for individual sites and for companies operating several sites to take account of the potential for local air pollution and long-range pollution. In order that the combined impact of adjacent power stations and other sources will not lead to a breach of the objective, operators are required to develop a local air quality management and monitoring plan which will ensure adherence with the Air Quality Strategy by 2005.

  National Emissions Reduction Scheme
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her proposals for the National Emissions Reduction scheme; and if she will make a statement [106462]

  Alun Michael
  I assume that this question refers to implementation options under the revised Large Combustion Plant Directive (2001/80/EC) for plants that were in existence in 1987. We are currently considering whether to implement the revised Directive for these plants by the emission limits approach or by adopting a National Emissions Reduction scheme and will issue a consultation paper in due course. Measures under the Directive would apply to these plants from 2008.

  Pollution (Buckinghamshire)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many successful prosecutions have been undertaken since 6 February 2002 by the Environment Agency concerning pollution in Buckinghamshire. [106379]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Buckinghamshire constituency is covered by two of the Environment Agency's regions—Thames and Anglian.

  There were five prosecutions successfully concluded during the period. These comprised two cases involving fly-tipping, two cases involving breaches of the producer responsibility regulations—designed to encourage the recycling of waste packaging—and one case involving water pollution.

  Refrigerators
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much funding her Department has allocated to(a) Buckinghamshire county council and (b) Aylesbury Vale district council to assist with the costs of storing and processing refrigerators and freezers; and what plans she has to make further funds available. [106992]

  Mr. Meacher
  (a) Buckinghamshire County Council received £312,480 from Special Grant Report 109 to assist with the costs of storing and processing refrigerators and freezers in 2002–03. This was in addition to an allocation from the £6 million provided to waste disposal authorities in England for 1 January to 31 March 2002. Spending Review 2002 included future funding within the Environmental, Protective and Cultural Services block which will be distributed through Formula Standard Shares (FSAs).

  (b) Aylesbury Vale district council received no additional support as funds have been allocated to waste disposal authorities only.

  Rural Businesses
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total subsidies awarded to(a) farms and (b) non-farming rural businesses were in each of the last five years. [106673]

  Alun Michael
  It is not possible to differentiate subsidy payments between farms and non-farming rural business. The total direct aid payments made under the Common Agricultural Policy in England in each of the last five years were:

  Direct Aid Payments

  (£ billion)

  1998

  1.68

  1999

  1.61

  2000

  1.65

  2001

  1.69

  2002

  1.34

  The year in question relates to the EU financial year, which ends in October. The subsidies are payments made under the Guarantee section of the European

  Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund. Direct aid payments include internal market schemes covering principally fresh fruit and vegetables and milk and milk products.

  Tyre Recycling
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has for increasing the proportion of tyres recycled using carbon neutral methods. [104156]

  Mr. Meacher
  Government have supported research and development into a wide variety of projects looking to reuse and recycle tyres.

  Current projects include the use of tyres in coastal and river engineering schemes, improving the economics of granulating tyres by reducing the rubber contamination of the processed steel which should enable this steel to be

  7W
  beneficially used, the processing of tyres into fine rubber crumb by the use of ultra high pressure water, and research looking at the use of rubber crumb in asphalt mixes. There is also a study, developed in collaboration with the Institute of Civil Engineers, and supported by landfill tax credits monies, setting out the many potential civil engineering uses for tyres.

  Union Duties
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many staff in her Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies receive paid leave to undertake union duties; how many days they are allocated; and what has been the cost to public funds in 2002. [106733]

  Alun Michael
  In the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and its agencies, 353 staff have received paid leave to undertake union duties during the financial year 2002–03. The cost to public funds for this period is not yet available.

  Up to 25 days was available to each union representative to undertake trade union activities although the average claimed was less.

  For information, 378 staff received paid leave to undertake union duties during the financial year 2001–02. The cost to public funds was £540,507.

  In the time available and given the number of NDPBs for which Defra is responsible, it is not possible to confirm the position for all NDPBs at reasonable cost.

  Waste Management
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to set up a strategic waste forum to ensure co-ordination between(a) Government Departments, (b) local authorities, (c) the waste management industry and (d) the environmental sector. [106456]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government are keen to improve co-ordination with their partners and stakeholders. The Strategy Unit Report, 'Waste Not, Want Not' included recommendations aiming to improve co-ordination between Government, local authorities, and industry, for example to establish an industry forum, and to set up a multi-disciplinary task force to help and provide advice to local authorities.

  We have been considering our response to the Report, and plan to publish this shortly.

DEFENCE

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the Government's policy is on the possibility of NATO taking over operations of the ISAF in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement. [107119]

  Mr. Ingram
  We fully support the decision by Germany and the Netherlands to benefit from NATO assistance in their leadership of the International 8W
  Security Assistance Force (ISAF). We are examining with our NATO partners what scope there may be for the Alliance to widen its involvement with the ISAF.

  Anti-personnel Mines
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the potential use of anti-personnel mines in a conflict with Iraq. [102351]

  Mr. Hoon
  The United Kingdom, as a State Party to the Ottawa Convention, does not possess operational anti-personnel mines and will not use any in Iraq.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his estimate is of the expenditure of his Department on newspapers, magazines and periodicals in 2002. [106313]

  Dr. Moonie
  With the introduction of Resource Accounting and Budgeting, this information is no longer held centrally in the form requested. Expenditure on commercial and HMSO publications, including newspapers and periodicals, is now reported as one of a number of general administration costs and could only be separated out for financial year 2002–03 at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Grants
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [82189]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are no funds available through grants from the Ministry of Defence which individual members of the public or organisations may apply for. Such funding that is available relates mostly to professionally provided welfare, health and social services by charitable organisations such as the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association—Forces Help, who provide services at the specific request of the Ministry of Defence. Other organisations which received similar funding in the last financial year included the Women's Royal Voluntary Service and Relate. In financial year 2000–2001 the Ministry of Defence provided almost 18 million in grant funding to such organisations.

  Departmental Running Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the running costs in 2002 were of(a) his Ministers private offices, separately identifying expenditure on staff, and (b) his Department. [105989]

  Dr. Moonie
  The costs of running Ministers' private offices in financial year 2001–02 were as follows:

  (£ Million)

  Total (Including staff costs)

  Staff costs

  2.2

  2.1

  9W
  The net operating cost of the department as a whole, as reported in the 2001–02 Departmental Resource Account, was £32,239 million. This figure is on a resource basis and includes military and civilian personnel costs; property management and equipment support costs; stock consumption; depreciation, impairment of fixed assets and cost of capital charges. Figures for 2002–03 are not yet available but will be published in the forthcoming Departmental Resource Accounts.

  EUFOR
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many interpreters are serving with the EUFOR in Macedonia. [107120]

  Mr. Ingram
  The EU headquarters in Skopje for Operation Concordia has a complement of 12 locally-employed interpreters who will provide Macedonian and/or Albanian language skills.

  Friendly Fire
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his oral answer of 26 March 2003,Official Report, column 300, what steps he is taking to ensure that procedures to prevent friendly fire incidents work effectively in high intensity warfare. [106843]

  Mr. Hoon
  Our Combat Identification capability is designed to operate at all levels of warfare including high intensity operations. The specific measures we have taken to make our forces comparable to and compatible with those of the United States in Iraq assumed we would be participating in high intensity warfare. We will continue to pursue vigorously the programme of work described to the Public Accounts Committee last year, and learn the lessons from incidents of fratricide in current operations. However, no Combat Identification system is infallible and the possibility of fratricide cannot be entirely eliminated.

  Iraq
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements are being made to enable members of the public to send support parcels to troops in the Gulf. [106822]

  Mr. Ingram
  Airmail packets up to 2kg in weight may be sent to named individuals at a subsidised rate equivalent to Royal Mail first class inland postage charges. Due to capacity constraints, there are no parcel services available. I refer the hon. Member also to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 2 April 2003,Official Report, column 912, to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams).

  We encourage members of the public who wish to show their support to make use of the internet Bulletin Board at the BFPO website www.bfpo.org.uk or to make contributions to the UK Forces Gulf Fund.

  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent estimate has been made of the number of troops required to deliver humanitarian relief in Iraq. [106845]
  10W
  Mr. Ingram
  We have made very clear our commitment to the welfare and future of the people of Iraq, and United Kingdom forces will continue to deliver humanitarian relief to the full extent of their capability where it is needed and it is safe for them to do so. This is not, however, the primary role of our forces, which are structured for warfighting. As soon as the security situation stabilises enough for civilian aid agencies to deploy fully, we will hand responsibility for humanitarian assistance over to them.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to enable people in the UK to send parcels to service personnel serving in the Gulf free of charge once the situation becomes more stable. [106848]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 2 April 2003,Official Report, column 912, to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams).

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Iraqi PoWs are under the jurisdiction of British forces. [107115]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 3 April 2003,Official Report, column 782W, to the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman).

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the extra money announced for the prosecution of war in Iraq will be allocated to(a) mental health services and (b) counselling services for returning servicemen and women. [107169]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence does not maintain financial records to this level of detail. Therefore, this information could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, where such a need is identified and additional funding is necessary, it will be provided.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many coalition services personnel have been injured in operations in Iraq, broken down by country; and if he will make a statement. [107427]

  Mr. Ingram
  As at 3 April, we had sustained 39 United Kingdom battle casualties.

  Injuries sustained by other members of the coalition are a matter for them to comment on.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the status of(a) military and (b) civilian personnel captured by UK forces in the Gulf; and whether they will all enjoy the protection of the Geneva Convention. [107428]

  Mr. Ingram
  Any individuals captured or detained by United Kingdom forces in the Gulf will be afforded the appropriate status and enjoy the protection afforded by the Geneva Convention.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the daily handling capacity of each of the ports in southern Iraq is; what the estimated daily required(a) military supplies and (b) humanitarian supplies are; and if he will make a
  statement. [107495]
  11W
  Mr. Ingram
  There are six ports in southern Iraq. We are currently conducting an assessment of the facilities at one of these, Umm Qasr. Until this assessment is complete, we will not be able to determine its handling capacity. Reliable information on the handling capacity of the other ports in Iraq is not available.

  The requirement for military supplies varies according to the needs of the operation and supplies are provided in accordance with those needs. We have no immediate plans to deliver military supplies through Umm Qasr.

  While combat operations in southern Iraq continue, it will be very difficult to carry out a full assessment of the requirement for humanitarian aid. However, initial assessments suggest a requirement for water, medical supplies and, potentially, food.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role of NATO in post-conflict operations in Iraq. [107496]

  Mr. Hoon
  The issue of whether and how NATO may play a role in post-conflict Iraq will need to be considered carefully and in the light of developments in the region and at the United Nations.

  We welcome the positive dialogue on Iraq started at the NATO Foreign Ministers' meeting in Brussels on 3 April 2003, but would emphasise that no decisions have yet been taken. It is expected that NATO will take the discussions forward over the next few weeks.

  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the order of battle for the Iraq theatre of war. [107590]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Order of Battle for the Iraq theatre of operations comprises elements of all three Services, including reserves. On 3 April 2003, around 45,000 personnel were deployed in support of the operation. The maritime force consisted of around one-third of the combined vessels of the Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary. The amphibious package comprised Headquarters three Commando Brigade, 40 Commando Royal Marines and 42 Commando Royal Marines with supporting elements. The land force comprised Head Quarters 1(UK) Armoured Division, with support from 7 Armoured Brigade, 16 Air Assault Brigade and 102 Logistics Brigade. And the air package comprised a fixed wing force of around 100 aircraft and a rotary wing force from the Joint Helicopter Command of 77 helicopters.

  I will place a full Order of Battle in the Library of the House.

  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) British military personnel and (b) US military personnel have lost their lives in friendly fire incidents in Iraq; and how many of these personnel were killed involving friendly fire from (i) British personnel and (ii) US personnel. [107700]

  Mr. Ingram
  We cannot confirm numbers of dead until formal identification has taken place. As at 3 April, we believe we have sustained 28 United Kingdom deaths (including battle, accidental and natural causes) since operations began in Iraq. Until investigations are complete we are not able to comment on whether they are the result of friendly fire.
  12W
  Injuries sustained by other coalition members are a matter for them to comment on.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the hazard posed by unexploded cluster munitions to the reconstruction of Iraq following military action there. [102357]

  Mr. Ingram
  At this stage of the conflict in Iraq it is not feasible to make an accurate assessment of the effects of the use of cluster bombs.

  Unexploded cluster bombs, and indeed all unexploded ordnance, are a matter of humanitarian concern. As such, we are committed to working towards the clearance of explosive remnants of war as part of the reconstruction of Iraq.

  Military Activities (Animals)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many cetaceans, broken down by species, have been used by the Navy in each of the last 10 years; if he will list the activities carried out by such species; how many cetaceans have been killed while in the service of British forces as a result of military activity in each of the last 10 years; and if he will list the causes of death. [107242]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence has no programme utilising cetaceans to undertake any military activity.

  Operation Fresco
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the recent announcement by the Deputy Prime Minister that troops taking part in Operation Fresco have been stood down, whether these troops are available for alternative deployment overseas. [106995]

  Mr. Ingram
  The announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made clear that Armed Forces personnel assigned to Operation Fresco were being stood down only until 15 April, at which point they would be held at five days' notice to move. Consequently, they are not available for operations overseas as they continue to be committed to providing essential fire and rescue cover, should there be another strike.

  The Ministry of Defence does, however, keep the operation under constant review to ensure that emergency fire cover is provided effectively and with the minimum impact on the Armed Forces. Based on the experience of the last 15 days of strike action, it has been agreed with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association (CACFOA), the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and HM Fire Service Inspectorate (HMFSI) that a reduction in the number of Armed Forces personnel committed to Operation Fresco from some 19,000 to around 16,000 can now be made. This reduction is made possible by revising shift patterns, reducing manning levels on fire appliances and amalgamating a number of Joint Operational Control Centres.
  13W
  There will be no reduction in the effectiveness of the emergency cover arrangements or the total number of vehicles as a result of these changes. Nor will there be any increased risk to the public or the servicemen involved.

  Armed Forces personnel released by these measures will be able to undertake normal military training and other duties. The largest group will be the personnel who make up 20 Armoured Brigade who will deploy to the British Army Training Unit Suffield (BATUS) in Canada to conduct normal high readiness training.

  Royal Navy
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what financial resources are allocated to the Royal Navy to patrol the waters between Haiti and Turks and Caicos. [107281]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Royal Navy undertake a regular deployment to the Caribbean under the auspices of the Atlantic Patrol Task (North). The primary task for APT(N) is to provide a tangible United Kingdom presence in the Caribbean region to support our overseas territories and UK interests in the region while also being available to assist in the provision of Emergency Disaster Relief during the hurricane season. APT(N) also undertakes a range of additional tasks including Defence Diplomacy and Counter Drugs operations. These tasks may, from time to time, provide a Royal Navy presence in waters between Haiti and Turks and Caicos. No specific funds are however allocated to that task.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether possible ship losses are taken into account in his Department's policy on the requirement for Royal Navy warship and submarine numbers. [107118]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence's policy on the requirement for Royal Navy warships and submarines is based on a number of factors including the planned level of availability. This does not, however, include assumptions about potential complete losses.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Refrigeration
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission what coolant is used in the new House of Commons chillery. [106620]

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  The coolant used in the new chillers is HFC 134a. This is a hydrofluorocarbon gas, which has zero Ozone Depletion Potential and low Global Warming Potential, unlike chlorofluorocarbons or hydrochlorofluorocarbons.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  ARBRE
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the latest situation regarding the future of ARBRE. [107036]
  14W
  Mr. Wilson
  Officials are in discussion with the Liquidator, who is speaking further with the preferred bidder. An announcement on the outcome of these discussions is expected soon.

  The Government will work with the successful bidder to build on the early successes of ARBRE and ensure the long-term future of the project. The Government will consider proposals to reduce the technical risk of taking the project through to commercial operation.

  Many lessons have already been learnt as a result of ARBRE that can be applied to future high efficiency biomass plant, which are likely to be required if dedicated biomass plant are to be available in the medium term.

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent estimate she has made of the cost of(a) establishing and (b) administering an end-use arms control system. [106074]

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

  The Government do carry out end-use monitoring. This includes pre-licensing checks where information is obtained from a wide range of sources. Desk Officers have standing instructions to advise overseas posts of any approved arms licence that it is felt should be monitored post-export. Overseas posts have standing instructions to inform the UK of any suspected mis-use, or diversion, of UK arms exports. The Government are committed to carrying out post-export monitoring where this will genuinely add value to our efforts to minimise the risk of misuse and diversion.

  It is not possible to establish the cost of administering the system. A large proportion of end-use monitoring does not uncover mis-use, or diversion, of an export and the monitoring activity is therefore not recorded. In addition there are a high number of officials involved in the process, but they also have other responsibilities.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent estimates her Department has made of the number of deals concluded each year in military and paramilitary equipment by UK nationals outside the UK; which countries were party to these deals; and in which countries these deals were completed. [106083]

  Nigel Griffiths
  None. We are consulting on the proposed secondary legislation to be made under the Export Control Act 2002. A copy of the consultation document is available from the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what arms export licences have been approved for the sale of weapons to Ethiopia in the last year. [105621]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 31 March 2003]: Between 17 March 2002 and 17 March 2003, no Standard Individual Export Licence and one temporary Open Individual Export Licence had been issued, for the proposed export of items on the Military List to Ethiopia.

  Business Assistance
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many individuals and businesses have been assisted in Milton. Keynes, Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. [107154]

  Alan Johnson
  Business Link, the national business advice service provided by the Small Business Service an agency of the Department for Trade and Industry, has assisted the following number of established small and medium enterprises (sole traders or businesses with up to 250 employees) within the Milton Keynes, Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire areas:

  (a) 2001–02: 7,077;

  (b) 2002–03: 10,000 (estimate as final numbers for Q4 still being collated).

  In addition, they have provided services to the following number of individuals and pre-starts:

  (a)2001–02: 2,300;

  (b)2002–03: 3,200 (estimate as final numbers for Q4 still being collated).

  Credit Agencies
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the licensed money credit agencies in the UK; and if she will make a statement. [101284]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Consumer Credit Act licensing provisions cover a number of credit activities in addition to lending, for example, credit brokerage and debt collection.

  The number of traders in possession of a current licence to lend money under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is 102,476. The total number of current licences is approximately 215,000. (Traders can hold more than one category of licence). Since 1996, traders have been permitted to apply for a licence covering all the six categories licensable activity and, therefore, the figure I have just given will include traders who although licensed to do so, do not actually lend money. In addition, the Consumer Credit Act licensing provisions do not apply to traders who only lend amounts in excess of £25,000.

  Employment Rights Consultation
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to the answer of 27 March 2003,Official Report, column 341W, to the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when she intends to publish the results of the consultation on employment rights in relation to statutory employment rights, particularly as it affects the right of registration officers to be heard at industrial tribunals when they are unfairly dismissed. [106814]

  Alan Johnson
  The responses to the consultation on employment status in relation to statutory employment rights are being analysed. The DTI plans to publish its response later this year. This will outline any proposed changes, which would be subject to further consultation.

  Entertainment Costs
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and industry when she has entertained Labour hon. Members at public expense in the last 12 months; and at what cost. [106394]

  Ms Hewitt
  There have been no occasions when Labour hon. Members have been entertained at public expense in my Department.

  Export Licences (India)
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what criteria she uses to establish whether replacement component parts for nuclear power stations in India are capable of being diverted to military use; and whether these criteria changed between January 2001 and January 2003. [106183]

  Nigel Griffiths
  All export licence applications for India are rigorously assessed on a case-by-case basis against the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria, and in the light of the statement made by my hon. Friend, the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) the then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, on 15 March 2002,Official Report, columns 1296–98W. The consolidated criteria include a specific reference to the existence of a risk that the equipment will be diverted within the buyer country or re-exported under undesirable conditions.

  As part of the rigorous assessment process, specialist advisers in relevant advisory Departments consider all reliable information available at the time an application is submitted, to determine the risk of the items being used or diverted in contravention of the consolidated criteria.

  Nuclear Decommissioning
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the adequacy of resources held by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate to carry out its additional responsibilities required by the decommissioning programme planned for the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority; and what discussions she has had with the Chief Nuclear Inspector on this matter. [107664]

  Mir. Wilson
  Resourcing of the Health and Safety Executive's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate is a matter for the Health and Safety Commission and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. I understand the Health and Safety Executive is currently considering its resource requirements in the light of proposals for the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had no discussions with the Health and Safety Executive's Chief Inspector of Nuclear Installations on this matter.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which institution will hold the site licence for(a) the Sellafield MOX plant and (b) THORP, when their ownership is transferred to the new Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. [107665]
  17W
  Mr. Wilson
  As the White Paper on Managing the Nuclear Legacy (Cm5552) explained, for regulatory and operational reasons Sellafield will remain a single licensed site. As and when the NBA is established, I would expect the licence to remain with BNFL plc.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the policy commitment to transparency in the White Paper on the proposed nuclear liabilities management arrangements will apply to the publication of future contracts negotiated for(a) THORP and (b) the Sellafield Mox plant, once their operation is transferred to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. [107668]

  Mr. Wilson
  The basis on which the commitment to an open and transparent NBA should be implemented is one of the issues on which we will be seeking views from stakeholders prior to the NDA being established. The starting point is that information should be published unless there are good reasons for not doing so. It will be for the NDA to make those judgements and justify them as and when necessary.

  Nuclear Waste Liabilities
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the total cost to store Britain's nuclear waste in sites around the country was in the last year for which figures are available. [105593]

  Mr. Wilson
  Figures are not readily available in all cases but I understand the cost to store the UK's public sector nuclear waste to be of the order of £128 million last year. For some sites the capital cost of new stores and waste processing has been included.

  Post Offices
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many post offices there are in each parliamentary constituency; and how many of them transact more than 40 per cent. of their work from paying benefits and pensions. [107044]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on 9 January 2003,Official Report, column 299W.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) post offices and (b) sub-post offices there were in (i) the United Kingdom and (ii) each region in March (A) 1999, (B) 2000, (C) 2001 and (D) 2002. [107045]

  Mr. Timms
  I understand from Post Office Ltd. that the total numbers of post offices in the United Kingdom and each region/country is only available from March 2000 and are as follows:

  Region/Country

  March 2000

  March 2001

  March 2002

  North East

  739

  736

  726

  North West

  1,882

  1,853

  1,848

  Yorkshire and Humber

  1,583

  1,530

  1,509

  West Midlands

  1,479

  1,438

  1,414

  South West

  1,926

  1,880

  1,847

  South East

  2,267

  2,189

  2,153

  London

  1,233

  1,225

  1,209

  East of England

  1,706

  1,632

  1,611

  18W

  Region/Country

  March 2000

  March 2001

  March 2002

  East Midlands

  1,477

  1,420

  1,382

  Northern Ireland

  632

  611

  605

  Scotland

  1,999

  1,933

  1,907

  Wales

  1,470

  1,399

  1,373

  UK Total

  18,393

  17,846

  17,584

  Utility Disconnections
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many households(a) in England and Wales and (b) in the Buckinghamshire constituency have been disconnected by (i) water companies, (ii) electricity companies and (iii) telecommunications companies in each year since 1999. [106986]

  Mr. Wilson
  The number of disconnections by electricity companies in England and Wales was:

  For debt

  For theft

  Total

  1999

  373

  3,219

  3,592

  2000

  300

  3,004

  3,334

  2001

  375

  1,959

  2,334

  2002

  995

  2,494

  3,489

  Note:

  Disconnection data for telecommunications operators other than BT are not available, nor are the data available by regions.

  The total number of BT residential disconnections in the United Kingdom were:

  Number

  1999

  1,000,161

  2000

  1,060,993

  2001

  1,068,416

  2002

  1,034,390

  The net disconnections were:

  Number

  1999

  645,941

  2000

  705,738

  2001

  718,509

  2002

  571,112

  Note:

  Some households were disconnected more than once in a year.

  Information on disconnections on a constituency basis is not available.

  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has responsibility for the water industry. I understand that under the Water Industry Act 1999, water companies do not have the power to disconnect various categories of premises, including private dwellings.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL Parliamentary

  Parliamentary Questions
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Solicitor General when she will reply to the Question from the hon. Member for Cynon
  19W
  Valley of 24 February on a meeting on the prosecution of leading members of the Iraqi regime. [107573]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Attorney General is happy to meet the hon. Member as he always said he was. A meeting was arranged but had to be cancelled and a new one will now be fixed.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Lord Chancellor's Apartments
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much public money has been spent on the acquisition of artefacts for the Lord Chancellor's apartments in each year from 1997 to date. [96419]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Since 1997 to date, £105,317 has been spent on the acquisition of artefacts for the Lord Chancellor's apartments. These include a dining table, eight mirrors, three beds, and a Pugin designed crockery set. This money was spent as part of the refurbishment of the apartments in 1997/98 and forms part of the overall cost of the refurbishment, namely part of £580,000, not £650,000 as often erroneously stated. No public money has been spent on the Lord Chancellor's apartments since this time.

  I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my answer to question no. 96416 for further information.

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many staff were employed by her Department in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. [106975]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by the Minister of State, Cabinet Office on 4 April 2003,Official Report, column 891W.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

  National Audit Office
  30. Andrew Selous
  To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what plans he has to increase the budget of the National Audit Office to enable it to examine off-balance sheet Government accounting. [107111]

  Mr. Alan Williams
  The National Audit Office already examines whether financing arrangements and related assets should be on or off-balance sheet where the private sector provides assets or services to Government bodies. The National Audit Office does this as part of its annual audit of accounts. Any cost implications of this work will be reflected in the annual corporate plan submitted by the Comptroller and Auditor General in the summer, which the Commission will consider before the Summer Recess.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Rights of Way
  David Taylor
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners if he will make a statement on the implications of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 for church-owned land in England. [107086]

  Mr. Bell
  There have been four applications brought under this Act in connection with land owned by the Church Commissioners. Two of which they have objected to, and two of which they have conceded.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Lottery Funding
  12. Mr. Simon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, if she will take steps to introduce a distribution of National Lottery funding aimed at tackling social exclusion and regenerating deprived communities. [107057]

  Mr. Caborn
  Since the introduction of the 1998 Lottery Act and changes to policy directions, distributors have increasingly focussed on areas of social and economic deprivation. Fair Share is one such initiative designed to target funding at those deprived areas which have benefited least from the Lottery.

  Press Complaints Commission
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she last met the Press Complaints Commission to discuss its work. [107060]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not met the Press Complaints Commission recently, but she will be meeting Sir Christopher Meyer, the new chairman, on 7 April.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what powers OFCOM will have over the Press Complaints Commission. [107058]

  Tessa Jowell
  None. The Press Complaints Commission is an independent body overseeing the self-regulation of the newspaper industry. We continue to believe that self-regulation is preferable to any statutory measures.

  Cricket (Disabled People)
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on her Department's support for cricket for people with disabilities. [107059]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government funds sport for people with disabilities through the English Federation for Disability Sport (EFDS), which will receive £2 million from Sport England over the next year. The EFDS is presently considering whether to add cricket to its list of priority sports.

  Children's Play Facilities
  Ann Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what neighbourhoods will be prioritised in the review of children's play facilities for the New Opportunities Fund. [107061]

  Mr. Caborn
  No decisions have yet been made on this. The review is currently looking at the needs of areas which have inadequate play opportunities and groups of children who have limited access to play. A report with recommendations about priorities for play provision will be published this summer.

  Sport Facilities (Rural Colleges)
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assistance she is giving to support access to sporting facilities in rural colleges. [107062]

  Tessa Jowell
  The Government are fully committed to improving access to a wide range of sporting opportunities in all areas of the country, including rural areas. A number of initiatives including School Sport Co-ordinators, Spaces for Sport and the Arts and the New Opportunities Fund PE and Sport Programme will help to improve provision in rural areas.

  Entertainment Licences
  Dr. Desmond Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to promote the use of live music in pubs and clubs by reducing the cost of entertainment licences. [107063]

  Dr. Howells
  The Licensing Bill will do away with the current system of separate, annually renewable, public entertainment licences and establish a system under which a pub or club obtaining permission to sell alcohol will not pay anything extra to seek permission to provide live music.

  Tourism
  Mr. David
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and sport how the distinct identities of the Celtic nations will be promoted by the new UK-wide tourist body. [107065]

  Dr. Howells
  VisitBritain will build on the work of the BTA to market vigorously overseas each component part of Britain, ensuring that the strong and distinct brand identities are strengthened and developed in partnership with Britain's national and regional tourist boards.

  Churchill Museum
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will provide support for plans to build a Churchill Museum in the Cabinet War Rooms. [107247]

  Dr. Howells
  The creation of a museum in the Cabinet War Rooms dedicated to the life achievements and legacy of Sir Winston Churchill has been a long-term goal of the Imperial War Museum, which is sponsored by my Department. I fully support the Imperial War 22W
  Museum's aims and objectives for this museum, which will complete the development of the Cabinet War Rooms as a world class Heritage Resource.

  Departmental Annual Report
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the annual report of the Department will be published. [107870]

  Dr. Howells
  The DCMS annual report for the year 2002–03 will be published on 16 May 2003.

  Entertainment Licensing
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she has entertained Labour hon. Members at public expense in the last 12 months; and at what cost. [106400]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not entertained any Labour hon. Members at public expense in the last 12 months.

  Entertainment Licensing
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport whether it is her policy that common areas in(a) sheltered accommodation, (b) residential homes and (c) day centres should be subject to licensing when used by a one-person singing entertainer. [107588]

  Dr. Howells
  Under the provisions of the Licensing Bill, performances in sheltered accommodation, residential homes or day centres would not be licensable unless the public were able to attend, or a charge was made to those who attended with a view to do more than cover costs.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the estimated level of saving to the Department is from the use of market testing in 2002–03. [107758]

  Dr. Howells
  There have not been any contracts suitable for market testing over the past year.

  Public Libraries
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what funding was allocated in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03 from the DCMS/Wolfson Public Libraries Challenge. [107102]

  Dr. Howells
  2001–02 was the final year of the DCMS/Wolfson Challenge Fund. With £3 million of funding available, £2.28 million was allocated to reader development projects and £113,000 was allocated towards a British History programme. The Wolfson Foundation carried forward the remaining monies for other purposes.

  Sport (Deprivation and Youth Crime)
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on her Department's policies to help tackle deprivation and youth crime through sport. [106815]
  23W
  Mr. Caborn
  The Government believe that sport can play a valuable part in achieving a range of social objectives such as alleviating economic and social deprivation, reducing crime, improving health and tackling social exclusion. This policy was set out in The Government's Plan for Sport and re-iterated in the joint DCMS/Strategy Unit report Game—Plan published in December last year.

  A number of measures to-achieve these objectives are in place. The policy-directions issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State require Sport England, in considering applications for Lottery funding, to have regard to their scope for reducing economic and social deprivation, to promoting access to sport for people from all sections of society and to promoting a knowledge and interest in sport in children and young people. Programmes such as Space for Sport and the Arts, the New Opportunities Fund School PE and Sport funding, the PE, School Sport and Club Links initiative and the Community Club Development programme are all targeted at deprived areas and at under-represented groups such as people with disabilities, ethnic minorities and women.

  Sport England is involved in a range of initiatives and programmes which target deprivation and social inclusion. Its Lottery strategy provides for 50 per cent. of its funding to be directed to areas of greatest need and its Active Communities Development Fund specifically aims to increase participation amongst women and girls, people on low incomes, ethnic minorities and people with disabilities. It also works in close partnership with a range of organisations including the Home Office on Positive Futures, a programme which aims to reduce crime, anti-social behaviour and drug taking among 10–16 year olds, and the Commission for Racial Equality on the Sporting Equals programme which aims to promote racial equality in sport.

  Staff Union Duties
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture., Media and Sport how many staff in her Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies receive paid leave to undertake union duties; how many days they are allocated; and what has been the cost to public funds in 2002. [106771]

  Dr. Howells
  In 2002,14 staff within the Department and agencies received paid leave to undertake union duties; 425 days have been allocated and the estimated cost to public funds was £58,801.

  The timescale for response to this question does not allow for this information to be obtained for non-departmental public bodies.

  Sunset Clauses
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the sunset clauses included in legislation from her Department since 1997. [106941]

  Dr. Howells
  None of the Bills introduced by the Department since 1997 has contained sunset clauses.

  TV Licences
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when her Department will introduce the preserved rights scheme for TV licences in sheltered housing. [107046]

  Dr. Howells
  We have already done so. As announced on 11 March this year Official Report, column 10WS, the necessary amending regulations were laid on that date and came into force on 1 April.

PRIME MINISTER

  British Detainees (Saudi Arabia)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations he has made to the Saudi Government on behalf of the British citizens imprisoned in Saudi Arabia for alleged terrorist offences; whether he has sought the support of the United States Government on this matter; and what response he has received from the Saudi Government. [106920]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on Wednesday 12 March,Official Report, column 319W.

  Cabinet Meetings
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister whether the start and finish time of each meeting of the full Cabinet is recorded. [107542]

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Document Classification
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list each document requested by hon. Members and Members of the House of Lords that have been withheld from public disclosure under the Code of Practice Access to Government Information since the establishment of the Codes, with the relevant section in each case. [107222]

  The Prime Minister
  Requests for information are considered on an individual basis taking account of the requirements of the ministerial code, relevant statutes and the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. Therefore no such list is held as the cases are dealt with individually.

  With regard to written parliamentary questions, each year the Public Administration Select Committee publishes an annual report listing the cases where Ministers have withheld information and the justification under the Code of Practice for doing so.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list events at which his Department and each agency and non-departmental public bodies for which his Department is responsible have exhibited in each of the past three years, stating for each(a) the purpose of exhibiting, (b) the cost of exhibiting and (c) the number of staff attending for the exhibition. [107611]

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Iraq
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent assessment he has made of whether Iraq has(a) nuclear, (b) chemical and (c) biological weapons. [107194]

  The Prime Minister
  Assessments of whether Iraq has nuclear, chemical and biological weapons are constantly updated in the light of information received. We continue to believe that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, and that it is seeking to re-establish a nuclear weapons programme. Under UN Security Council Resolution 1441, the onus was placed firmly on Iraq to prove that it did not possess such weapons. It has failed to do so.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 2 April,Official Report, column 918, what the evidential basis was for his statement that the damage done to the holy sites at Najaf were perpetrated by forces of the Iraqi regime and not by the allied air forces of the 1991 Gulf War. [107532]

  The Prime Minister
  There are a number of independent sources which detail Saddam's damage to Shi'a holy sites in 1991. I refer my hon. Friend to the 1992 report of the UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Iraq (UN reference E/CN.4/1992/31) which is in the House Library.

  Syria/Iran
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what plans he has to meet the leaders of Syria and Iran; and what issues he plans to discuss; [107192]

  (2) what recent discussions he has had with the US administration regarding the Government's policy towards Syria and Iran; and if he will make a statement. [107191]

  The Prime Minister
  We have ongoing close consultations with the US Administration, including my own with President Bush, about the Middle East region as a whole, including Iran and Syria. With regard to both, the UK remains committed to a policy of constructive and, where necessary, critical engagement, which allows us to support reform while maintaining a robust dialogue on issues of concern. I have no current plans to meet either President Al-Assad or President Khatami.

  Websites
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the(a) cost of and (b) number of visitors to each website operated by his Department and each agency and non-departmental public body for which his Department is responsible in each year since its establishment. [107660]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr Cable) on 30 October 2002,Official Report, column 855W. Visitor numbers for the website for 2000 and 2002 are as follows:
  2000: 1,635,201 visitors who viewed a total of 17,347,966 pages
  2002: 3,312,879 visitors who viewed a total of 18,777,826 pages.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister what action he intends to take to address the political problems in Zimbabwe. [106919]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government want to see a democratically elected government in Zimbabwe following sound policies for the benefit of the people. We are deeply concerned at the recent violence in Zimbabwe.

  The Government have played a significant role in ensuring that the European Union have taken a strong position on Zimbabwe. This includes renewing measures targeted at the ZANU-PF elite—travel ban, assets freeze and arms embargo—and the suspension of non-humanitarian aid. The EU has most recently expressed its concern about human rights in Zimbabwe by issuing a strong statement on 28 March. The EU is sponsoring a resolution on Zimbabwe at theUN Commission on Human Rights, which is currently taking place in Geneva.

  The Government also support the Commonwealth Secretary General's decision to continue Zimbabwe's suspension from the Commonwealth's Councils, pending discussion at CHOGM in December. We are in close touch with the regional states to encourage them to use their own influence on Zimbabwe. My Noble Friend, Baroness Amos reaffirmed the importance of this in a speech in Pretoria on 31 March.

TREASURY

  Banking Services (Teenagers)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what research he has(a) conducted and (b) evaluated on the availability of (i) insurance and (ii) banking services to teenagers recovering from cancer. [107703]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury has not conducted or evaluated such research.

  Blood Products
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to bring the level of VAT on recombinant blood products in line with that in other European countries. [107589]

  John Healey
  Along with other EU member states, the UK exempts from VAT human blood, and human blood components and derivatives when these are used for therapeutic purposes. Synthetic 'blood' products, such as those that are genetically engineered, are not exempt from VAT because of long-standing formal agreements with our European partners. Some recombinant blood products are therefore liable to VAT at the standard rate. However, when dispensed to a patient by a pharmacist on the prescription of a medical practitioner, recombinant blood products are zero-rated for VAT.

  The European Commission and member states, including the UK, have considered whether the exemption for human blood products should be extended to cover chemically-produced derivatives and

  27W
  synthetic blood products. The European Commission has not yet brought forward proposals for change in this area.

  Communications Data
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the answer of 24 February 2003,Official Report, column 178W, on data access powers, how many applications for access to communications data there have been by (a) the Inland Revenue and (b) Customs and Excise, broken down by each piece of legislation (i) in the last year and (ii) since the enactment of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. [101022]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 has not yet come into force in relation to access to communications data by the Inland Revenue and HM Customs and Excise.

  In relation to the Data Protection Act 1998, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 17 October 2002, Official Report, column 938W.

  The Inland Revenue do not maintain specific records of access to communications data being sought under other legislation. In the year from 1 April 2002, the number of applications for access to communications data by HM Customs and Excise under other legislation is as follows:

  Legislation

  Number of applications

  VAT Act 1994, s.11

  18

  Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, s.1

  12

  Drugs Trafficking Act 1994, s.55

  33

  Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, s.118D

  22

  Criminal Justice Act 1988, s.93H

  1

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will meet the wine, spirit and beer sector to discuss the future application of HM Customs and Excise throughput rules for bonded warehouses; [106043]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact the bonded warehouse throughput rules will have on small and specialist wine distributors across the UK; [106039]

  (3) if he will require HM Customs and Excise to incorporate risk analysis and discretionary assessments into the decision-making process authorising bonded warehouses; [106041]

  (4) what effect the new guidelines for HM Customs and Excise rules on throughput criteria for bonded warehouses will have on the licensed trades industry; [106038]

  (5) if he will have discussions with the Chief Executive of Customs and Excise concerning the impact of bonded warehouse throughput rules on small and specialist wine distributors across the UK; [106040]

  (6) what representations he has received from wine and beer suppliers regarding Customs and Excise application of bonded warehouse throughput rules; [106044]
  28W
  (7) how many compliant businesses will be affected by HM Customs and Excise requirement to uncouple physically a shop selling duty paid goods from a bond maturing wines held in duty suspense. [106042]

  John Healey
  In line with its wider approach to keeping burdens on business to a minimum, the Government seek to ensure that regulatory requirements on the alcohol trade are fair and proportionate, offering as much flexibility to businesses as possible while preventing unacceptable revenue losses.

  The law endows Customs and Excise with the ability to exercise discretion over approvals of excise warehouses, and requires them to deploy that discretion in a fair, equitable and reasonable way. Customs have a responsibility to businesses to ensure consistency of treatment. To this end, they have developed and published a policy on the types of premises to which they would normally grant approval. One of the conditions for approval under this policy is that businesses must meet laid-down minimum throughput criteria, which have been in place since 1980, and which were converted into the current monetary criteria in 1996. There are, therefore, no new guidelines on throughput criteria for excise warehouses.

  These criteria help ensure that a fair balance is struck between facilitating the trade in allowing traders to store goods in duty suspense, and minimising the cost to the Exchequer of allowing duty to be deferred after production or importation of excise goods, and the cost of controlling these premises. Without throughput criteria, any off-licence, tobacconist or supermarket would be eligible for excise warehouse approval and would be able to store its stock without payment of duty up until the time it was removed to its shop shelves. This would increase costs for Customs in assuring and collecting the duty from such a large number of warehouses, would delay the duty point with a consequent effect on revenue cash-flow, and would potentially provide unacceptably widespread opportunities for alcohol fraud.

  To support this approach, a further condition was introduced which established that premises used for a retail business could not also be an excise warehouse. Details of this were published in the January 1996 edition of Customs' public notice on warehousing and duty suspension.

  As the Minister responsible for Customs and Excise, I have regular meetings with their Chairman and other Senior Managers. Ministers and officials meet representatives of the alcoholic drinks industries on a regular basis to discuss a wide range of issues affecting the sector, including their Budget representations. I have also recently received one letter containing representations about the effect of the throughput criteria on one wine trader.

  Data Protection
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether officials from(a) the Inland Revenue and (b) HM Customs and Excise who have access to records relating to electronic contacts between individuals have access to the content of such contacts; under what powers in (i) the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act

  29W
  2000 and (ii) other legislation access is permitted; how many requests for access were made in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [104521]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Although the Inland Revenue will have access to communications data under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (RIPA) 2000, that access will not extend to the contents of communications, whether electronic or otherwise. Under the Taxes Management Act 1970, in criminal investigations the courts can issue warrants and make orders that give the Inland Revenue access to evidence which may include the contents of electronic communications. The number of cases in which the contents of electronic communications were made available to the Inland Revenue as part of wider evidence gathered is not known as separate records are not kept on this specific issue.

  HM Customs and Excise, in the 12 months to date, have accessed the 'electronic contacts' of an arrested person by virtue of Production Orders under three pieces of legislation. There have been 12 orders raised against 19 accounts as follows:

  Legislation

  Number of times accessed

  Drugs Traflicking Act 1994, s.55

  10

  Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1982

  1

  Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, s.118D(1)

  1

  Departmental Pay
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made with the pay review in his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies for which he is responsible, with particular reference to the gender pay gap; and if he will make a statement. [106753]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Chancellor's Departments, agencies and non-departmental public bodies are committed to reviewing their pay systems in response to the Equal Opportunities Commission Task Force "Just Pay" report. Their progress in reviewing pay systems and preparing action plans in line with the guidance issued by the Cabinet Office is as follows:HM Customs and Excise and Inland Revenue have completed pay reviews.
  The Debt Management Office, the Office of Government Commerce, the Government Actuary's Department, the Royal Mint. National Savings and Investments, and the Valuation Office Agency will complete their pay reviews by the end of April.
  HM Treasury's equal pay review is progressing and the Office for National Statistics expects to report by the end of May.

  Economic Activity
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what rates of economic activity were recorded in each of the last five years in(a) the UK and (b) each region, broken down by (i) age and (ii) sex. [107430]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Sue Doughty, dated 7 April 2003:
  30W
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about economic activity rates. (107430)

  I am placing in the House of Commons Library, tables which give the information requested based on data from the Labour Force Survey (LFS). Table 1 shows estimates for the United Kingdom which have been interim reweighted to reflect the results of the 2001 Census. Comparable estimates for countries and regions within the UK will be available on 16 April 2003.

  LFS estimates for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the regions of England are available based on population estimates which have not yet been adjusted to reflect the 2001 Census results. These LFS estimates are shown in Tables 2–6.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what fiscal measures or instruments he plans to use to encourage(a) registered social landlords, (b) private landlords, (c) local authorities and (d) other public bodies acting as landlords to install the most efficient heating systems in their properties; [106791]

  (2)what plans he has to use (a) enhanced capital allowances and (b) other fiscal measures to assist energy services providers to contribute to the UK's environmental objectives; [106790]

  (3) what fiscal measures and instruments he plans to use to encourage the installation of the most efficient heating systems in domestic properties. [106812]

  John Healey
  The Government have already introduced a range of measures to promote energy efficiency in the home. Budget 2000 reduced the rate of VAT to 5 per cent. on the grant-funded installation of new central heating systems and heating appliances. Budget 2002 extended the reduced rate of VAT to the grant-funded installation of factory-insulated hot water tanks, micro combined heat and power systems, and renewable energy heating systems in the homes of the less well-off.

  Budget 2001 introduced 100 per cent. first-year enhanced capital allowances (ECAs) for designated energy-saving plant and machinery.

  The ECA scheme enables businesses to write-off the whole cost of their investment in designated energy-saving equipment against the taxable profits of the period during which the investment is made. In the commercial sector, energy service companies can claim ECAs on their spending on qualifying equipment. Special rules enable them to claim allowances where, as part of a comprehensive energy services agreement, they provide equipment that becomes a fixture on another person's land in which they have no interest.

  The Government's Affordable Warmth Programme supports the installation of modern energy efficient central heating systems in low-income homes, including registered social landlord homes. The equipment is leased to the landlord and where the equipment is designated energy-saving equipment. Special rules enable the lessor to claim the enhanced capital allowances. The benefit can be passed on in the form of lower rental charges.

  The Government consulted on economic instruments to improve household energy efficiency during 2002 and a summary of responses has been published on the

  31W
  Treasury website. In his pre-Budget report in November 2002 the Chancellor announced that the Government will consult further on specific measures to promote greater energy efficiency by households, once the responses to the initial consultation have been fully considered.

  The Government have also introduced other measures to improve energy efficiency and tackle fuel poverty in the domestic sector, including the Energy Efficiency Commitment (EEC) and Warm Front. This commitment requires gas and electricity suppliers to encourage and assist their domestic customers to reduce energy consumption and to meet targets for quantified energy savings. At least 50 per cent. of the benefits from the EEC currently go to households on income and disability related benefits.

  Since its launch in June 2000, the Warm Front Scheme, which provides packages of insulation and heating measures worth up to £2,500 to private sector households in receipt of certain benefits, has assisted over half a million households, helping improve the comfort levels and living conditions of some of the most vulnerable members of society.

  EU Directives
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the EU Directives and Regulations which have been implemented by his Department since 17 April 2002. [106827]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury plays a leading role in the UK's EU policy on financial services and tax. Since 17 April 2002, the Treasury has led on the implementation of 10 Directives:directive 2000/46/EC on the taking-up, pursuit of and prudential supervision of the business of electronic money institutions (implementation date: 27 April 2002);
  directive 2000/28/EC, amending Directive 2000/12/EC relating to the taking up and pursuit of the business of credit institutions
  (implementation date: 27 April 2002);
  directive 2001/44/EC, amending Directive 76/308/EEC on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims resulting from operations forming part of the system of financing the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, and of agricultural levies and customs duties and in respect of value added tax and certain excise duties (implementation date: 24 July 2002);
  directive 2000/31/EC on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market ('Directive on electronic commerce') (implemented by the Treasury as regards matters within the scope of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000: implementation date: 21 August 2002);
  directive 2000/26/EC on the approximation of the laws of the member states relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (Fourth Motor Insurance Directive) (implementation date: 19 January 2003);
  directive 2001/78/EC of 13 September 2001 amending Annex IV to Council Directive 93/36/EEC, Annexes IV, V and VI to Council Directive 93/37/EEC, Annexes III and IV to Council Directive 92/50/EEC, as amended by Directive 97/52/EC, and Annexes XII to XV, XVII and XVIII to Council Directive
  32W
  93/38/EEC, as amended by Directive 98/4/EC (Directive on the use of standard forms in the publication of public contract notices) (implementation date: 4 February 2003);
  directive 2002/38/EC and regulation 792/2002 regarding value added tax arrangements applicable to electronically supplied services and broadcasting;
  directive 2002/10/EC concerning the structure and rates of excise duty applied on manufactured tobacco;
  directive 2001/115/EC with a view to simplifying, modernising and harmonising the conditions laid down for VAT invoicing;
  Commission decision 2001/574, following directive 95/60/EC, establishing a common fiscal marker for gas oils and kerosene.

  I am not aware of any further directives being implemented since 17 April 2002, but the Department does not keep a central record of this information and it could be assembled only at disproportionate cost.

  EC Regulations are, in general, directly applicable in the member states, without the need for further incorporation into national law. However, some Regulations require UK measures to make them workable and enforceable. Some Regulations enact small or technical amendments. As far as we have been able to verify, the number of Regulations implemented by HM Treasury since 17 April 2002 is three:
  regulations (EC) No 1224/2002 and (EC) No 1643/2002, amending regulation (EC) No 310/2002 concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Zimbabwe (implementation date: 31 October 2002);
  regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 on cross-border payments in euro (implementation date: 25 March 2003).
  ED directives and Regulations are published in the Official Journal of the European Communities, which can be found at http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/.

  Fair Trade
  Mr. Barry Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exschequer if he will introduce concessions for Fair Trade companies for(a) capacity building activities and (b) capital investment programmes. [107736]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government are committed to supporting ethical trading wherever possible and provides significant support to the Fairtrade Foundation's efforts in promoting the supply and marketing of fair trade products. All taxes are kept under review and any proposals for new taxes and tax reliefs will be considered as part of the normal Budget process. Since 1997 the Government have introduced incentives to benefit all companies including, cuts in the rates of corporation tax and permanent 40 per cent. first year allowances.

  Health Insurance
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assessment he has made of the impact on low income families of his decision to end the tax exemption of trading surpluses of non-mutual, not-for-profit health cash plan providers; [105851]

  (2) what representations he received from commercial insurers prior to ending the tax exemption of trading surpluses of non-mutual, not-for-profit health cash plan providers in relation to that change; [105850]
  33W
  (3)what tax revenue assumptions he made in deciding to end the tax exemption of trading surpluses of non-mutual, not-for-profit health cash plan providers. [105856]

  John Healey
  There has been no change to the underlying tax rules that are used when determining the mutual trading status of health cash plan providers. Tax exemption continues to apply to providers which meet the requirements for mutual trading or which have amended their constitutions and membership rules in order to comply with them.

  The Inland Revenue reviewed the status of these organisations in 2000, following an inquiry which discovered that the conditions of mutual trading were not being met by some providers. During that review, the Inland Revenue considered whether the necessary legal requirements of mutuality were being met in cases where mutual trading had been claimed.

  No representations were made to Treasury Ministers during the Inland Revenue review. Inland Revenue held discussions with the representative body of these providers, and offered not to apply the changed treatment retrospectively and to allow a grace period for the providers to decide how to operate in future. No assessment can be made of the impact of this review, which will depend on decisions taken by individual providers.

  Higher Rate Tax Payers (Buckingham)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many higher rate tax payers there were in the Buckingham constituency in(a) 2000, (b) 2001 and (c) 2002–03. [107776]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There were around 10,000 higher rate income taxpayers in the constituency of Buckingham in the 2000–01 tax year. This estimate is based on the Survey of Personal Incomes. I regret that estimates are not available for later years.

  No. 11 Downing Street
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many times No. 11 Downing street has been used for charitable causes in the last year; which organisations were involved; and how much was raised. [105661]

  Ruth Kelly
  Nine charitable events have been held at No. 11 in the last year. Events were held for the National Council for One Parent Families, Parentline, Family Services Units, Community Links, Charity Bank, National Deaf Children Society, Maggie's Centres, Streetsmart and the Special Olympics.

  Funds are not raised at charitable events held at No. 11. Fund raising is a matter for the charities concerned.

  Pensioners
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the percentage of pensioners in the population of each parliamentary constituency. [107432]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.
  34W
  Letter from Len Cook to Sue Doughty, dated 7 April 2003:

  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question concerning the percentage of pensioners in each parliamentary constituency, (107432)

  The Office for National Statistics does not produce mid-year population estimates on parliamentary constituency boundaries. Results from the 2001 Census have not yet been published at this geographic level.

  The smallest area level for which we produce mid-year population estimates is for local authorities. In view of this, I am placing in the House of Commons Library, a table which shows the percentage of people of pensionable age in each local authority in England and Wales.

  Self-assessment
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the total cost of income tax collection in the latest year for which information is available per self-assessment taxpayer. [104758]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In general, the costs of collecting self-assessment tax are minimal because it is sent in voluntarily by the due date by most taxpayers. In relation to tax paid late, the Inland Revenue estimates that the average cost of collecting self-assessment income tax in 2001–02 was £3.58 per self-assessment taxpayer. This figure is based on the total pay costs for the staff and managers concerned.

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff were employed by his Department in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. [106980]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer the Minister of State, Cabinet Office gave him on 4 April 2003,Official Report, columns 891–92W.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about the Tax Credits (Interest Rate) Regulations. [107787]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No representations have been received.

CABINET OFFICE

  Civil Service (Training)
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will arrange for each member of the civil service to be trained in the provisions and application of the(a) Freedom of Information Act 2000 and (b) Data Protection Act 1998. [107543]

  Mr. Alexander
  The training of civil servants in the provisions and application of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Data Protection Act 1998 is a matter for individual Departments. Further information about the activities by Departments to train civil servants in readiness for the Freedom of Information Act 2000 can be found in section 6 in the
  35W
  most recent annual report by the Lord Chancellor on progress towards implementation of the Act (HC 6 November 2002).

  EU Directives
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list the EU Directives and Regulations which have been implemented by his Department since 17 April 2002. [1068301

  Mr. Alexander
  The Cabinet Office has not implemented any EU Directives or Regulations since 17 April 2002.

  Staff Union Duties
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many staff in his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies receive paid leave to undertake union duties; how many days they are allocated; and what has been the cost to public funds in 2002. [106737]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Cabinet Office has one full time local union representative.

  Cabinet Office agencies have one officer who spends part of their time undertaking union duties on an ad hoc basis, but does not have time formally allocated to them for this work.

  Cabinet Office non-departmental public bodies have no such staff.

  The total cost to public funds in 2002 was £32,507.

HOME OFFICE

  Asylum Seekers (Bela River)
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to use the former Bela River prison camp, between Milnthorpe and Holme in Cumbria, as a dispersal centre for asylum seekers. [106891]

  Beverley Hughes
  There are currently no plans to use the Bela River prison camp as accommodation for asylum seekers. This should not be taken to mean that we would never use the accommodation in connection with housing for asylum seekers. If the accommodation were to be offered to us we would consider its potential use in the light of our needs at that time.

  Command Paper 5778
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which(a) departments, (b) local authorities and (c) voluntary organisations his Department consulted in drafting Command Paper 5778. [106781]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The White Paper "Respect and Responsibility", published on 12 March, sets out the Government's vision for tackling anti-social behaviour.
  36W
  The White Paper represents a cross-cutting agenda being taken forward by a number of Government Departments. It has been informed by the experience of local authorities, the police, voluntary organisations, and communities up and down the country. We will continue to work closely with local authorities, the police and others to ensure that effective action is taken to deal with anti-social behaviour.

  Entitlement Cards
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many submissions were made to the Entitlement Cards consultation; and if he will place copies in the Library; [106906]

  (2) whether he intends to publish a summary of responses to the Entitlement Cards consultation. [106907]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 4 April 2003]: A final assessment of all responses received during the consultation period is still being undertaken, but the figure is well in excess of 2,000.

  Copies of every response received will not, as a matter of routine, be placed in the Library. It would be disproportionate in cost to provide such a large volume of paper records.

  In accordance with current policy on written public consultation, we will be publishing a summary of the views received and individual contributions will be made available on request, unless the contributor has asked for confidentiality or that such publication would unfairly affect third party interests or privacy.

  EU Directives
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the EU Directives and Regulations which have been implemented by his Department since 17 April 2002. [106842]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Home Office plays a leading role in the UK's EU policy on asylum and immigration. Since 17 April 2002, the Home Office has implemented, on the basis of provisions in existing legislation, Council Directive 2001/51/EC of 28 June 2001 supplementing the provisions of Article 26 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement. Notification to the effect was sent to the Commission on 16 January 2003.

  EC Regulations are, in general, directly applicable in the member states, without the need for further incorporation into national law. However, some Regulations may require UK measures to make them workable and enforceable. The legislative changes required to implement the EURODAC Regulation were made in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, effective from 11 December 2000, by virtue of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (Commencement No. 8 and Transitional Provisions) Order 2000. Implementation was completed when the centralised EURODAC fingerprint database became operational on 15 January 2003.

  Police
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on funding of non-territorial police forces. [107145]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Home Office has lead responsibility for the police forces covered by the Police Acts 1996 and 1997. Lead responsibility for other police forces resides with the relevant Government Department. However, wherever there are issues, including funding issues, that impact either on the relationship between such non-territorial police forces and the regular police forces in England and Wales, or on policing generally, the Home Office will discuss these issues with the relevant lead Department to endeavour to deliver the best joined-up policing on the ground.

  Police authorities estimated and actual net expenditure 1996–97 to 1998–99

  £ million

  Estimates 1996–97

  Actuals 1996–97

  Difference

  Estimates 1997–98

  Actuals 1997–98

  Dfference

  Estimates 1998–99

  Actuals1998–99

  Difference

  Avon and Somerset

  154.62

  152.09

  -2.53

  160.66

  152.67

  -7.99

  167.42

  162.73

  -4.69

  Bedfordshire

  57.54

  56.63

  -0.91

  59.79

  58.57

  -1.22

  62.32

  61.78

  -0.54

  Cambridgeshire

  66.23

  65.02

  -1.21

  69.29

  68.68

  -0.61

  71.23

  73.43

  2.20

  Cheshire

  97.13

  94,18

  -2.95

  101.79

  104.00

  2.2I

  106.52

  107.09

  0.57

  City of London

  59.69

  57.32

  -2.37

  61.69

  57.89

  -3.80

  60.86

  60.35

  -0.51

  Cleveland

  76.69

  73.12

  -3>57

  78.89

  75.43

  -3.46

  82.28

  81.30

  -0.98

  Cumbria

  58.22

  56.86

  -1.36

  59.99

  61.71

  1.72

  63.00

  62.53

  -0.47

  Derbyshire

  92.04

  90.42

  -1.62

  96.21

  95.64

  -0.57

  100.89

  100.06

  -0.83

  Devon and Cornwall

  153.50

  150.39

  -3.11

  158.01

  155.44

  -2.57

  167.12

  166.33

  -0.79

  Dorset

  68.06

  67.83

  -0.23

  70.04

  69.73

  -0.31

  73.50

  73.12

  -0.38

  Durham

  70.70

  68.04

  -2.66

  73.70

  75.17

  1.47

  78.10

  74.67

  -3.43

  Dyfed-Powys

  48.81

  47.87

  -0.94

  50.48

  50.95

  0.47

  52.61

  50.04

  -2.57

  Essex

  154.98

  151.41

  -3.57

  161.02

  157.49

  -3.53

  168.89

  156.82

  -12.07

  Gloucestershire

  58.62

  58.42

  -0.20

  60.80

  58.63

  -2.17

  63.78

  62.86

  -0.92

  Greater Manchester

  343.71

  341.17

  -2.54

  355.13

  353.32

  -1.81

  371.50

  354.17

  -17.33

  Gwent

  61.85

  57.74

  -4.11

  65.16

  64.60

  -0.56

  67.92

  67.66

  -0.26

  Hampshire

  175.58

  172.85

  -2.73

  182.51

  180.80

  -1.71

  190.92

  186.66

  -4.26

  Hertfordshire

  90.43

  88.86

  -1.57

  93.95

  93.01

  -0.94

  97.86

  95.07

  -2.79

  Humberside

  102.80

  99.72

  -3.08

  107.80

  106.22

  -1.58

  111.59

  112.57

  0.98

  Kent

  164.22

  161.63

  -2.59

  170.63

  174.21

  3.58

  178.92

  175.58

  -3.34

  Lancashire

  164.64

  161.87

  -2.77

  171.34

  169.28

  -2.06

  178.05

  177.31

  -0.74

  Leicestershire

  94.72

  92.85

  -1.87

  97.45

  98.79

  1.34

  102.71

  102.80

  0.09

  Lincolnshire

  63.32

  61.51

  -1.81

  65.78

  66.18

  0.40

  68.32

  66.66

  -1.66

  Merseyside

  225.71

  221.17

  -4.54

  235.03

  224.33

  -10.70

  245.28

  240.27

  -5.01

  Metropolitan Police

  1,685.65

  1,683.18

  -2.47

  1,706.60

  1,676.62

  -29.98

  1,778.00

  1,716.43

  -61.57

  Norfolk

  76.16

  75.55

  -0.61

  80.77

  80.22

  -0.55

  82.34

  80.54

  -1.80

  North Wales

  69.34

  68.27

  -1.07

  72.04

  70.92

  -1.12

  75.08

  72.48

  -2.60

  Northamptonshire

  61.78

  59.25

  -2.53

  64.77

  64.61

  -0.16

  67.13

  67.06

  -0.07

  North Yorkshire

  69.98

  67.04

  -2.94

  73.46

  71.84

  -1.62

  75.64

  75.34

  -0.30

  Northumbria

  188.22

  186.41

  -1.81

  195.29

  195.09

  -0.20

  205.38

  205.27

  -0.11

  Nottinghamshire

  114.83

  113.59

  -1.24

  119.*4

  120.56

  0.88

  124.83

  127.02

  2.19

  South Wales

  151.52

  147.46

  -4.06

  156.80

  159.41

  2.61

  163.43

  160.94

  -2.49

  South Yorkshire

  156.90

  150.95

  -5.95

  162.95

  166.03

  3.08

  168.21

  167.16

  -1.05

  Staffordshire

  110.33

  107.83

  -2.50

  115.25

  110.26

  -4.99

  122.54

  116.23

  -6.31

  Suffolk

  62.44

  60.97

  -1.47

  64.77

  63.68

  -1.09

  65.79

  66.10

  0.31

  Surrey

  87.36

  85.35

  -2.01

  90.74

  90.98

  0.24

  90.74

  91.43

  0.69

  Sussex

  149.95

  150.63

  0.68

  156.39

  157.63

  1.24

  162.66

  161,85

  -0.81

  Thames Valley

  204.39

  201.40

  -2.99

  212.16

  210,33

  -1.83

  221.14

  209.68

  -11.46

  Warwickshire

  49.41

  47.69

  -1.72

  51.45

  51.00

  -0.45

  53.62

  52.02

  -1.60

  West Mercia

  103.59

  102.08

  -1.51

  107.70

  107.79

  0.09

  112.88

  113.76

  0.88

  West Midlands

  345.57

  337.99

  -7.58

  357.17

  360.13

  2.96

  372.30

  368.61

  -3.69

  West Yorkshire

  262.19

  265.23

  3.04

  273.21

  281.75

  8.54

  280.74

  277.99

  -2.75

  Wiltshire

  61.85

  59.99

  -1.86

  65.25

  58.54

  -6.71

  66.67

  68.81

  2.14

  Total

  6,715.28

  6,619.83

  -95.45

  6.933.59

  6,870.13

  -63.46

  7,220.71

  7,070.58

  -150.13

  38W
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the(a) overspend and (b) underspend was for each police authority in England and Wales in each year since 1996–97. [91102]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 16 January 2003]: The table compares initial estimates and actual net expenditure, before movements in reserves, for each police authority from 1996–97 to 2000–01, the most recent year for which actual expenditure has been published.

  Police authorities meet net expenditure from general grants, precepts and reserves. In the light of events during the year, net expenditure will often differ from initial estimates.
  39W

  £million

  Estimates 1999–2000

  Actuals 1999–2000

  Difference

  Estimates2000–01

  Actuals 2000–01

  Difference

  Avon and Somerset

  174.42

  174.34

  -0.08

  181.21

  180.52

  -0.69

  Bedfordshire

  64.03

  63.61

  -0.42

  66.43

  64.90

  -1.53

  Cambridgeshire

  75.36

  75.05

  -0.31

  79.24

  77.89

  -1.35

  Cheshire

  111.09

  113.28

  2.19

  114.58

  115.24

  0.66

  City of London

  58.72

  57.85

  -0.87

  58.95

  57,72

  -1.23

  Cleveland

  85.40

  85.26

  -0.14

  85.60

  86.68

  1.08

  Cumbria

  64.69

  64.79

  0.10

  67.40

  67.25

  -0.15

  Derbyshire

  107.04

  105.59

  -1.45

  110.82

  105.56

  -5.26

  Devon and Cornwall

  173.65

  175.06

  1.41

  182.87

  178.30

  -4.57

  Dorset

  77.75

  76.96

  -0.79

  81.00

  79.71

  -1.29

  Durham

  80.71

  79.66

  -1.05

  85.78

  81.18

  4.60

  Dyfed-Powys

  56.14

  56.00

  -0.14

  59.28

  57.98

  -1.30

  Essex

  171.59

  167.97

  -3.62

  184.49

  181.41

  -3.08

  Gloucestershire

  65.93

  65.76

  -0.17

  68.70

  68.16

  -0.54

  Greater Manchester

  387.26

  374.80

  -12.46

  400.00

  385.75

  -14.25

  Gwent

  71.41

  70.83

  -0.58

  76.14

  75.34

  -0.80

  Hampshire

  196.96

  197.48

  0.52

  202.53

  206.55

  4.02

  Hertfordshire

  102.36

  104.45

  2.09

  120.95

  121.09

  0.14

  Humberside

  114.31

  113.94

  -0.37

  119.90

  116.47

  -3.43

  Kent

  186.23

  186.26

  0.03

  193.13

  195.98

  2.85

  Lancashire

  182.68

  182.00

  -0.68

  190.18

  191.35

  1.17

  Leicestershire

  106.28

  107.26

  0.98

  110.15

  110.80

  0.65

  Lincolnshire

  69.97

  69.38

  -0.59

  72.73

  73.67

  0.94

  Merseyside

  249.52

  248.41

  -1.11

  257.11

  255.59

  -1.52

  Metropolitan Police

  1,840.25

  1,838.89

  -1.36

  1,837.57

  1,890.99

  53.42

  Norfolk

  86.87

  87.18

  0.31

  91.51

  91.69

  0.18

  North Wales

  80.51

  78.70

  -1.81

  84.02

  83.91

  -0.11

  Northamptonshire

  70.43

  69.15

  -1.28

  73.08

  74.63

  1.55

  North Yorkshire

  78.09

  78.18

  0.09

  83.75

  84.17

  0.42

  Northumbria

  213.01

  212.70

  -0.31

  218.39

  214.24

  -4.15

  Nottinghamshire

  130.17

  129.47

  -0,70

  134.30

  133.57

  -0.73

  South Wales

  169.97

  169.91

  -0.06

  179.82

  180.83

  1.02

  South Yorkshire

  173.93

  176.01

  2.08

  181.05

  178.14

  -2.91

  Staffordshire

  127.47

  127.00

  -0.47

  126.96

  125.65

  -1.31

  Suffolk

  70.54

  70.51

  -0.03

  74.06

  72.26

  -1.80

  Surrey

  100.38

  100.09

  -0.29

  120.13

  123.50

  3.37

  Sussex

  165.80

  165.56

  -0.24

  172.51

  173.54

  1.03

  Thames Valley

  232.73

  227.02

  -5.71

  236.95

  232.57

  -4.38

  Warwickshire

  56.16

  55.16

  -1.00

  59.01

  56.12

  -2.89

  West Mercia

  116.49

  111.45

  -5.04

  125.70

  121.30

  -4.40

  West Midlands

  380.97

  381.48

  0.51

  395.10

  385.98

  -9.12

  West Yorkshire

  288.87

  286.09

  -2.78

  304.13

  297.75

  -6.38

  Wiltshire

  69.72

  69.82

  0.10

  71.98

  70.47

  -1.51

  Total

  7,485.86

  7,450.36

  -35.50

  7,739.18

  7,726.40

  -12.78

  Source:

  The chartered institute of public finance and accountancy police statistics 1996–97 to 2000–01 (Actuals).

  Net expenditure is service expenditure less specific income and receipts, before movements in reserves.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  HIV/AIDS
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what efforts the UK Government is making to improve the understanding by overseas governments of the challenge facing the states of Africa in tackling HIV and AIDS. [106763]

  Clare Short
  There are a number of ways in which the UK Government are improving understanding of the challenges faced by African countries in tackling HIV and AIDS. Working at a country level, many of our bilateral programmes are supporting National AIDS Councils to generate knowledge–helping to build capacity in developing strategies that are based on sound evidence, to prevent the spread of HIV, care for those already living with HIV/AIDS, and to mitigate 40W
  against the impact of the disease. At a regional level, the International Partnership against AIDS in Africa (IPAA), a DFID funded initiative, is also helping to build governments' understanding of the epidemic so they can scale up their country responses, and assisting in the sharing of lessons learnt across the region.

  More specifically, in South Africa DFID is co-funding (with USAID and AusAid) a number of research papers into the economic impact of HIV/ AIDS. We plan to undertake similar knowledge generation in Kenya and Malawi.

  My Department is also supporting the UNAIDS' initiative 'AIDS In Africa—Scenarios for the Future'. This innovative project aims to map out the possible impact of HIV/AIDS epidemic on Africa in the next 20 years in order to identify what needs to be done to alter the course of events.
  41W
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support her Department is giving to(a) governments and (b) non-governmental organisations in Africa to combat the spread of HIV and AIDS. [106761]

  Clare Short
  My Department recognises that HIV/ AIDS is a terrible human catastrophe and is one of the most important development challenges facing Africa Over £180 million was committed to programmes focusing on HIV/AIDS and sexual health interventions in sub-Saharan Africa last year, with intensive bi-lateral action in Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique. Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Over £25 million has been committed to support the International Partnership Against AIDS in Africa (IPAA) initiative—a regional, Africa-led initiative aimed at building Governments' national responses to the AIDS crisis, with a focus on Ethiopia. Rwanda, Burundi, and Ghana. In addition to working with governments, DFID also supports the efforts of non-governmental and civil society organisations in their efforts at preventing the spread of HIV, caring for those already living with the disease, and working to mitigate the impact of HIV/AIDS on people's lives. Support is given through DFID's Challenge Fund and Partnership Programme Agreements, with international NGOs, as well as directly to local NGOs and civil society organisations through our in-country programmes.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support her Department is giving to international efforts to overcome the threat of starvation in Zimbabwe.[106764]

  Clare Short
  I have contacted all OECD Development Ministers to ask them to do more to help Zimbabwe and have increased the UK's contribution, which now stands at £51 million since September 2001. As a part of this, DFID has provided £18.3 million in support of the World Food Programme's emergency operation, which is currently feeding almost five million Zimbabweans. My Department has also been active in supporting the wider work of the UN, assisting in their analysis of needs, the design of relief efforts, and helping support UN logistical and management capacity.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support her Department is giving to(a) the Government and (b) non-governmental organisations in Zimbabwe to combat the threat of mass starvation. [106762]

  Clare Short
  Donors work through the UN and non-governmental channels in Zimbabwe, and do not support the Government's programme which is not operated transparently.

  DFID has provided £3.75m for NGO feeding direct NGO programmes since September 2001, which are currently providing supplementary food to more than 1.5 million vulnerable Zimbabweans per day. We have also provided £5m through NGOs for seeds and fertilizer to help increase food production this year.

  Advertising Campaigns
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her Department's total spending was on advertising and promotional campaigns between April 2002 and March 2003; and what the cost of each campaign was, broken down by costs relating to(a) television, (b) radio and (c) print media. [106437]

  Clare Short
  Between April 2002 and March 2003, DFID spent £292,957 on promotional activity to raise development awareness, and £137,837 on the promotion of initiatives such as DFID's Public Service Agreement and HIV/AIDS Awareness to DFID staff in the UK and overseas. The total spending on advertising in print media relating to recruitment and contract procurement during the same period was £1,146,000.

  These figures are subject to final auditing to take account of any end of year adjustments.

  There was no expenditure on television or radio advertising in this period.

  Afghanistan
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much money was pledged by donors in Tokyo for Afghan reconstruction in 2002; how much money has been received for Afghan reconstruction; and how much of this money has been spent on (i) relief and (ii) reconstruction and development. [106917]

  Clare Short
  At the Tokyo conference in January 2002 donors pledged US$4.5 billion for reconstruction and humanitarian assistance over one to five years. As some donors made multi year pledges it is difficult to place a specific figure on how much of this aid was designated for 2002. However, over $1.8 billion was disbursed last year, with many donors providing more than their single year pledges or front-loading multi year pledges.

  It is very difficult to sustain a meaningful distinction between relief and reconstruction and development assistance to Afghanistan. We estimate that up to 50 per cent. of assistance last year was for humanitarian assistance. The trend towards a larger proportion of assistance being directed towards long term development will continue in the next and future years.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the slum areas arising around Kabul, Herat and other Afghan cities, with particular reference to the humanitarian conditions in these slum areas. [106918]

  Clare Short
  Urbanisation is a common phenomenon in developing countries in Asia. The situation is made particularly acute in Afghanistan by a combination of a shortage of shelter, due to the destruction of buildings caused by decades of conflict, and an increase in demand, caused by internal displacement of people to the cities and the return of 1.7 million Afghan refugees in 2002. 1.2 million more are expected to return in 2003. Limited or lack of employment opportunities in the rural areas add to the problem, with many rural inhabitants migrating to the cities.
  43W
  Lack of adequate shelter in informal urban settlements is a major humanitarian concern in Afghanistan. This was particularly serious during the recent winter months. The UN, working with local Afghans as well as international NGOs, have been providing assistance to meet humanitarian needs throughout Afghanistan, including in these urban areas and in particular through their recent successful Winterisation Programme. For example, UNHCR is assisting in the sustainable re-integration of returning refugees. Their assistance includes immediate needs including cash, and shelter kits. UNICEF is also working to provide shelter, water/sanitation, health, nutrition, and education.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the rights of Afghan women outside Kabul. [106923]

  Clare Short
  The rights of Afghan women remain a concern throughout Afghanistan, although we welcome the recent signing on 5 March of the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). The UK will help Afghanistan to implement CEDAW, with access to services by women and girls being monitored as in those reconstruction programmes that we support. Access to healthcare and education for women and girls in rural areas continues to be a problem, although 1.5 million girls have returned to school as part of the ATA and UNICEF's Back-to School programme.

  Women's rights and access to services often vary between regions and provinces, however. In the north, for example, women hold senior positions in local government ministries and have influence in the local community. About a third of teachers in the north are women, and mixed classes of boys and girls are permitted. Approximately 30 per cent. of the students are girls.

  In other areas of the country, with different ethnic balances and different cultural and religious norms the situation is less advanced. We are concerned about the recent decree from Ishmael Khan in Herat, enforcing strict gender segregation in schools. As there is a shortage of female teachers in Herat, we understand that this may prevent women and girls from receiving an education.

  Burundi
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of(a) political stability and (b) the humanitarian situation in Burundi. [106928]

  Clare Short
  Despite the 2 December 2002 ceasefire agreement with the FDD, fighting continues in Burundi. Moreover the FNL still remain outside the peace process. We welcome President Buyoya's decision to step down on 1 May, thereby honouring the provisions of the Arusha Accord settingup the transitional government. The early deployment of the African mission force is central to achieving a full ceasefire and the smooth transition of power after the 1 May 44W
  handover. The UK is working actively within the UN and with regional leaders to achieve this and we are ready to contribute to the costs involved.

  The humanitarian situation in Burundi is very poor, with very high levels of disease, high rates of malnutrition and, resulting from this, high levels of mortality. There are serious problems of access to some communities. DFID committed £1.9 million to Burundi last financial year, made up of £1 million in humanitarian interventions and £0.9 million for peace building activities. Our humanitarian interventions have focused on nutrition and health support, channelled through international NGOs and UN agencies. The EC provided humanitarian funding totalling US$ 15.7 million (about £10.12 million) in 2002. The 2003 Community budget for humanitarianassistance totals US$ 15 million (about £9.67 million).

  Departmental Pay
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made with the pay review in her Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies for which she is responsible, with particular reference to the gender pay gap; and if she will make a statement. [106754]

  Clare Short
  The Department has just substantially completed its equal pay audit of staff below the Senior Civil Service, in line with the Government's commitment to review pay systems by April 2003 in response to the Equal Opportunities Commission Task Force "Just Pay" report. So far no significant pay gaps have been found. However, there are some areas requiring further analysis and these are being taken forward in consultation with recognised trade unions.

  Departmental Running Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the running costs in 2002 were of(a) her Ministers' private offices, separately identifying expenditure on staff, and (b) her Department. [106003]

  Clare Short
  DFID's net expenditure on running costs for 2001–02 (the last year for which figures are available) was £81.957 million. Figures for DFID running costs for 2002–03 will be published shortly in the departmental Resource Accounts.

  Figures for the running costs of Ministers' private offices are not recorded separately.

  EU Directives
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the EU Directives and Regulations which have been implemented by her Department since 17 April 2002. [106828]

  Clare Short
  Since 17 April 2002, the Department for International Development has not implemented any Directives.

  EC Regulations are, in general, directly applicable in the Member States, without the need for further incorporation into national law. However, some Regulations require UK measures to make them

  45W
  workable and enforceable. Some Regulations enact small or technical amendments. As far as we have been able to verify the Department for International Development have not implemented any regulations since 17 April 2002.

  Global Health Fund
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development further to her answer of 13 March,Official Report, column 354W, how her Department will measure the effectiveness of the Global Health Fund. [106916]

  Clare Short
  DFID is actively working with the Global Fund and has provided expertise to assist in the development of a monitoring and evaluation framework which will monitor the impact of the fund at both country and global levels. Progress against key indicators will be reported to the Board of the Fund on which DFID is represented. DFID is also represented on the Monitoring and Evaluation Finance and Audit Committee of the Global Fund which provides more detailed oversight.

  In addition DFID will commission independent studies of the performance of the Fund. The first of these—to be carried out by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine—is currently underway.

  Human Trafficking
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her Department is doing to tackle(a) human trafficking and (b) trafficking of women. [106926]

  Clare Short
  The trafficking of people is part of a wider set of issues related to the migration of poor people to better their lives, and to their vulnerability to national and international smugglers and traffickers. Trafficking is an international problem requiring coordinated action. DFID's role is to work to eliminate the poverty and social injustice that can lead to such abuse. Through our programmes to promote sustainable development and end poverty, DFID is helping to reduce the circumstances that give rise to this appalling trade, and which make women and children especially vulnerable. With other Government Departments, we are supporting the efforts of Governments and international agencies to strengthen social protection policies and justice systems in line with the international treaty framework covering these issues.

  For example, in SE Asia, we are supporting the International Labour Organisation's work to reduce the trafficking of women in Laos, Thailand, China (Yunnan), Cambodia and Vietnam. It involves a number of interlinked interventions to raise awareness and prevent the trade. In the Balkans we recently supported the International Organisation for Migration in training the various agencies dealing with trafficked people, including police, social workers and the legal profession, in order to create and disseminate models of good practice.

  Iraq
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs regarding humanitarian aid to Iraq(a) during and (b) after the war. [106864]

  Clare Short
  I discuss humanitarian assistance and planning for Iraq regularly with the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what humanitarian aid has been delivered in Iraq. [106865]

  Clare Short
  Stocks have been pre-positioned in country and in surrounding areas and are being utilised as required and in line with the evolving security situation on the ground.

  In the north, UNICEF has brought in limited supplies, the Mines Action Group (MAG) is undertaking mine clearance, the World Food Programme (WFP) has delivered food, and the World Health Organisation is supporting local health providers to assess disease outbreaks.

  In Baghdad controlled Iraq the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is working with local technicians to repair water and power supplies in seven Baghdad hospitals and to provide drinking water.

  In the south the coalition military are discharging their humanitarian obligations under the Geneva Convention and Hague regulations in order to provide relief in the interim in the territory they occupy. UN agencies and NGO's are now beginning to enter. The ICRC has been repairing water and power supplies at the main Basra pumping station and distributing medical supplies. UNICEF has begun to distribute clean water and emergency kits; the International Medical Corps (IMC) has begun to provide assistance to the hospital in Umm Qasr; and Caritas Iraq has sent emergency medical supplies from Baghdad to Basra. The Coalition military has completed a 3.5 km water pipeline from Kuwait to Umm Qasr allowing water to be delivered to surrounding populations.

  This is far from a complete picture. Our daily published reports contain further information on humanitarian assistance in Iraq and are available from the Commons Library.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions she has had with the United Nations regarding humanitarian aid to Iraq. [106866]

  Clare Short
  I visited New York and Washington on 19–20 March to meet the United Nations Secretary General and others to try to ensure that proper preparations are being made for humanitarian assistance and reconstruction in Iraq. Since then, I have had discussions with other UN officials including the Executive Directors of the World Food Programme and the United Nations Population Fund. I will be visiting New York again this week for further discussions.
  47W
  My Department is in daily contact with UN humanitarian agencies through the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) based in Cyprus, to which we have seconded two members of staff.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to the answer of 27 March 2003,Official Report, column 353W, why officials from her Department were not previously in a position to meet with local Iraqi non-governmental organisations. [106924]

  Clare Short
  DFID officials have not been able to meet local Iraqi NGOs due to the security climate in Iraq. DFID has on-going programmes of support in the North of Iraq, through Save the Children UK; HelpAge International; Christian Aid; Response Relief Resettlement and Rehabilitation (4Rs); A Community Oriented Rehabilitation Network (ACORN) and Care in the Centre/South. All of these work extensively with local Iraqi people and local NGOs to implement their programmes.

  Any new or future support in Iraq will similarly seek to maximise partnerships with local Iraqi organisations.

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many staff were employed by her Department in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. [106974]

  Clare Short
  I refer the hon. Member to the central answer provided by the Minister of State, Cabinet Office on 4 April 2003,Official Report, columns 891–92W.

  Staff Union Duties
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many staff in her Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies receive paid leave to undertake union duties; how many days they are allocated; and what has been the cost to public funds in 2002. [106736]

  Clare Short
  We have two full time union officials—one in each of our UK offices. Paid leave is also granted to several other union officials at both locations. This totals to approximately the equivalent of one additional full time member of staff. The cost for the 2002–03 financial year was approximately £64,640 (based on the average cost of staff at those grades). We have no agencies or public bodies with staff in this category.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the statutory instruments issued by her Department in the last 12 months, indicating(a) the purpose of each and (b) the cost of each to (i) public funds, (ii) businesses and (iii) individuals. [106319]

  Clare Short
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 17 December 2002,Official Report, column 707W, which listed statutory instruments issued by my Department in 2002. Since then the House of Commons has approved two further statutory
  48W
  instruments: the African Development Fund (Ninth Replenishment) Order and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (Fifth Replenishment) Order. With the exception of the International Development Act 2002 (Commencement) Order 2002, the purpose of each was to permit a contribution by DFID to a multilateral development bank. No significant costs were occurred from public funds in arranging for implementation of the orders prior to the contributions made under them.

  Contributions made in the last 12 months under these statutory instruments were:
  African Development Fund (Additional Subscriptions) Order 2002—£40 million
  Caribbean Development Bank (Further Payments) Order 2002—£8.748 million
  International Development Association (Thirteenth Replenishment) Order 2003—£300 million.

  There were no costs to (ii) businesses or (iii) individuals.

  UNHCR (Funding)
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much of her Department's funding for the UNHCR has been allocated to support(a) Afghan refugees and (b) Iraqi refugees. [106915]

  Clare Short
  My Department provided a total of £5.8 million to UNHCR's Afghanistan Appeal in the 2002–3 financial year. This allocation includes £1.8 million agreed in March 2003 as part of a package of emergency support for Afghan refugees.

  For Iraq, between February and March 2003 we gave £1.75 million towards UNHCR's Supplementary Programme Budget for contingency planning and preparedness., We are in regular contact with UNHCR. They report that there have been no significant arrivals of refugees reported into any of the countries neighbouring Iraq. UNHCR is continuing its border monitoring and preparations in the Iraq region. We are committed to supporting an effective international humanitarian response and remain ready to contribute funds in the event of a refugee outflow. This is in addition to our contribution of £65 million to the UN Flash Appeal launched on 28 March in New York by Louise Frechette, the Deputy Secretary-General.

  TRANSPORT Air

    Passengers
    Mr. Don Foster
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many passengers on average(a) arrived and (b) departed from UK airports from (i) North America, (ii) mainland Europe, (iii) the Middle East and (iv) other in (A) 2002, (B) 2003 to date, (C) March 2003 and (D) monthly for the remainder of 2003 (projected). [107370]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The latest available information is as follows. The Department does not forecast monthly passenger movements by air.
    49W

    International arrivals or departures1 at UK airports by area of origin/destination

    Passengers (million)

    2002

    January 2003

    North America

    19.8

    1.3

    Europe

    103.9

    6.4

    Middle East

    3.1

    0.3

    Other

    19.9

    1.6

    All

    146.7

    9.6

    1 Available information does not separate arrivals and departures.

    Air Travel and Health
    Mr. Don Foster
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 25 March,Official Report, column 114W, on air travel and health, if he will place a copy of the review in the Library. [107295]

    Mr. Jamieson
    Copies of the report have today been placed in the Libraries of the House.

    Aircraft Noise
    Alan Keen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures have been undertaken to minimise the effects of aircraft noise on people in the South East region of England. [107011]

    Mr. Jamieson
    All but the smallest civil jet aircraft flying into the UK have (subject to certain exemption provisions) since 1 April 2002 been required to be noise-certificated according to ICAO Chapter 3 standards.

    Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports are designated under s.80 for the purposes of s.78 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. By notices under this section, a range of operational noise controls has been applied. These include night restrictions, departure noise limits, noise preferential departure routes, and noise-minimizing approach procedures.

    Other airports have set their own noise controls, in some cases pursuant to planning obligations, and often similar in kind to the designated airports' controls.

    Alan Keen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what change there has been in the last year in the number of people affected by aircraft noise in the South East region of England. [107012]

    Mr. Jamieson
    My Department is responsible for the publication of annual daytime noise contours for Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports. The contours for 2002, showing year-on-year changes, will be published shortly, and details will be made available on our website. Copies of the contour booklets will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

    Information about aircraft noise exposure elsewhere in the South East is a matter for the aerodromes concerned.

    Aston Clinton Bypass
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his latest estimate is of the completion date for the Aston Clinton Bypass. [107103]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The Highways Agency's latest estimate for completion of the A41 Aston Clinton Bypass is late summer 2003.

    Bicycle Safety
    Keith Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much money was set aside for maintenance of bicycle lanes in Britain in(a) 1998, (b) 2000 and (c) 2002. [107558]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The provisions for local highway maintenance are through the Highways Maintenance Formula for Standing Spending element of Revenue Support Grant and through the Local Transport Plan capital settlement.

    It is for local authorities to determine their own priorities for highway maintenance spending, and no separate provisions for bicycle lanes are made. As these lanes form part of a vehicular highway, they would normally be maintained in conjunction with the rest of the carriageway, and this makes deriving separate expenditure figures difficult.

    Bridges and Tunnels Regulations
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the cost implications are of the Trunk Road Charging Scheme (Bridges and Tunnels) (Keeping of Accounts) (England) Regulations. [107793]

    Mr. Jamieson
    These regulations will not impose any costs on business, voluntary groups or charities. They require the Secretary of State to prepare annual audited accounts, which are to be laid before each House of Parliament during the period the net proceeds of a charging scheme are to be made available for transport policies.

    British Transport Police
    Miss McIntosh
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what additional funding the British Transport Police receive for duties undertaken in respect of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001; and if he will make a statement. [107122]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 provides officers of the British Transport Police (BTP) with jurisdiction outside the railways in certain, specified circumstances. The number of incidents where BTP officers respond in such circumstances accounts for some 1 per cent. of their activities each year. The costs are absorbed within BTP's budget and are offset by the assistance provided to BTP by local police forces for which BTP are not charged.

    Mr. Ben Chapman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the funding of the British Transport Police. [107369]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The British Transport Police (BTP) Committee sets the budget for the force and the users of the BTP, such as London Underground, Network Rail and the train operating companies provide the necessary funding.

    Where the BTP contributes to national policing initiatives and wider public benefits are available, the Government accepts that central funding can be justified. Additional Government funding of over £5 million has been provided to allow the BTP to participate fully in the Street Crime Initiative and the new national police radio system.

    Bus Passengers
    Ian Stewart
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many journeys were taken by bus passengers in each passenger transport authority area in each of the last three years. [106452]

    Mr. Jamieson
    Revised bus patronage figures for the year 2001–02 for Greater Manchester, Merseyside and West Midlands passenger transport authority areas were published by the Department on Thursday 3 April 2003. Previous estimates were published by the Department in "A Bulletin of Public Transport Statistics GB: 2002 and in Regional Transport Statistics: 2002".

    The revisions follow a National Statistics Quality Review of the Department's bus, coach and light rail statistics and discussions held with staff in the passenger transport authorities about differences in their estimates of bus patronage and those produced by the Department. The full set of figures is as follows:

    Bus passenger journeys

    Million

    Area

    1999–2000

    2000–01

    2001–02

    Tyne and Wear

    151

    146

    141

    West Yorkshire

    180

    189

    181

    South Yorkshire

    130

    131

    128

    Merseyside

    149

    142

    1142

    Greater Manchester

    199

    204

    1205

    West Midlands

    353

    353

    1352

    1 Revised figure

    Car Ringing (Wimbledon)
    Chris Grayling
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what reports he has received on the arrest of DVLA employees based in Wimbledon in connection with alleged car ringing activities. [107032]

    Mr. Jamieson
    On Thursday 30 January, four members of staff from DVLA's Wimbledon local office were arrested on charges of conspiracy to handle stolen vehicles and conspiracy to defraud.

    The arrests were the result of a joint DVLA and police investigation.

    The individuals concerned have been suspended by the agency, pending further police inquiries.

    Central Line
    Mr. Mark Field
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the timescale is for the opening of the remaining stations on the Central Line. [105821]

    Mr. Jamieson
    I am pleased to report that following the reintroduction of a service on the western section of the Central Line between Ealing Broadway and Marble Arch on Monday 24 March, London Underground began running a service from Loughton to Ealing Broadway through central London from 3 April. I expect a service to be running to all stations on the line by Easter.

    Central Railways
    Mr. Hammond
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a copy of the 52W
    (a) report and (b) recommendations of the Strategic Rail Authority regarding the proposed Central Railway project. [104146]

    Mr. Jamieson
    Ministers have not yet reached a decision on Central Railway's proposed hybrid Bill. We are considering whether and in what form to make available the SRA's advice, in line with our commitment to open government, bearing in mind that some of the information it contains may be commercially sensitive.

    Chancery Lane Derailment
    Mr. George Osborne
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the meetings that have taken place between Ministers in his Department and London Underground Ltd. to discuss the consequences of the derailment at Chancery Lane. [107254]

    Mr. Jamieson
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) on 17 March 2003,Official Report, column 537W.

    Dartford Tunnel
    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what plans the Government has to refurbish the Dartford Tunnel; [107587]

    (2) if he will make a statement on the condition of the Dartford Tunnel. [107586]

    Mr. Jamieson
    I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Tim Matthews, to reply to the hon. Member.

    Letter from David York to Mr. Christopher Chope, dated 7 April 2003:

    Tim Matthews has been asked by David Jamieson to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about the condition and refurbishment of the Dartford Tunnel. I am replying as Tim is currently away on Highway Agency business.

    The Tunnels at the Dartford Thurrock Crossing were opened in 1963 and 1980 and were constructed to the standards applicable at the time. Standards are constantly reviewed and improvements to the tunnels are carried out where it is considered appropriate and practical to do so, but the Tunnels at Dartford cannot meet all of the latest standards applicable throughout Europe.

    Both the tunnels at the Dartford Thurrock Crossing were recently refurbished. This work included the construction of new road decks. All improvement works identified by the regular inspection regime were carried out to ensure that the tunnels were in very good condition when the Dartford River Crossings concession ended a few days ago.

    The Highways Agency has plans to install an automatic fire detection system this year to supplement the 24-hour CCTV surveillance and manual fire alarm system already in place. Further improvement are being considered.

    If you would like further information about this matter, you may wish to contact Steve Ashley in the Agency's Dorking office on 10306 878254.

    Mersey Tunnel
    Mr. Ben Chapman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the policing of the Mersey Tunnel, with special reference to the deaths of Darren Franey and Scott Veach. [105691]
    53W
    Mr. Jamieson
    The Government are sorry to learn of the circumstances which led to the death of Darren Franey and Scott Veach.

    Responsibility for the policing of the Mersey Tunnels rests with Merseyside Passenger Transport Authority (Merseytravel), under provisions in the County of Merseyside Act 1980.

    We, along with colleagues at the Home Office, will give careful consideration to the reports and recommendations that have been produced following the investigation into this tragic incident by Merseyside police under the supervision of the Police Complaints Authority and by the Coroner.

    Mr. Ben Chapman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on who sets the performance standards for the Mersey Tunnels Police Force; and what relation they have to the Police Complaints Authority. [106028]

    Mr. Jamieson
    Responsibility for the policing of Mersey Tunnel rests with Merseyside Passenger Transport Authority (Merseytravel), under provisions in the County of Merseyside Act 1980.

    As Merseytravel is primarily responsible for the safe operation of the Mersey Tunnels, it falls on it to ensure that the law enforcement officers it appoints are trained to a standard that protects both the officers involved and users of the Tunnels and to provide such facilities necessary for the officers to carry out their duties in a safe and proper manner.

    The Police Complaints Authority (PCA) has no remit over the Mersey Tunnels Police. As a "non-Home Office" force they fall outside the primary legislation of the Police Act 1996 and no subsequent agreement has been reached to bring them within the PCA's remit. However, the Tunnel police have an agreement with Merseyside police for the investigation of incidents involving Merseyside police vehicles within the jurisdiction of the Tunnel police. Merseyside police do fall within the remit of the PCA; therefore. any investigation undertaken by the Merseyside police can be supervised by the PCA.

    £ million

    Scheme

    SRA funding

    Funding from non-SRA sources

    Hexham-Carlisle: passenger information

    99,000

    29,000

    Heart of Wales additional Sunday services

    68,886

    7,000

    Taff Corridor: additional rolling stock

    575,000

    10

    Brentford: service and station improvements

    1,250,000

    974,000

    Thornaby: improved station facilities

    179,000

    289,000

    Redruth: station improvements

    95,000

    116,000

    Tamar Valley: Sunday services

    72,272

    20,000

    Metro: additional rolling stock (Class 333s)

    Clitheroe—Blackburn services

    244,000

    61,000

    Carmarthen—Milford Haven: additional rolling stock

    216,400

    0

    Liskeard II Revised Bid (original approved bid withdrawn by sponsor and revised bid approved)

    Tees Valley: additional cycle parking

    48,990

    49,000

    Motorways
    Mr. Collins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what risks he has identified in(a) permanent removal and (b) variable removal of a hard shoulder on a motorway; [106894]

    (2) what steps he will take to ensure the safety of motorists on motorways where there is a variable or permanent removal of the hard shoulder; and what estimate he has made of the likely cost. [106893]

    Mr. Jamieson
    I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 18 March 2003,Official Report, columns 618–19W to the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell).

    Rail Freight
    Mr. Lazarowicz
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the role of rail freight in the UK freight market. [107026]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The Government are committed to increasing rail freight's modal share of the freight market in line with its commitment to sustainable distribution. The Strategic Rail Authority's Strategic Plan, published on 30 January, sets out its plans for achieving the increase in rail freight envisaged in the Government's 10 Year Plan for Transport.

    Rail Funding
    Mr. Don Foster
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the(a) amount and (b) source of funding (i) paid, (ii) contracted and (iii) agreed to be paid by non Strategic Rail Authority sources, to supplement the Rail Passenger Partnership schemes set out on page 23 of the Strategic Rail Authority Annual Report 2001–02. [104491]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The information is not readily available in precisely the form requested. Information about the total amount of support from non-Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) sources to supplement the Rail Passenger Partnership (RPP) schemes set out on page 23 of the SRA's 2001–02 Annual Report is shown in the table below. The non-SRA funding element of RPP schemes often includes sponsorship from more than one source. Typically schemes include support from the local authorities and the relevant train operating company, and other sponsors to date have included (amongst others) Network Rail, the Countryside Agency, Regional Development Agencies, Community Rail Partnerships, the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Executive.
    55W

    £ million

    Scheme

    SRA funding

    Funding from non-SRA sources

    Swanage: new services

    6,821,000

    9,844

    Southminster Branch Line: additional Sunday services

    85,000

    0

    Sudbury Branch Line: additional Winter Sunday services

    80,000

    0

    Beauly: station re-opening

    99,340

    120,000

    First Great Eastern: additional cycle parking

    34,286

    35,000

    Traintaxi: information database serving all stations ATOC (MML)

    24,000

    24,000

    Saltash: station improvements

    95,000

    11,000

    Willesden—Clapham: additional Sunday services

    65,000

    56,000

    Ludlow: ticket office

    89,000

    11,000

    First North Western: additional rolling stock (Class 142s)

    2,657,000

    0

    Cross City Line (Birmingham): higher frequency of trains

    3,455,000

    1,018

    Truto—Falmouth: all year Sunday service

    64,000

    67,000

    Bromsgrove: station improvements

    180,000

    70,000

    Robin Hood Line (Nottingham): additional train services

    234,000

    70,000

    SmartCard: integrated transport ATOC (Vergin CrossCountry)

    970,000

    1,305,000

    Matlock—Derby: feasibility study

    190,000

    610,000

    Kent station: additional cycle parking

    118,000

    102,000

    Penzance interchange: station improvements

    250,000

    519,000

    Exeter—Barnstaple: additional services

    144,000

    68,000

    Cardiff Valley Lines: service strengthening

    738,000

    0

    Doncaster: station improvements

    Now to be funded through an alternative mechanism

    Royal Welsh Show services

    19,661

    6,000

    1 References to £0 non-SRA sponsorship in this table do not take into account benefits in kind (e.g. in terms of staff resources) provided by the relevant train operating company to enable the scheme to operate.

    Mr. Don Foster
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the total level of Rail Passenger Partnership funding to be paid by the Strategic Rail Authority during the financial year 2003–04, with particular reference to the nature of the schemes to which any such funding would be directed. [104493]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The Strategic Rail Authority's (SRA's) budget for Rail Passenger Partnership schemes in 2003–04 is £20 million of which £16.3 million is currently committed. Funding is directed to the provision of new or enhanced local and regional rail services that cannot be justified on financial grounds alone but which contribute to the Government's wider objectives for rail, including modal shift and integration with other modes.

    Mr. Don Foster
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list the(a) amount and (b) source of funding (i) paid, (ii) contracted and (iii) agreed to be paid by non Strategic Rail Authority sources to

    RPP schemes 20020–03

    £ million

    Scheme

    Status of scheme

    SRA funding for approved schemes

    Non-SRA funding for approved schemes

    West Anglia CIS (customer information system)

    Rejected

    —

    —

    Scheme now being funded

    Doncaster

    through alternative mechanism

    Project Cymru

    Approved

    2,471,000

    265,000

    Markinch Interchange

    Rejected

    —

    —

    Coleshill Interchange

    Rejected

    —

    —

    Weardale

    Pre-qualified

    —

    —

    Exeter Gateway (St. Davids)

    Pre-qualified

    —

    —

    Greenhithe

    Pre-qualified

    —

    —

    Dartford

    Pre-qualified

    —

    —

    Cheshunt Bay

    Pre-qualified

    —

    —

    56W
    supplement Rail Passenger Partnership Scheme applications of 2002–03 which have been (A) approved, (B) deferred and (C) cancelled; (104494]

    (2) if he will list the (a) location, (b) nature of the schemes, (c) amount of funding requested and (d) current stage of approval of Rail Passenger Partnership applications made to the Strategic Rail Authority in 2002–03, broken down into those (i) rejected, (ii) which reached pre-qualified status and (iii) which have had funding approved. [104492]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The information cannot readily be provided in precisely the form requested. The table as follows sets out details of RPP scheme applications in 2002–03, their current status and the amount of SRA and non-SRA support involved in the case of schemes that have been approved. The level of funding for schemes prior to approval stage is liable tochange.

    Schemes may be deferred, cancelled or rejected for a number of reasons, such as failure to meet SRA's value for money and affordability criteria, failure to attract adequate sponsorship from non-SRA sources, and withdrawal of the application by the sponsor.
    57W

    RPP schemes 20020–03

    £ million

    Scheme

    Status of scheme

    SRA funding for approved schemes

    Non-SRA funding for approved schemes

    Arriva Trains Northern capacity and reliability

    Approved

    4,102,077

    1,000

    Conwy Valley Line

    Rejected

    —

    —

    West Midland CIS

    Pre-qualified

    —

    —

    Ferensway Interchange

    Pre-qualified

    —

    —

    Hull Royal Infirmary Rail Halt

    Rejected

    —

    —

    Salford Central

    Pre-qualified

    —

    —

    Heart of Wales2, Winter Sundays. (Original approved bid withdrawn by sponsor and re-submitted)

    Decision pending

    —

    —

    Bury St. Edmunds

    Approved

    223,4000

    350,000

    Burnley

    Approved

    259,000

    240,000

    Stansted

    Rejected

    —

    —

    Liskeard II Revised Bid

    Approved

    248,000

    352,000

    Macclesfield

    Approved

    250,000

    535,000

    Chorley

    Approved

    137,000

    130,000

    Plymouth

    Approved

    136,000

    132,000

    Downham Market Access

    Approved

    229,000

    130,000

    Tarka Line (Exeter to Barnstaple)

    Approved

    144,000

    223,000

    Exeter to Exmouth (Phase 1)

    Deferred

    —

    —

    Valley Lines dedicated bus service

    Approved

    41,000

    10

    Bristol services

    Approved

    139,000

    0

    Littleport

    Approved

    77,600

    135,000

    Plus Bus Journey Solutions

    Deferred

    —

    —

    Devon and Cornwall

    Approved

    234,000

    0

    Glasshoughton

    Approved

    250,000

    1,610

    Ramsgate

    Approved

    85,000

    100,000

    Bedford

    Rejected

    —

    —

    Southminster

    Rejected

    —

    —

    Valley Lines

    Rejected

    —

    —

    First Great Eastern Cycle Parking

    Approved

    98,000

    69,000

    Manchester to Clitheroe

    Rejected

    —

    —

    Halesworth

    Rejected

    —

    —

    King's Cross Facade

    Rejected

    —

    —

    Horwich Parkway

    Approved

    100,000

    115k

    Watlington

    Rejected

    —

    —

    Cheshunt Bus/Rail Integration

    Rejected

    —

    —

    Hastings

    Rejected

    —

    —

    Wherry Line

    Rejected

    —

    —

    Thameslink Cycle

    Approved

    54,000

    55k

    Trowbridge

    Approved

    13,000

    10k

    Taunton

    Deferred

    —

    —

    Bristol Temple Meads

    Deferred

    —

    —

    Chippenham Interchange

    Decision pending

    —

    —

    London Crosslink 2 (now Phase 1&2)

    Deferred

    —

    —

    Anglia Locals 2 (Phase 1&2)

    Pre-qualified/Rejected

    —

    —

    Filton Abbey Wood

    Approved

    1,268,000

    0

    Pre-qualified (Scheme now beingfunded by the National Assembly for Wales)

    —

    —

    Ebbw Vale

    —

    —

    Paddington vehicular access

    Pre qualified-Rejected

    —

    —

    Sheffield

    Approved (pre qualified 2001–02)

    163,000

    0

    Matlock Buxton

    Approved (pre qualifed (2001–02)

    190,000

    610,000

    West London Line

    Approved

    18,000

    0

    Probus-Burngullow

    Pre-qualified

    700k

    —

    1 References to £0 non-SRA sponsorship do not take into account benefits in kind (e.g. in terms of staff resources) provided by the relevant train operating company to enable the scheme to operate.

    Rail Schemes
    Mr. Foster
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the Rail Passenger Partnership scheme applications received by the Strategic Rail Authority in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02 classified as (i) medium and (ii) major applications which received pre-qualified status; and what the total funding requested was in each case. [104490]
    58W
    Mr. Jamieson
    Information on the medium (under £5 million) and major (over £5 million) Rail Passenger Partnership (RPP) scheme applications in 2000–01 and 2001–02 which received pre-qualification status is set out in the table. Information on the level of SRA funding is shown where the scheme has proceeded to approval. The level of funding for schemes prior to appraisal is liable to change. In January 2002 the SRA introduced a fast track system for approving bids under
    59W
    £250,000. Fast track schemes bypass the pre-qualification stage, and proceed directly either to approval or rejection.

    RPP schemes in 2000–01 and 2001–02

    SRA support for approved schemes (£)

    Pre-qualified applications over £5 million 2000–01

    Anglia Service Improvement

    10,041,163

    Leamside Line

    —

    Allerton Interchange

    —

    South Notts Rail Network

    —

    Sheffield Station

    12,800,000

    Keswick to Penrith1

    —

    Stratford Station

    —

    2001–02

    Sheffield—Barnsley Leeds1

    —

    Braintree Branch Line

    —

    Windermere Branch Line Upgrade1

    —

    Newcastle Central Station—Interchange1

    —

    Truro—Falmouth2 Branch Line

    —

    Anglia Locals2 (Phase 1 & 2)

    —

    Probus—Burngullow

    —

    Pre-qualified applications under £5 million 2000–01

    Thornaby

    —

    Leeds to Windermere

    —

    Barry Island

    —

    Ashington, Blythe & Tyne

    —

    Ilkeston

    —

    Taff Corridor

    —

    Brentford Station

    —

    Birmingham-Stratford on Avon Semi-Fast

    —

    Durham Coast Line—Phase 2

    —

    Camberwell Station

    —

    Tyne-Tees Express

    —

    Wrexham—Bidston

    —

    Bristol Area Line Frequency

    —

    Finsbury Park Central Area Project

    —

    Larkhall to Milngavie (RPP bid withdrawn by sponsor)

    —

    2001–02

    Sheffield—Barnsley Leeds1

    —

    Braintree Branch Line

    —

    Windermere Branch Line Upgrade1

    —

    Newcastle Central Station—Interchange1

    —

    Truro—Falmouth2 Branch Line

    —

    Anglia Locals2 (Phase 1 & 2)

    —

    Probus—Burngullow

    Pre-qualified applications under £5 million 2000–01

    Thornaby

    —

    Leeds to Windermere

    —

    Barry Island

    —

    Ashington, Blythe & Tyne

    —

    Ilkeston

    —

    Taff Corridor

    —

    Brentford Station

    —

    Birmingham-Stratford on Avon Semi-Fast

    —

    Durham Coast Line—Phase 2

    —

    Camberwell Station

    —

    Tyne-Tees Express

    —

    Wrexham—Bidston

    —

    Bristol Area Line Frequency

    —

    Finsbury Park Central Area Project

    —

    Larkhall to Milngavie (RPP bid withdrawn by sponsor)

    —

    2001–02

    Coast to Coast Sleeper Services1

    —

    Capacity Enhancements 142's (First North Western)

    2,657,000

    Metrotrain/Additional Class 333 Vehicles (Arriva Trains Northern)

    2,859,200

    Carmarthen—Milford Haven

    216,400

    MK. 11 Trains for Special Events (Wales & Borders)

    Clyst Hayes Station1

    —

    Diss Station Interchange

    —

    Airdrie—Bathgate Rail-Bus Link

    —

    Frankley Extension

    —

    Cumbria Coast Line

    —

    60W

    RPP schemes in 2000–01 and 2001–02

    SRA support for approved schemes (£)

    Real Time Train Information (Virgin/Midland Main Line)

    2,013,000

    Cross City Line (Central Trains)

    2,328,231

    Walsall & Stourbridge

    —

    Coventry to Wolverhampton

    —

    Smartcard—ATOC

    970,000

    Kempston Station

    —

    Valley Lines Strengthening

    738,000

    South Hants Crossrail (Chandlers Ford)

    3,341,023

    Edinburgh Park Station

    1,962,000

    Cardiff-Aberdare

    1,236,000

    Great Northern Customer Information System

    Sheffield Station Feasibility Study

    163,000

    Matlock—Buxton

    190,000

    1 Bids rejected.

    Railways
    Mr. Collins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment his Department has made of the proposal submitted to him by London Regional Metro for an east-west rail link for London; and if he will make a statement. [106890]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The Department is continuing to discuss these proposals with London Regional Metro.

    Chris Grayling
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which railway lines have had ETCS installed in the last 10 years. [107297]

    Mr. Jamieson
    Within the UK there is no operational railway line where the European Train Control System (ETCS) has been installed.

    River Crossings
    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether income from the M25 Dartford river crossings will be used to fund(a) the refurbishment of the (i) Blackwall and (ii) Rotherhithe tunnels and (b) a new Thames river crossing. [107579]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The Dartford net income forms part of the funding included in our 10-year transport plan. It is too early to be able to identify projects which will illustrate the benefits this additional source of funding has helped deliver.

    Road Safety
    Mr. Collins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his policy is on accepting road safety research conducted overseas as being valid for the United Kingdom; and whether this policy is applied uniformly throughout his Department. [106892]

    Mr. Jamieson
    I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 13 March 2003,Official Report, column 359W, to the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell).

    Seafarers
    Dunwoody
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what pay safeguards UK seafarers have on UK registered ships outside UK waters. [106858]

    Mr. Jamieson
    Subject to the provisions of the National Minimum Wage, rates of pay are matters for negotiation between employers and employees.
    61W
    The National Minimum Wage Act 1998 provides that mariners employed on a UK registered ship are covered by the Act unless their employment is wholly outside the UK, or they are not ordinarily resident in the UK.

    Staff Numbers
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many staff are employed by his Department. [106291]

    Mr. Jamieson
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 3 April 2003,Official Report, column 780W.

    Telecommunication Masts
    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidance he has given to Network Rail about the erection of telecommunication masts on railway land in areas of outstanding natural beauty. [107795]

    Mr. Jamieson
    None. As a railway undertaker, Network Rail has permitted development rights for the erection of telecommunication masts on its operational land, required in connection with the movement of traffic by rail.

    Transport 2000 Speech
    Mr. Don Foster
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place a copy of the speech made by the Minister to Transport 2000 on 27 March in the Library. [107365]

    Mr. Jamieson
    A speech text is not available. I spoke from notes.

    Staff Union Duties
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many staff in his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies receive paid leave to undertake union duties; how many days they are allocated; and what has been the cost to public funds in 2002. [106772]

    Mr. Jamieson
    The number of staff in my Department and Agencies who receive paid leave to undertake union duties (excluding health and safety duties) are as follows:However, the majority are part-time representatives: 285.
    The amount of days allocated in 2002: 5307.5.
    The cost to public funds in 2002: £492,732.22

    Walking
    Andrew Bennett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of the National Walking Strategy for England; and what timetable he has set for its(a) public consultation and (b) publication. [106996]

    Mr. Jamieson
    We hope to consult on a strategy to encourage walking in the next few months.

  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Convention on the Future of Europe
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from ministerial colleagues on areas of concern to their Departments in respect of the Convention on the Future of Europe. [105952]

    Mr. MacShane
    My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is working closely with all his ministerial colleagues in co-ordinating the UK Government's approach on all aspects on the convention.

    Departmental Running Costs
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the running costs in 2002 were of(a) his Ministers private offices, separately identifying expenditure on staff, and (b) his Department. [105991]

    Mr. Straw
    As of 27 March, the cost in cash terms of running the six ministerial private offices for the 2002–03 financial year, amounted to £3,132,178. This is made up of £2,189,178 in running cost, and £943,000 in salary.

    The final total for this financial year will increase slightly once the data from all of our posts overseas have been entered on to our Financial Management System.

    The figures for the FCO in total will be available in the Departmental Report, which will be issued later in the year.

    European Working Groups
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress with achieving transparency in respect of the European working groups for which his Department is responsible. [105740]

    Mr. MacShane
    The Government have long been committed to greater openness in the EU institutions. This was a key theme of the UK Presidencies in 1992 and 1998. Making it easier to gain access to non-sensitive documents is crucial to this. The Government welcome Regulation 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents. As a result, more documents are released to the public, while genuinely sensitive documents are given the protection they need.

    Much of the council's work takes place in preparatory bodies, including working groups.

    Accountability and transparency of council business to Parliament are ensured by the scrutiny process, to which the Government are also firmly committed.

    We strongly supported the measures agreed at the Seville European Council to make the council more open when in legislating mode. We remain committed to increasing transparency. The Future of Europe Convention is also looking at ways to make the EU more open.

    Gibraltar
    Mr. Hoyle
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions there have been between his Department and the Ministry of Defence regarding the commemoration of 300 years of British sovereignty in Gibraltar in 2004. [106026]

    Mr. MacShane
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 12 March 2003,Official Report, column 291W.

    Ivory Coast
    Norman Lamb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received of the recruitment by Northbridge Services Group of mercenaries to operate in the Ivory Coast; and if he will make a statement on the activities of this company in connection with the Ivory Coast. [107530]

    Mr. Rammell
    I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on the Northbridge Services Group on 1 April 2003,Official Report, column 52WS.

    Latin America
    Mr. Lloyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to Governments of Latin American countries about the problems experienced by street children; and what responses he has received. [105886]

    Mr. Rammell
    The rights of children worldwide are a central part of our human rights policy. The UK ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1991. We support its full implementation by all governments. We regularly raise our concerns about street children bilaterally and with our EU Partners. We are backing a number of practical projects in the region to improve respect for and protection of children's rights.

    PFI Schemes
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement

    (a) UN Security Council Resolutions vetoed by the United States

    Information

    2002

    20 December

    Killing by Israeli forces of UN employees in Occupied Palestinian Territories

    30 June

    Renewal of UN peacekeeping mission in Bosnia, acting under Ch. VII

    2001

    14 December

    Israeli forces withdrawal from Palestinian-controlled territory and condemning acts of terror against civilians

    27 March

    Establishment of UN observer force to protect Palestinian civilians

    1997

    21 March

    Occupied Palestinian Territories

    7 March

    Occupied Palestinian Territories

    1995

    17 May

    Occupied Palestinian Territories

    1990

    31 May

    Occupied Palestinian Territories

    17 January

    Violation of Diplomatic immunities of Nicaraguan ambassador's residence in Panama

    64W
    on the expected saving to public funds from the private finance initiative schemes due to become operational in 2003. [105726]

    Mr. Rammell
    The FCO has no private finance initiative schemes coming into operation in 2003.

    Seal Population
    Norman Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what progress has been made since representations by his Department in February 1999 to the Canadian Government in ensuring that the numbers of seals killed each year does not threaten the sustainability of the species; [107678]

    (2) what assessment he has made of the impact of the annual Canadian slaughter of seal pups on the wild population; whether he has raised this issue with the Canadian authorities; and if he will make a statement. [107681]

    Mr. Rammell
    No formal representations have been made since February 1999 but the FCO has been monitoring the situation and has made the Canadian Government aware of our concerns. Any seal cull should be sustainable and based on the precautionary approach. The Canadian Government has recently announced their Seal Management Plan for 2003–2005 where quotas have been increased compared to previous years. The plan will be available to the public and government officials will assess the data on which the new quotas are based. After such an assessment has been carried out the FCO will review the situation.

    Security Council Resolutions
    Dr. Tonge
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the Security Council resolutions(a) which have been vetoed by the United States in the last 30 years and (b) regarding Israel and the Occupied Territories which were supported by Her Majesty's Government but vetoed by the United States; and if he will make a statement. [103856]

    Mr. Rammell
    The information requested is as follows:
    65W

    (a) UN Security Council Resolutions vetoed by the United States

    Information

    1989

    23 December

    Invasion of Panama

    7 November

    Occupied Palestinian Territories

    9 June

    Occupied Palestinian Territories

    17 February

    Occupied Palestinian Territories

    11 January

    Shooting down of Libyan aircraft

    1988

    14 December

    Israeli raid on Lebanon

    10 May

    Israeli invasion of Southern Lebanon

    15 April

    Occupied Palestinian Territories

    8 March

    Sanctions against South Africa, acting under Ch. VII

    1 February

    Occupied Palestinian Territories

    18 January

    Israeli occupation of Lebanon

    1987

    9 April

    Question of Namibia, acting under Ch. VII

    20 February

    South Africa, acting under Ch. VII

    1986

    28 October

    Nicaragua and ICJ judgment

    31 July

    Nicaragua and ICJ judgment

    18 June

    South African attacks on Angola

    23 May

    South African raids into Botswana, Zambia and Zimbabwe

    21 April

    US raid on Libya

    6 February

    Israeli interception and detention of Libyan civilian aircraft

    30 January

    Provocative acts in relation to Al-Aqsa Mosque

    17 January

    Israeli occupation of Lebanon

    1985

    15 November

    Question of Namibia, acting under Ch. VII

    13 September

    Occupied Palestinian Territories

    26 July

    Question of South Africa, acting under Ch. VII

    10 May

    Economic sanctions against Nicaragua

    10 May

    Economic sanctions against Nicaragua

    10 May

    Economic sanctions against Nicaragua

    12 March

    Israeli occupation of Lebanon

    1984

    6 September

    Israeli occupation of Lebanon

    4 April

    Mining of Nicaraguan ports

    1983

    27 October

    US invasion of Grenada

    2 August

    Occupied Palestinian Territories

    1982

    6 August

    Israeli invasion of Lebanon

    26 June

    Israeli invasion of Lebanon

    8 June

    Israeli invasion of Lebanon

    4 June

    Falklands Question

    20 April

    Occupied Palestinian Territories

    2 April

    Occupied Palestinian Territories

    2 April

    Nicaragua: US military exercises with Honduras

    20 January

    Israeli annexation of the Golan Heights, acting under Ch. VII

    1981

    31 August

    South African incursion into Angola., acting under Ch. VII

    30 April

    Question of Namibia, acting under Ch. VII

    30 April

    Question of Namibia, acting under Ch. VII

    30 April

    Question of Namibia, acting under Ch. VII

    30 April

    Question of Namibia, acting under Ch. VII

    1980

    30 April

    Question of exercise by Palestinian people of their inalienable rights

    1977

    31 October

    Question of South Africa

    31 October

    Question of South Africa, acting under Ch. VII

    31 October

    Question of South Africa, acting under Ch. VII

    66W 67W

    (a) UN Security Council Resolutions vetoed by the United States

    Information

    1976

    15 November

    Application for membership for Socialist Republic of Vietnam

    19 October

    Situation in Namibia, acting under Ch. VII

    29 June

    Question of the exercise of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people

    23 June

    Application for membership for Angola

    25 March

    Occupied Palestinian Territories

    25 January

    Middle East including Palestine question

    1975

    8 December

    Situation in the Middle East

    30 September

    Application for membership for Democratic Republic of Vietnam

    30 September

    Application for membership for Republic of South Vietnam

    11 August

    Application for membership for Democratic Republic of Vietnam

    11 August

    Application for membership for Republic of South Vietnam

    6 June

    Situation in Namibia, acting under Ch. VII

    1974

    30 October

    Relationship between UN and South Africa

    1973

    26 July

    Middle East

    22 May

    Rhodesia

    21 March

    Panama Canal

    1972

    10 September

    Middle East

    1970

    17 March

    Rhodesia, acting under Ch. VII

    (b) US vetoed Resolutions on Israel/Occupied Palestinian Territories which were supported by the UK

    Information

    2002

    20 December

    Killing by Israeli forces of UN employees in Occupied Palestinian Territories

    1997

    21 March

    Occupied Palestinian Territories

    7 March

    Occupied Palestinian Territories

    1995

    17 May

    Occupied Palestinian Territories

    1990

    31 May

    Occupied Palestinian Territories

    7 November

    Occupied Palestinian Territories

    9 June

    Occupied Palestinian Territories

    17 February

    Occupied Palestinian Territories

    1988

    15 April

    Occupied Palestinian Territories

    1 February

    Occupied Palestinian Territories

    1986

    30 January

    Provocative acts in relation to Al-Aqsa Mosque

    1983

    2 August

    Occupied Palestinian Territories

    1982

    20 April

    Occupied Palestinian Territories

    2 April

    Occupied Palestinian Territories

    25 March

    Occupied Palestinian Territories

    1975

    8 December

    Situation in the Middle East

    1973

    26 July

    Middle East

    1972

    10 September

    Middle East

    68W
    The Government believes that the veto should be used with restraint, and in a manner consistent with the principles of the UN Charter.

    Sudan
    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will carry out an urgent investigation into cases of torture in the Sudan. [105775]

    Mr. Rammell
    We are concerned about torture in Sudan. We part-fund the work of the Sudanese Organisation Against Torture (SOAT) which monitors incidences. SOAT'S annual report states that incidences of torture have decreased across the population as a whole but that the practice continues to be used against the people of Darfur, and in particular students.

    The Sudanese government has signed the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Our Embassy in Khartoum regularly lobbies the Government of Sudan to ratify the Convention.

    Tasmania
    Mr. Kilfoyle
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to mark Tasmania's bicentenary. [105956]

    Mr. Rammell
    I discussed UK involvement in the celebrations of Tasmania's bicentenary with the Premier of Tasmania, Jim Bacon, during his visit to the UK in January this year. We have taken no decision at this stage on marking the bicentenary in 2004.

    Tel Aviv Airport
    Richard Burden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received concerning allegations of intrusive searches and harassment of UK citizens at Tel Aviv airport. [106077]
    70W
    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    We have not received formal representations about the treatment of British citizens at Tel Aviv airport. But British officials visiting Israel on official business have been subjected to stringent security checks on arrival at Tel Aviv; and our embassy in Tel Aviv is aware of British citizens, including at least one Member of Parliament, who have been detained at the airport for detailed questioning.

  EDUCATION AND SKILLS

    Referred Workers
    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people are listed on the Department's List 99 of referred workers. [106605]

    Mr. Miliband
    There are currently 3,139 people on the list of people whose employment is barred or restricted by the Secretary of State for Employment and Skills (List 99).

    Award Schemes
    Annabelle Ewing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the award schemes in(a) 2001 and (b) 2002 promoted by the Department; what their scope was; when the relevant participating organisations are scheduled to be sent results; and whether other parties will be given notification of the results at the same time. [102078]

    Mr. Stephen Twigg
    The information requested has been placed in the Library.

    Degrees
    Paul Farrelly
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what the completion rate for degrees was in each academic year since 1997; [104703]

    (2) what the completion rate was for students from (a) I Professional, (b) II Intermediate, (c) IIIN Skilled Non-Manual, (d) IIIM Skilled Manual, (e) IV Semiskilled Manual, (f) V Unskilled and (g) unknown socio-economic backgrounds at universities in England in each academic year since 1997; [104708]

    (3) what the (a) initial entry rate, (b) drop-out rate and (c) participation rate for higher education institutions in England was in each academic year since 1997. [104707]

    Margaret Hodge
    Information on completion and non-completion rates of HE students is published by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) in "Performance Indicators in Higher Education (HE)". The latest available data are shown in the first table as follows. HEFCE do not calculate these figures by social class. Figures published in 2002 by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) showed that the UK as a whole has one of the lowest non-completion rates among OECD countries.

    The second table as follows shows the latest available figures for the Initial Entry Rate (IER) and Age Participation Index (API). Historically, the API has been the standard measure of participation in HE; the IER has been developed recently to monitor progress towards the Government's goal of 50 per cent. participation in HE by 2010. The IER differs from the API in both coverage and method of calculation. The API calculates the proportion of UK domiciled students who enter full-time HE by the age of 20: the IER calculates the proportion of English domiciled students
    72W
    who enter full or part-time HE courses, lasting at least one year, by the age of 30. The API is expressed as a percentage of the averaged 18 to 19-year-old population; the IER sums the percentages of each single year of the 18–30 age group.

    Projected learning outcomes—full-time students starting first degree courses in HE institutions in the UK

    Percentage

    Projected outcomes1

    Students starting in:

    Obtained degree

    Obtained no qualification

    Other2

    1996–97

    80

    18

    2

    1997–98

    81

    17

    2

    1998–99

    81

    17

    2

    1999–2000

    81

    17

    2

    1 The projected outcomes are calculated on the assumption that the progression paths of new entrants will be the same as those for students currently in the system.

    2 Includes students who obtain undergraduate qualifications other than a degree (eg an HND).

    The Age Participation Index (API) and Initial Entry Rate (IER)

    Percentage

    API1

    IER2

    Actual

    1997–98

    33

    n/a

    1998–99

    31

    n/a

    1999–2000

    32

    41

    2000–01

    33

    42

    Estimated

    2001–02

    34–36

    43

    1 The API is defined as the number of young (under 21) UK domiciled initial entrants to full-time and sandwich undergraduate courses, expressed as a percentage of the averaged 18 to 19-year-old population.

    2 The IER is the number of English domiciled initial entrants who enter full or part-time HE courses, lasting at least one year, by the age of 30, expressed as a percentage of the relevant 18–30 age group.

    Departmental Expenditure
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his estimate is of the expenditure of his Department on newspapers, magazines and periodicals in 2002. [106298]

    Mr. Stephen Twigg
    This information could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

    Education Maintenance Allowance
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the outcome was of the evaluation of the Education Maintenance Allowance pilot scheme. [107173]

    Margaret Hodge
    An independent evaluation of EMA's has been taking place since 1999. The evaluation has tested the effectiveness of the scheme in increasing participation. Evidence from the second year of the pilots, which was published in July 2002, shows that EMAs have increased the number of eligible young people in full time education in year 12 in pilot areas by
    73W
    5.9 percentage points compared to the local authority areas without EMAs. The EMA scheme will be available from September 2004 across the whole of England. The evaluation is continuing. Reports on implementation and on vulnerable young people were published in March 2003. Forthcoming reports include a qualitative report to be published later this month and the 3rd year quantitative report due in the autumn.

    Higher Education
    Mr. Andrew Turner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the cash value is of loans granted to higher education students by the Student Loans Company in each year since 1997. [105938]

    Margaret Hodge
    The number and value of loans paid to higher education students by the Student Loans Company in each academic year since 1996–97 are shown in the table:

    Student support provision: academic year 1996–97 to 2001–02 (provisional)1

    Student loans (United Kingdom)2

    Academic year

    Number of loans Value of loans (thousand)3

    Value of loans (£ million)

    1996–97

    589.6

    877.2

    1997–98

    615.1

    941.0

    1998–99 of which:

    659.5

    1,233.5

    Student Support Scheme Students4

    275.9

    557.3

    Mandatory Scheme Students5

    443.6

    676.2

    1999–2000 of which:

    699.7

    1,795.4

    Student Support Scheme Students4

    456.5

    7,439.2

    Mandatory Scheme Students5

    243.2

    356.3

    2000–01 of which:

    759.9

    2,203.7

    Student Support Scheme Students4

    666.4

    2,068.4

    Mandatory Scheme Students5

    93.5

    735.3

    2001–02 (provisional) of which:

    809.3

    2,485.2

    Student Support Scheme Students4

    786.0

    2,450.7

    Mandatory Scheme Students5

    23.4

    35.0

    1 New student support arrangements were introduced from academic year 1998–99. New students in 1998–99 (apart from certain specified exceptions) received support for maintenance expenditure through means-tested grants (comprising about a quarter of the support available) and non income-assessed student loans (comprising about three quarters of the support available). From 1999–2000 students who entered higher education after 1998–99 received support for maintenance expenditure through loans, of which approximately three quarters of the value was non income-assessed. Loans made under these arrangements are repayable on an income contingent basis. The ratio of support for mandatory award holders, i.e. those who entered higher education up to 1997–98, was roughly 50 per cent. means-tested grant and 50 per cent. non means-tested loan repayable on a mortgage style basis.

    2 Student loans are available to eligible students normally domiciled in the United Kingdom on full-time undergraduate HE courses (and students on full-time and part-time postgraduate course of initial teacher training).

    3 Refers to loans advanced in the target year only, which include those to students in their first, second, third and any subsequent year of their course. Excludes hardship loans and 5,700 (2000–01) and an estimated 7,700 (2001–02) fixed rate loans of £500 for part-time students introduced in September 2000.

    4 Students starting their course from September 1998 under the new arrangements.

    5 Students who entered higher education up to 1997–98 and those who entered in 1998–99 under the existing arrangements.

    Source:

    The Student Loans Company
    74W
    Mr. Andrew Turner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his latest estimate is of(a) the annual cost to public funds of increasing participation in higher education to 50 per cent. over the next five years and (b) the cost of the higher education system in 2002–03; and what assumptions he has made in drawing up these estimates. [105940]

    Margaret Hodge
    The Spending review settlement for higher education in England for the years 2002–03 to 2005–06 is set out in the table on page 19 of the White Paper 'The future of higher education' (Cm 5735). That table shows a 31per cent. increase in expenditure between those two years, an element of which accounts for the increase in student numbers over that period. The increase in participation towards 50 per cent. of those aged 18–30, will come mainly through two-year work-focussed foundation degrees.

    The cost of higher education per student varies according to the subject, type and length of their course. The overall costs of increasing student numbers beyond 2005–06 will therefore depend on their pattern of study.

    Mr. Andrew Turner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his latest estimate is of the capital value of the higher education estate; and what proportion he estimates was paid for by public funds. [105941]

    Margaret Hodge
    Recent studies have estimated the insurance value of the higher education estate to be some £31 billion. The estimated value of the equipment and other contents of the buildings are estimated to be a further £8 billion. Producing an estimate of the proportion of the estate that has been purchased from public funds could be done only at disproportionate cost.

    League Tables
    Mr. Gibb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will assess the value of league tables for GCSE and A level results. [106651]

    Mr. Miliband
    Performance tables provide an accessible source of information on the performance of schools. They form part of the accountability framework for schools and colleges. They help focus the debate on standards through the provision of hard information on achievements, thus strengthening the accountability of schools, colleges and LEAs.

    Parents and the wider community have a right to see the information published in the tables and challenge their schools accordingly.

    Literacy/Numeracy
    Mr. Willis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many adults are studying(a) basic literacy and (b) basic numeracy in further education colleges; and what proportion this represents of the total studying these subjects. [105138]
    75W
    Margaret Hodge
    [holding answer 27 March 2003]: Information on the number of literacy and numeracy learning opportunities being undertaken by adults on LSC-funded further education provision is presented in the table as follows. For the purposes of basic skills and the Skills for Life Strategy, we define adults as those

    Literacy and numeracy learning opportunities being undertaken by adults on LSC-funded further education provision1,2,3 1 April 2001 to 31 July 2002

    1 April 2001 to 31 July 2001

    1 August 2001 to 31 July 2002

    Total—1 April 2001 to 31 July 2002

    16 to 18

    19+

    16 to 18

    19+

    16 to 18

    19+

    Total

    (a) Literacy

    Basic Skills: Literacy

    11,700

    75,900

    12,200

    107,900

    23,900

    183,900

    207,700

    Key Skills: Communication

    102,600

    15,900

    125,100

    16,800

    227,700

    32,700

    260,400

    GCSE English

    25,200

    11,400

    30,500

    13,800

    55,700

    25,200

    80,900

    Total4

    139,500

    103,500

    167,800

    138,500

    307,300

    241,700

    549,000

    (b) Numeracy

    Basic Skills: Numeracy

    14,100

    31,100

    24,100

    60,500

    38,200

    91,600

    129,800

    Key Skills: Application of Number

    107,200

    15,600

    130,700

    17,600

    237,900

    33,200

    271,100

    GCSE Maths

    29,900

    16,300

    35,600

    19,500

    65,500

    35,800

    101,300

    Total4

    151,200

    63,000

    190,400

    97,600

    341,600

    160,600

    502,200

    1 These figures are estimates based on the LSC's individualised Student Records data.

    2 Only covers LSD funded provision, this detailed enrolment profile is not available for other types of provision.

    3 Adults enrolled on both literacy and numeracy learning opportunities will be counted under both categories. There may be some double counting where an adult has enrolled on more than one basic literacy or numeracy course in this period.

    4 Excludes those learning opportunities not assigned to specific subjects.

    Ministerial Office Costs
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the running costs in 2002 were of(a) his Ministers' private offices, separately identifying expenditure on staff, and (b) his Department. [105998]

    Mr. Stephen Twigg
    Expenditure for the financial year 2001–02 is set out in the following table.

    £ million

    2001–02

    (a) Ministers' private offices

    Total

    2.1

    Of which:

    Staff

    1.3

    (b) Department

    218.9

    Note:

    The figure at (b) reflects net administrative outturn including Sure Start and Children's Fund.

    Expenditure figures for Departmental running costs for 2002–03 will be published shortly in the Department's Appropriation and Resource Accounts.

    Neighbourhood Renewal
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the cost is in 2002–03 of the implications of recommendations in the Social Exclusion Unit's report on neighbourhood renewal. [106011]

    Margaret Hodge
    DfES is the lead Department for 16 of the commitments under the Government's National Strategy Action Plan for neighbourhood renewal. In addition to these commitments, the implications of the neighbourhood renewal strategy have an impact across a wide range of the Department's programmes, which are increasingly geared towards closing the gap between the most deprived neighbourhoods and the rest, in terms 76W
    aged 16 and over. The information below accounts for the majority of publicly-funded literacy and numeracy provision. It is not possible to say what proportion this represents of all literacy and numeracy provision as this level of detail is not available for learners funded through other routes.

    of educational achievement and skills. This means that, of the £23 billion total planned programme spend in 2002–03, progressively more than before is being spent on deprived neighbourhoods.

    Private Finance Initiative
    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many bids were received under the recent PFI Capital bid. [107375]

    Mr. Miliband
    [holding answer 4 Apri12003]: Fifty-six bids were submitted by Local Education Authorities with a total value in excess of £4 billion. Details of the projects prioritised can be found in the Press Notice 2003/0055 issued by the Department on 31 March, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

    Pupils (Leeds)
    Colin Burgon
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average amount spent per pupil in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in Leeds was in each year since 1996. [105984]

    Mr. Miliband
    [holding answer 1 April 2003] The information requested is contained in the following table:

    Leeds Local Education Authority—Average expenditure per pupil

    £

    Year

    Pre-primary/primary

    Secondary

    1995–96

    2,000

    2,650

    1996–97

    2,020

    2,630

    1997–98

    1,870

    2,600

    1998–99

    2,070

    2,670

    1999–2000

    2,250

    2,750

    2000–01

    2,050

    2,560

    2001–02

    2,620

    3,300

    77W
    Notes:

    1. Net Institutional Expenditure (NIE) includes all school-recurrent funding, including teaching staff and non-teaching staff salaries, school premises costs, equipment and supplies, and unspent balances held by schools at the year end. Excludes spending on special schools, central administration and support services such as transport and school meals as well as capital expenditure.

    2. Real Terms figures are adjusted to 2001–02 levels using March 2003 GDP deflators.

    3. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

    4. 1995–96 to 1998–99 data were drawn from the education Revenue Outturn statements submitted to the Department of Transport, outturn statements which LEAs submitted to the DfES.

    5. Pupil data were drawn from the Annual Schools Census adjusted to be on a financial year basis.

    PQ 106511: Comparison of rates of improvement for specialist schools by year of entry into the Specialist Schools Programme—percentage 5 + A*-C grades at GCSE

    1994 (%)

    1995 (%)

    1996 (%)

    1997 (%)

    1998 (%)

    1999 (%)

    2000 (%)

    2001 (%)

    2002 (%)

    Gain versus base year

    Class of 1994 (50 schools)

    40

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    65

    + 25

    All other comprehensives and moderns (2,948 schools)

    Est. 36

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    48

    + 12

    Class of 1995 (41 schools)

    —

    44

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    59

    + 15

    All other comprehensives and moderns (2,907 schools)

    —

    37

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    48

    + 11

    Class of 1996 (62 schools)

    —

    —

    50

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    59

    + 9

    All other comprehensives and moderns (2,845 schools)

    —

    —

    38

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    48

    + 10

    Class of 1997 (72 schools)

    —

    —

    —

    49

    —

    —

    —

    —

    57

    + 8

    All other comprehensives and moderns (2,773 schools)

    —

    —

    —

    39

    —

    —

    —

    —

    48

    + 9

    Class of 1998 (82 schools)

    —

    —

    —

    —

    45

    —

    —

    —

    53

    + 8

    All other comprehensives and moderns (2,691 schools)

    —

    —

    —

    —

    42

    —

    —

    —

    47

    + 5

    Class of 1999 (76 schools)

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    47

    —

    —

    52

    + 5

    All other comprehensives and moderns (2,615 schools)

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    44

    —

    —

    47

    + 3

    Class of 2000 (127 schools)

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    47

    —

    52

    + 5

    All other comprehensives and moderns (2,488 schools)

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    44

    —

    47

    + 3

    Class of 2001 (146 schools)

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    46

    49

    + 3

    All other comprehensives and moderns (2,342 schools)

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    45

    47

    + 2

    All 656 non-selective schools designated by September 2001

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    54

    —

    All non-specialist comprehensives and moderns (2,342)

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    47

    —

    Notes:

    1. Examination figures are taken from DfES national performance data and Ofsted PANDA Annex.

    2. The results include those of the 15 City Technology Colleges.

    3. The results exclude grammar schools and special schools.

    Source:

    "Educational outcomes and value added by specialist schools—2002 analysis" Professor David Jesson, April 2003.

    Staff Travel
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the cost was of travel by train by staff in his Department in 2002. [106336]

    Mr. Stephen Twigg
    The cost of travel by train by staff within my Department in 2002 was approximately £5 million. Departmental staff have a responsibility to give due consideration to cost when planning any official travel and extensive guidance is provided on how to get the best out of official travel. This guidance covers items such as method of travel, environmental impact and effective use of time.

    Standards Fund
    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) local education authorities and (b) schools were in receipt of the maximum entitlement under the standards fund in 2002–03. [107219]

    Specialist Schools
    Mr. Jenkins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what effect he estimates specialist schools have had on the increase in secondary school students receiving five GCSE passes or more over the last five years. [106511]

    Mr. Miliband
    Research carried out by Professor David Jesson (University of York) shows that the performance of each cohort of specialist schools and City Technology Colleges (from 1994–2001) has improved more than non-specialist schools at the time, with the exception of the 1996 and 1997 cohorts, as in the following table. This research excluded grammar schools, which, however, form a very similar percentage of both specialist schools and non-specialist schools.

    Mr. Miliband
    [holding answer 4 April 2003]: The Standards Fund is a programme of Government grants to local education authorities to support a range of national education priorities, such as the national literacy and numeracy strategies, support for Specialist Schools, measures to raise the level of achievement of pupils from ethnic minorities, the Excellence in Cities initiative and capital projects. The grant is paid to local education authorities and most is then devolved to schools. Funding is distributed according to the requirements of each grant and there is no maximum entitlement. A local education authority will not necessarily receive an allocation for every Standards Fund priority. For example, not all authorities are part of the Excellence in Cities initiative, which is designed to raise performance through a targeted programme addressing the educational problems of our major cities.

    The following table gives the total grant allocated to the London education authorities for the 2002–03 Standards Fund programme, showing the split between recurrent and capital grant.
    79W

    2002–03 standards fund grant allocated to London education authorities

    £

    Local education authority

    Revenue grant

    Capital grant

    Total grant

    Barking

    9,139,219

    11,320,167

    20,459,386

    Barnet

    9,831,950

    6,364,646

    16,196,596

    Bexley

    6,548,557

    5,478,844

    12,027,401

    Brent

    12,254,901

    5,297,419

    17,552,320

    Bromley

    7,970,161

    6,288,876

    14,259,037

    Camden

    11,769,858

    3,366,083

    15,135,941

    Corporation of London

    232,638

    140,495

    373,132

    Croydon

    11,031,930

    6,064,810

    17,096,740

    Baling

    12,836,244

    6,432,633

    19,268,877

    Enfield

    13,355,641

    9,230,884

    22,586,526

    Greenwich

    15,794,953

    9,663,911

    25,458,865

    Hackney

    14,427,947

    7,860,657

    22,288,604

    Hammersmith and Fulham

    9,697,678

    2,866,870

    12,564,548

    Haringey

    15,745,570

    6,815,522

    22,561,093

    Harrow

    5,715,266

    4,130,761

    9,846,028

    Havering

    6,109.974

    5,692,216

    11,802,190

    Hillingdon

    8,218,097

    7,255,036

    15,473,133

    Hounslow

    11,152,515

    5,923,770

    17,076,285

    Islington

    13,058,206

    3,751,636

    16,809,841

    Kensington and Chelsea

    6,797,691

    1,670,060

    8,467,751

    Kingston Upon Thames

    4,375,605

    5,614,948

    9,990,553

    Lambeth

    13,553,014

    5,366,334

    18,919,348

    Lewisham

    15,825,426

    7,361,924

    23,187,349

    Merton

    5,263,909

    3,703,518

    8,967,428

    Newham

    20,916,362

    7,799,005

    28,715,367

    Redbridge

    8,351,069

    5,623,887

    13,974,956

    Richmond Upon Thames

    3,688,102

    2,872,799

    6,560,901

    Southwark

    16,514,403

    5,101,928

    21,616,331

    Sutton

    5,100,801

    4,418,675

    9,519,476

    Tower Hamlets

    22,441.941

    7,394,838

    29,836,779

    Waltham Forest

    14,274,858

    7,977,398

    22,252,256

    Wandsworth

    11,198,485

    5,374,328

    16,572,812

    Westminster

    8,835,215

    2,560,950

    11,396,165

    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to review the proposed changes to the Standards Fund for 2004–05 in the light of this year's experience. [107220]

    Mr. Miliband
    [holding answer 4 April 2003]: The Government have announced that over the spending review period the proportion of funding provided to local education authorities and schools through ring-fenced grants will be reduced. The particular arrangements for Standards Fund are reviewed annually in the light of experience.

    Students
    Mr. Boswell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his estimate is of the time needed to repay a student loan after 2006 on the assumptions of(a) a top-up fee of £3,000 a year, (b) average earnings through the repayment period and (c) current levels of income taxation and inflation. [105304]

    Margaret Hodge
    The repayments on student loans vary according to the income of the individual borrower. The time taken by an individual to repay a student loan will depend upon many factors such as: the amount borrowed; their salary and the rate of growth of their earnings each year as they progress through their career; and whether they take a career break or experience spells of unemployment (when no repayments would be made because their income would be too low), it will also depend on whether they make any additional voluntary repayments from their own resources or from their employer.
    80W
    Mr. Love
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many BEd students were in their fourth year of studies in each of the last five years. [97937]

    Margaret Hodge
    The latest available data are shown in the following table. We are unable to provide data on the number of undergraduate students who were in the fourth year of a four-year BEd course for 1998–99.

    1999–2000a

    2000–01a

    2001–02b

    2002–03b

    Number of trainees

    4,703

    4,621

    4,293

    3,455

    Notes:

    1. Trainees in England only.

    2. Due to the lack of a complete time series from one data source for the number of fourth year BEd students we have used two different data sources for the table.

    a Source of data for 1999–2000 and 2000–01 is from the TTA's performance profiles.

    b Source of data for the 2001–02 and 2002–03 is the TTA ITT Census.

    In recent years, there has been a shift away from four-year undergraduate courses of initial teacher training towards three-year courses. In 1998–99, 70 per cent. of new undergraduate trainees started four-year courses and 23 per cent. three-year courses. By 2002–03, only 53 per cent. of new undergraduates were starting four-year courses and 43 per cent. three-year courses. Between 4–8 per cent. of undergraduate entrants have begun courses of other lengths each year since 1998–99. There has also been a progressive shift from undergraduate teacher training to the Postgraduate Certificate in Education (PGCE) route. In the five years up to 2002–03, the number of students on PGCE courses rose by 34 per cent., from 17,415 to 23,324. Together, these factors have more than compensated for the fall in the numbers of trainees starting four-year undergraduate courses.

    Telephone Helplines
    Mr. Lazarowicz
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his Answer of 6 February 2003,Official Report, column 360W, on telephone helplines, how many calls were made to each helpline charged at national rate in the last year for which records are available; and what the average duration was of these calls. [105897]

    Mr. Stephen Twigg
    The number of telephone calls made to each of the three helplines charged at national rate and the average duration of these calls for the period 1 March 2002 to 28 February 2003 were as follows:

    Helpline

    Number of calls

    Average length of call (minutes seconds)

    Department's Public Enquiry Point (PEU)

    165,380

    02.45

    Laptops for Teachers

    2,316

    01.48

    Curriculum On Line (this helpline began in November 2002. These figures cover 1 November 2002 to 28 February 2003).

    2,022

    03.18

    Tuition Fees
    Paul Farrelly
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will publish the evidence his Department has collated from(a) the United States, (b) Australia, (c) Canada and (d) New Zealand on the impact of differential tuition fees on access to university for students from different socio-economic backgrounds. [104666]

    Margaret Hodge
    [holding answer 31 March 2003]Our new policy has been informed by evidence from many countries as to how best to balance the burdens of funding higher education. We are confident that the approach set out in the White Paper, which balances additional fees with grants, a higher repayment threshold, enhanced outreach work by universities, clearer information on the costs of HE; and the creation of the access regulator will all ensure that we will widen access for students from less advantaged backgrounds while we expand towards 50 per cent.

    Mr. Wray
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much student university tuition fees have been in each year since 1998; and if he will make a statement. [106084]

    Margaret Hodge
    The maximum contribution to tuition fees for full-time undergraduates in England and Wales attending courses at publicly-funded institutions of higher education has been uprated annually since 1998 on the basis of price inflation. The relevant figures are:

    £

    Contribution

    1998–99

    1,000

    1999–2000

    1,025

    2000–01

    1,050

    2001–02

    1,075

    2002–03

    1,100

    Only those who can afford to do so are asked to make a contribution to their tuition fees. Latest available figures, for the academic year 2000–01, show that some 61 per cent. of students were assessed to make either a nil or partial contribution to their fees.

    University Admissions Policy
    Paul Holmes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how he will ensure that universities will accept as entry criteria qualifications achieved through the Government's proposals "14–19: Opportunity for Excellence"; and if he will make a statement; [105084]

    (2) how many universities accept as entry criteria key skills achieved through Curriculum 2000; and if he will make a statement; [105085]

    (3) what assessment he has made of the impact of Curriculum 2000 on university admissions policies; and if he will make a statement. [105086]

    Margaret Hodge
    Universities are responsible for their own admissions criteria. Many universities have responded to the flexibilities introduced by Curriculum 2000 to modify their entry requirements. Around 70 per cent. of universities have course admissions 82W
    requirements which explicitly refer to AS levels. The corresponding figure for key skills is around 50 per cent. My right hon. Friend has asked Mike Tomlinson to chair a group to consider future strategy on 14–19 qualifications.

  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Homelessness
    Mr. Donaldson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to tackle the growing levels of homelessness in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [107438]

    Mr. Browne
    Both the Department for Social Development and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive recognise that the numbers of those presenting as homeless are increasing. However, homelessness is not just about bricks and mortar and many of the causes leading to homelessness are not within the control of either the Department or the Housing Executive.

    The Secretary of State's Plans and Priorities indicate our commitment to help those unfortunate enough to become homeless. The Government are committed to:
    investing £5 million to provide 75 new accommodation units specifically to assist homeless people;
    implementing new arrangements for providing housing support services to over 9,000 vulnerable people living in the community, helping to sustain and improve the existing support services provided to the homeless; and
    drawing up an interim report from an inter-departmental, cross sectoral Promoting Social Inclusion Review Group which is being set up to consider the causes of homelessness and the needs of homeless people.

    In addition the Housing Executive works with a wide variety of statutory and voluntary organisations to help deal with homeless issues.

    Learning Disabilities
    Mr. Donaldson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made by the inter-departmental working group to develop a strategy for the support of people with learning disabilities in Northern Ireland. [107439]

    Jane Kennedy
    The Inter Department Group on the transition of young people with Special Educational Needs (SEN) into the world of employment, training or further education has met on two occasions and examined a number of key areas, including:options open to school leavers with SEN and associated gaps in provision,
    barriers that exist in terms of the benefits available to disabled school leavers on entering employment or training,
    difficulties in the Statutory Transition planning process and
    voluntary sector involvement.
    83W
    The Working Group will meet again shortly. Individual Departments have progressed work as follows:
    The Department of Education has met with and subsequently invited several voluntary groups to contribute to the Inter Departmental Group's work in order to develop a model of best practice.
    The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has met parents and carers to listen first hand to their experiences and concerns at meetings facilitated through a number of voluntary organisations.
    The Department for Employment and Learning has collated information to help inform the group and assist them to consider how to tackle the key issues of transition and provision for leavers of Special Schools.

    Mr. Donaldson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in bringing forward new legislation on special educational needs and disability in Northern Ireland. [107440]

    Jane Kennedy
    The consultation process on proposals for legislation which will enhance the educational opportunities of children and young people in Northern Ireland with special educational needs and disabilities has been completed. Consideration is currently being given to the content of such legislation in light of the responses to the consultative document and views expressed at consultation meetings. It is expected that draft legislation will be issued before the Summer and this will be the subject of further consultation. It is intended to introduce an Order in Council at Westminster or a Bill in the Northern Ireland Assembly towards the end of 2003, with a view to beginning implementation of the legislation in September 2004.

    New Homes
    Mr. Donaldson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to increase the number of new homes being built by the public sector in Northern Ireland. [107437]

    Mr. Browne
    A Needs and Effectiveness Review of Housing last year questioned the accuracy of the Net Stock Model which is the means for determining the level of new build social housing. Accordingly, the Department for Social Development commissioned research through the Northern Ireland Housing Executive with the aim of developing a more robust model, one that would identify housing need and demand over a 10-year period. The research, which will review and analyse the most recent demographic trends emerging from the 2001 census as well as the most up to date economic and social trends, will be available later this year. Clearly, the results of this work will be essential in helping inform decisions about the future level of new build social housing.

    Omagh Bombing
    Mr. Donaldson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with the Irish Government about the decision of the Garda Commissioner to refuse permission to the Police Service of Northern Ireland to question two senior Garda officers concerning the investigation into the Omagh bombing. [107436]
    84W
    Jane Kennedy
    The PSN I have advised that they have not made any request to date to interview senior Garda officers in connection with the Omagh Investigation, and any press reports to the contrary are untrue.

  WORK AND PENSIONS

    Job Retention and Rehabilitation Pilots
    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how much has been spent so far on the job retention and rehabilitation pilots; if he will list the pilots and their(a) costs and (b) locations; and how many pilots, in which locations, are planned for 2003–04; [104719]

    (2) how much has been spent so far on the job retention and rehabilitation pilots; if he will list the pilots and their (a) costs and (b) locations; and how many pilots, in which locations, are planned for 2003–04. [104720]

    Mr. Nicholas Brown
    The Job Retention and Rehabilitation Pilot will run from April 2003 for up to two years. It will test the effectiveness of different intervention strategies in helping people return to work, and will be delivered in six sites: Birmingham, Greater Glasgow, Sheffield, Tyneside, Teesside and West Kent. The total cost of the pilot is anticipated to be £17.75 million of which £1,580,197 has been spent to date.

    Age Diversity
    Dr. Evan Harris
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when his Department completed its diagnostic review for compliance with the Government's Code of Practice for Age Diversity in Employment; and what changes his Department plans to make following the review. [99419]

    Malcolm Wicks
    The Department is committed to ensuring that there is no unfair discrimination on basis of age within its policies and their implementation.

    The Department took steps to embed the provision of Government's Code of Practice on Age Diversity in Employment when age was integrated into our equal opportunity policies in accordance with the Performance and Innovation Unit's (PIU's) report "Winning the Generation Game".

    The former Department for Social Security and Department for Education and Employment were lead partners associated in developing the report. They considered all recommendations of the PIU's report and implemented new policies where necessary, e.g. to allow staff to stay on up to the age of 65, (which was implemented before the report was issued).

    The Department has now implemented the recommendations of PIU's report.

    British Sign Language
    Ms Atherton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions which organisations in Cornwall will
    85W
    receive part of the funding recently allocated for raising awareness of British Sign Language; and if he will make a statement. [107395]

    Maria Eagle
    I refer the hon. Member to the written statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on 18 March 2003,Official Report, column 41WS, in which he announced a discrete programme of initiatives to support the statement. We will be consulting organisations of and for deaf people about how the additional funding of £1 million should be allocated.

    Departmental Pay
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what progress has been made with the pay review in his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies for which he is responsible, with particular reference to the gender pay gap; and if he will make a statement. [106741]

    Maria Eagle
    The DWP is committed to fair pay across the Department and all of its component parts. Equal pay audits have been completed across all parts of the Department in the last 18 months. The main findings were that our policies are not discriminatory and no significant issues were identified in terms of their application. We will continue to ensure our policies arid processes are designed to promote equality.

    Departmental Staff
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many staff are employed by his Department. [106293]

    Maria Eagle
    Staffing figures for civil service Departments and agencies are available in the Library. The latest information, for October 2002, was published in February this year. The figures are also made available on the internet at http://www.civil-service.gov.uk/statistics/documents/pdf/staffing_03.pdf.

    EU Directives
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the EU Directives and Regulations which have been implemented by his Department since 17 April 2002. [106840]

    Malcolm Wicks
    The Department for Work and Pensions plays a leading role in the UK's EU policy on employment, social protection and health and safety at work. Since 17 April 2002, the following six EU health and safety Directives have been implemented:Commission Directive 2001/58/EC of 27 July 2001 amending for the second time Directive 91/155/EEC defining and laying down the detailed arrangements for the system of specific information relating to dangerous preparations in implementation of Article 14 of European Parliament and Council Directive 1999/45/EC and relating to dangerous substances in implementation of Article 27 of Council Directive 67/548/EEC (safety data sheets)
    Commission Directive 2001/59/EC of 6 August 2001 adapting to technical progress for the 28th time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances
    86W
    Commission Directive 2001/60/EC of 7 August 2001 adapting to technical progress Directive 1999/45/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the member states relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous Preparations
    Directive 1999/45/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 1999 concerning the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the member states relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous preparations
    Council Directive 98/24/EC of 7 April 1998 on the protection of the health and safety of workers from the risks related to chemical agents at work (14th individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC)
    Directive 1999/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on minimum requirements for improving the safety and health protection of workers potentially at risk from explosive atmospheres (15th individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC).

    EC Regulations are, in general, directly applicable in the member states, without the need for further incorporation international law. However, some Regulations require UK measures to make them workable and enforceable. Some Regulations enact small or technical amendments. As far as we have been able to verify, the number of Regulations implemented by the Department for Work and Pensions since 17 April 2002 is two:
    Commission Regulation (EC) No 1687/2002 of 25 September 2002 on an additional period for notification of certain active substances already on the market for biocidal use as established in Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2000
    Council Regulation (EEC) No 304/2003 of 28 January 2003 concerning the export and import of certain dangerous chemicals.

    Exhibitions
    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list events at which his Department and each agency and non-departmental public body for which his Department is responsible have exhibited in each of the last three years, stating for each(a) the purpose of exhibiting, (b) the cost of exhibiting and (c) the number of staff attending for the exhibition. [107617]

    Maria Eagle
    The Department and its agencies exhibits at many events each year. These include commercial trade exhibitions; local outreach events for The Pension Service, job fairs organised by Jobcentre Plus; and a host of other events aimed at the general public and other stakeholders—ranging from Green Paper consultations to forums aimed at the pensions industry.

    The details requested are not held centrally for these many types of event. As a result the answer can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    External Consultants
    Mr. Heald
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) pursuant to his answer of 31 March 2003,Official Report, column 598W, on external consultants, what the total cost of external consultants

    87W
    was to his Department and its predecessors in each of the last four financial years for which figures are available; [107433]

    (2) pursuant to his answer of 31 March 2003. Official Report, column 598W, on external consultants, if he will list the 10 contracts with the largest value awarded to external consultants by his Department since it was established, giving the (a) value of the contract and (b) firm in each case; [107434]

    (3) pursuant to his answer of 31 March 2003, Official Report, column 598W, on external consultants, what his estimate is of the cost involved in answering the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire's question; how this was arrived at; and if he will make a statement on the reasons for the time it took to reach the conclusion that answering the question would incur significant disproportionate cost. [107435]

    Maria Eagle
    The accounting systems that record payments to organisations that supply consultancy and other professional services to DWP are not able to provide disaggregated figures in the level of detail required, without encountering significant disproportionate cost. Such information is as follows:

    The total cost to DWP of the use of external consultants and professional services in the 2001–02 financial year was £169.494 million. DWP accounting systems do not currently allow us to reliably disaggregate expenditure by contract under this heading, so this figure does not solely reflect expenditure on consultancy. The Department is in the process of introducing systems which should rectify this problem (a legacy of the creation of the Department in 2001 and of the Department of Social Security and Employment Service Accounting Systems) and allow us to record this data more accurately in future.

    The former DSS spend, prior to creation of DWP in 2001, on external consultancy and professional services was:
    1998–99 £72.34 million: (£79.30 million at present 2002–03 value)
    1999–2000 £83.00 million: (£88.83 million at present 2002–03 value)
    2000–01 £104.73 million: (£109.66 million at present 2002–03 value)

    The increase in expenditure in this area is due to the widespread modernisation programme currently underway in DWP. Figures are not available for the spend under former ES and could be obtained only at significant disproportionate cost.

    In attempting to provide information in response to the hon. Member's previous question, Official Report, column 598W, it emerged that there may be potential inaccuracies with the way in which the figures are recorded on the accounting systems. This was due, we believe, to the inability of DWPs current accounting system to disaggregate expenditure on consultancy and professional services by contract. Significant cost had already been incurred up to this stage and it was determined that further significant disproportionate cost would be incurred in attempting to provide the information requested by a manual reckoning of the input data.

    We estimated that the cost of answering the hon. Members previous question will be in the region of £3,000–£5,000.

    Minimum Income Guarantee
    Sue Doughty
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners were in receipt of the minimum income guarantee(a) in total and (b) in each parliamentary constituency for each of the last six years for which figures are available. [107431]

    Maria Eagle
    The information has been placed in the Library.

    Pensioners
    Mr. Willetts
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Yeovil, of 13 February 2003,Official Report, column 967W, what his estimate is of the gross annual cost of increasing the basic state pension by average earnings growth for each of the next 10 years; what offsetting savings there would be on the benefits; and what the net cost would be. [106120]

    Maria Eagle
    The information requested is set out in the table.

    Table 1: Estimated cost of increasing the basic State Pension by average earnings from April 2003

    Gross cost

    Net cost

    Income related benefit savings

    2003–04

    £510 million

    £340 million

    £180 million

    2004–05

    £1.4 billion

    £900 million

    £500 million

    2005–06

    £2.2 billion

    £1.4 billion

    £800 million

    2006–07

    £2.9 billion

    £1.9 billion

    £1 billion

    2007–08

    £3.8 billion

    £2.5 billion

    £1.3 billion

    2008–09

    £4.7 billion

    £3.1 billion

    £1.6 billion

    2009–10

    £5.7 billion

    £3.7 billion

    £2 billion

    2010–11

    £6.7 billion

    £4.4 billion

    £2.3 billion

    2011–12

    £7.7 billion

    £5 billion

    £2.7 billion

    2012–13

    £8.8 billion

    £5.7 billion

    £3 billion

    Notes:

    1. Figures are in 2002–03 price terms rounded to the nearest £100 million, except 2003–04 which is rounded to the nearest £10 million. The gross cost may not sum due to rounding.

    2. Gross costs are estimated by the Government Actuary's Department.

    3. Income related benefit offsets are calculated using the DWP policy simulation model.

    Estimates are consistent with figures provided on 13 February 2003, Official Report, column 967W.

    The difference between the gross and net costs represents estimated savings in income related benefits as a result of increasing the basic State Pension by average earnings.

    Mr. Willetts
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether legislation arising from the consultation process on the recent Pensions Green Paper, Cm 5677, will include a commitment to protect the pension rights of people who worked in Australia before the termination of the Anglo-Australian Social Security Agreement. [106196]

    Maria Eagle
    I refer the hon. Member to the written answer given by the Minister for Pensions on 23 July 2002,Official Report, column 1031.

    Dr. Iddon
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners aged 80 or over are in receipt of the 25p per week pension supplement; and what the cost is of administration of this scheme. [106252]
    89W
    Malcolm Wicks
    The latest available information is that there are around 2.6 million pensioners in receipt of the 25p age addition.

    Information on the cost of administering the age addition is not currently available in the format requested. In accordance with the requirements of Resource Accounting and Budgeting, the Department now accounts for its administration and benefit expenditure by Strategic Objective, as set out in its Public Service Agreements, and by individual Requests for Resources, as set out in the Departmental Estimates and Accounts.

    Notes:

    1. Information on recipients is based on September 2002 State Pension administration data.

    2. This figure has been rounded to the nearest hundred thousand.

    3. This figure includes all pensioners aged 80 or over living in the UK and overseas receiving a State Pension.

    Mr. Webb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his letter to hon. Members of 17 March on the Pension Service and the Pensions Credit, how many personal direct mail packs his Department is sending to pensioner households; and if he will place a copy of a pack in the Library. [106878]

    Maria Eagle
    The Pension Service will be writing to all pensioner households to explain Pension Credit and invite applications. Between April 2003 and June 2004, all 6.8 million pensioner households will be issued with a direct mail pack. This systematic approach will be supported by regional and national advertising.

    Copies of the direct mail packs will be placed in the Library after the Easter recess.

    Mr. Webb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for how many pensioner households he holds verified address information; and if he will make a statement. [106879]

    Maria Eagle
    There are about 8.1 million pensioner households in Great Britain. All customers are asked to give their address when they claim their pension. They are asked to let the Department know if they move to a different address.

    Note:

    The number of pensioner households is based on Winter Fuel Payment figures for 2001–02.

    Mr. Wray
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what measures have been taken to reduce pensioner poverty since 1997; and what proposals he has to ensure that these measures are fully implemented. [106093]

    Malcolm Wicks
    We are taking action to tackle pensioner poverty and ensure that all pensioners share in the nation's prosperity. This is why our first priority has been to help the poorest pensioners and why it is right to target more money on them through the Minimum Income Guarantee (M1G): from April 2003 no pensioner will have to get by on less than £102.10 (£155.80 for couples). Rates will be linked to earnings throughout this Parliament.

    We know that there is no single measure of pensioner poverty which is a complex, multi-dimensional issue, affecting many aspects of pensioners' lives. But providing a decent income is key. So we will be spending
    90W
    around £7½ billion extra on pensioners in 2003–04 as a result of the measures introduced since 1997. This includes around £3½ billion on the poorest third of pensioners—the very people who need help most, and is almost six times as much as an earnings link to the basic state pension since 1998 would have given them.

    When Pension Credit replaces the MIG in October 2003, pensioners will, for the first time, be rewarded, not penalised, for saving. Pension Credit is radically different from MIG in that pound for pound deductions will be scrapped. Pension Credit will reward those with weekly incomes up to £139.08 for single pensioners, and £203.80 for couples. At the same time, further increases are proposed—above inflation—to the Pensioners' Tax Allowances.

    Other measures have also been introduced to help tackle pensioner poverty. For example, in September 1997 the level of VAT on fuel was cut from 8 per cent. to 5 per cent., reducing a typical customer's fuel bill by around £16 a year, at a cost to the Government of £450 million a year. Winter Fuel Payments (WFP) will be £200 for each eligible household for the remainder of this Parliament—around 7.9 million households and 11.3 million individuals will benefit from WFPs in 2002–03.

    We have introduced various measures to ensure that the initiatives we have introduced are fully implemented. For example, we have undertaken a take-up campaign to encourage those pensioners who are entitled to it to claim the MIG. This has put an average £20 a week extra in the pockets of 149,000 people who would not have received it otherwise. We have also reduced the MIG claim form from 40 pages to 10 and introduced a claim line for the MIG, which enables customers to contact the claim line by using a freephone number. The line has dealt with over one million inquiries.

    Our commitment to encourage pensioners to claim Pension Credit can be seen in the fact that the Spending Review 2002 introduced a Public Service Agreement target to pay Pension Credit to at least three million pensioner households by 2006. We have introduced a comprehensive strategy to achieve this. Measures, include:
    Transferring existing MIG recipients to Pension Credit ready for payments to be made from October 2003
    Running mass advertising (TV and Press) from September 2003 to launch Pension Credit and advise pensioners and their friends and family of how The Pension Service and partner organisations can support them to consider and take-up entitlement
    Writing to all pensioners not already receiving MIG over the take-on period (through to October 2004) to help them consider any entitlement to Pension Credit and encourage those likely to be eligible to apply
    Working with local partners to help support the communications to pensioners, and tailoring marketing and communications activity accordingly
    Reviewing the take-up position during autumn 2004 and taking any further action that may be necessary.

    The Households Below Average Income (HBAI) figures published on 13 March 2003 suggest that our strategy is succeeding. The figures continue to show large falls in the number of pensioners on absolute low income

    91W
    (before and after housing costs) since 1997. The absolute low income figures numbers are down from 2.7 million (1996–07) to 1.1 million pensioners (2001–02), a decline of over 60 per cent. on the after housing costs measure.

    Also, there has been a reduction of 0.4 million pensioners living in relative low-income households (after housing costs). This has been achieved even at a time of rapid growth in general prosperity that we've seen since 1997. Pensioners are therefore sharing in the country's rising prosperity. In fact on one measure, pensioners have more than kept pace with rising incomes overall—the number of pensioners below 60 per cent. of median income (after housing costs) is down by around 15 per cent. since 1996–97 (2.7 to 2.2 million pensioners).

    SERPS
    Mr. Willetts
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps are being taken to inform British people living abroad of the reduction in inherited SERPS, including the transitional arrangements and the compensation procedures. [106192]

    Malcolm Wicks
    For those customers living overseas and affected by the reduction in Inherited SERPS, The Pension Service wrote to embassies, expat organisations, including website editors with full details of the transitional arrangements. As part of a concerted advertising campaign on-line banner adverts on websites were introduced which were only accessible overseas. These adverts were directly linked to the SERPS information pages on The Pension Service website. Press adverts appeared in the national press and TV listings during the advertising campaign, these publications are widely read overseas, latest figures show around 800,000 a day.

    The Pension Service wrote to everyone who made inquiries about compensation. The majority of people who complained they had not been told about the original changes were either over pension age already or would reach pension age before October 2002. As a result they were not affected by the revised arrangements. The availability of compensation is signposted in The Pension Service complaints leaflets and full details of the scheme are publicly available on the internet. No specific action was taken to target British people living abroad with information about the compensation procedures when executing the advertising campaign, because it would not have been effective.

    There is absolutely no requirement for people, other than those receiving benefits, to report changes of address to the Department. As a result the addresses held on Departmental systems, particularly those for people of working age, are not reliable. Addresses for people abroad are even less reliable than those of people living in the UK. This meant that direct mailing to people abroad would not have been effective. The local rate call telephone number was not available to people abroad, nor was the freepost return envelope service, so any direct mailing to people abroad would have been far more complicated to run operationally We therefore considered that other channels of communication, particularly advertising and internet, would be more productive.

    Social Exclusion
    Mr. Wray
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what measures are in place to reduce social exclusion among older people and to enable them to take a fuller part in society. [106094]

    Malcolm Wicks
    The Government are committed to putting in place policies that will help older people play their full part in our society. A wide range of measures have already been introduced to tackle social exclusion among older people, a multi-dimensional problem, requiring a multi-agency response. Initiatives so far have included targeted service improvements as well as targeted benefit improvements.

    One of our key measures in reducing social exclusion among older people is tackling pensioner poverty.

    The Government will be spending around £7.5 billion extra on pensioners in 2003–04 as a result of the measures introduced since 1997. This includes around £3.5 billion on the poorest third of pensioners—the very people who need help most. This is almost six times as much as an earnings link to the basic state pension since 1998 would have given them. From April 2003, basic state pension will be £77.45 for singles—(£123.80 for couples). An increase of £100 a year for single people and £160 a year for couples. In future years the basic state pension will increase by 2.5 per cent. or the level of the September RPI, whichever is higher. Nearly four million households with someone aged 75 or over will benefit from free TV licences, worth around £116 per year.

    We also recognised that we have to do something for the poorest pensioners; that is why we introduced the minimum income guarantee (MIG). As a result, nearly two million people are benefiting from MIG and the take up campaign has put an average £20 a week extra in the pockets of around 149,000 people who would not have received it otherwise.

    We are now going a step further and introducing pension credit from October 2003 which will reward not penalise saving. It will be easy to apply for and will remove the indignity of the intrusive and bureaucratic weekly means test.

    As a consequence of this change, those pensioners in receipt of pension credit will receive an average extra income of £400 a year—and at last the savings of those who are just above the MIG level are being recognised.

    Following the Spending Review 2002, a Public Service Agreement target is now in place to pay pension credit to at least three million pensioner households by 2006. We have carefully devised a strategy to ensure maximum take-up of pension credit.

    Winter fuel payments (WFP) are an important strand of the Fuel Poverty Strategy. Around 7.9 million households and 11.3 million individuals have benefited from the £200 WFP to each eligible household in 2002–03. The Home Energy Efficiency Scheme will have helped around 480,000 vulnerable pensioner households, by 2004. Further measures include a reduced level of VAT on fuel and on the installation of energy saving materials so that people can more easily afford to keep warm.
    93W
    But social exclusion is not just about tackling poverty, we are also actively promoting more engagement and participation of older people in public life and the community through our support for the Better Government for Older People Network. This has established partnerships across Government and is contributing to improvements in the delivery of services for older people at a local level. In addition, the Older People Advisory Group is becoming established at a basis for national, regional and local engagement with older people.

    In the health and social care field we have introduced a National Service Framework for Older People setting clear national standards to ensure that older people receive the care, priority and attention that they should, root out age discrimination and promote health and active living among older people. In public transport, we have introduced for pensioners a free bus pass with a minimum half fare on local bus services. Recognising it plays a vital role in helping them remain active members of our communities, as well as keeping them in touch with friends and relatives.

    In combating crime we are targeting crime against older people. The Distraction Burglary Task Force has brought together a wide range of organisations including the police, voluntary organisations, the utility companies, banks and local authorities, to gather data, publicise good practice, raise awareness and provide guidance for victims and those at risk of this type of burglary.

    Providing opportunities to work are also key to tackling social exclusion. We have launched the Age Positive campaign aimed at employers and individuals to raise awareness of best practice and the business benefits of an age diverse workforce, using the Code of Practice on Age Diversity. The Experience Corps is aimed at encouraging older people to become involved in their communities through volunteering. The Learning and Skills Council is helping to increase participation of older people in adult and further education and the UK online centres are improving access to the Internet and new technologies—the over 55s make up almost one quarter of the total learners in these centres.

    Sunset Clauses
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the sunset clauses included in legislation from his Department since 1997. [106951]

    Malcolm Wicks
    The Department has not included a sunset clause in any Bill since coming into being in June 2001.

  HEALTH

    AAT Deficiency
    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to speed up the time it takes to identify people with AAT Deficiency. [106608]

    Jacqui Smith
    The considerable extra investment that this Government has made, and continues to make, in national health service funding will improve services for 94W
    all NHS patients, including those with anti-antitrypsin deficiency. However, we have no plans centrally to take specific steps to speed up the time it takes to identify people with this condition.

    Agency Social Workers
    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with the(a) Association of Directors of Social Services and (b) local authorities regarding the cost to them of the need to employ agency social workers. [106548]

    Jacqui Smith
    I have regular discussions with representatives from local authorities and the Association of Direct ors of Social Services on a range of finance related issues, however it is for local councils to decide what staff to employ taking account of local circumstances.

    Alzheimer's Disease
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the incidence of Alzheimer's disease in each of the last 10 years. [107161]

    Jacqui Smith
    The Department of Health does not routinely collect information about the incidence of Alzheimer's disease but it is estimated that about 5 per cent. of people over 65 have dementia, and that Alzheimer's disease causes up to 60 per cent. of cases of dementia. While there are different estimates available, in 2001 the national service framework for older people reported that approximately 600,000 people in the United Kingdom had dementia.

    Asthma
    Helen Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps he is taking to improve services for people with asthma; and if he will make a statement; [102663]

    (2) what the average amount spent in 2002–03 on asthma care by primary care trusts in (a) the north-west region and (b) England is. [102661]

    Jacqui Smith
    That information is not held centrally. However we estimate that the net ingredient cost of prescriptions dispensed in the community for the treatment of asthma, in England for 2001–02 is 574 million. Patients with asthma are able to access the full range of National Health Service support services in both primary and secondary care settings.

    People with asthma will benefit from the emerging expert patients programme which will, via the NHS, provide training in self-management skills for people with long term chronic conditions. We have now commenced on a fourth wave pilot phase for the remaining selected primary care trusts, with activity taking place on a generic basis.

    The previous pilots have been well received by the course participants.

    The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) has produced guidance on asthma inhalers for children. In September 2000 it issued guidance on the use of inhalers for children under five. NICE also published guidance on inhaler devices for older children, age range five to 15, on 11 April 2002.
    95W
    Dr. Kumar
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to ensure that people with asthma have their inhaling technique monitored on a regular basis; and if he will make a statement. [106803]

    Jacqui Smith
    [holding answer 3 Apri12003]: We do not have specific plans to ensure that inhaling techniques are monitored on a regular basis. However the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) produced guidance on inhaler devices for older children (age range five to 15) on 11 April 2002, which mentions the importance of considering the monitoring of effective inhaler techniques. Additionally on 8 September 2000 NICE issued guidance on the use of inhalers for children under five. This guidance states that general practitioners/community health carers have an essential role in providing support and guidance to aid the management of a child's condition, and advice on general management may result in additional improvements in clinical effectiveness.

    Additionally people with asthma will benefit from the emerging expert patients programme which will. via the national health service, provide training in self-management skills for people with long term chronic conditions.

    Expert groups such as the British Thoracic Society have also developed clinical guidelines for the management of asthma.

    A new general medical services contract agreement was launched on Friday 21 February 2003, which if accepted by the profession, will lead to an unprecedented level of new investment in general practice to deliver a wider range of high quality services with better clinical outcomes for all patients.

    Care Assistants
    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to encourage people to take up jobs as care assistants caring for(a) elderly and (b) disabled people. [106545]

    Jacqui Smith
    The Department is conducting a national recruitment campaign for social care to support employers. The campaign includes actions to encourage the recruitment of social carers. This aspect of the campaign, to undertake more work on the recruitment of social careworkers which includes care assistants for disabled and older people, will be stepped up during this year.

    The Government is funding a new human resource development specific grant to local Councils, worth £9.5 million, in 2003–04. One of the central purposes of this grant is to enable social care employers across the statutory, private and voluntary sectors to tackle problems of recruitment and retention.

    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions his Department has had with(a) local authorities and (b) care agency companies regarding shortages of care assistants. [106546]

    Jacqui Smith
    While we have not directly had discussions with care agency companies, local authorities and independent sector service providers are represented on a number of groups that advise the Department on recruitment policy.

    Care Homes
    Mr. Paul Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 21 March 2003,Official Report, column 963W, on care homes, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of writing to care home providers on passing on the free nursing care contribution to residents. [105883]

    Jacqui Smith
    As a result of this exchange of correspondence an announcement of a package of measures to address this was made in a press release on 11 March 2002, 2002/0124. A copy of which has been placed in the Library.

    Child Abandonment
    Mr. Wray
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assistance is available to families(a) in difficulty and (b) with a child with disability to prevent potential abandonment. [105936]

    Jacqui Smith
    In England and Wales, section 17 of the Children Act 1989 places a duty on local authorities to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need and, so far as is consistent with that duty, to promote the upbringing of such children by their parents. Councils can meet that duty by providing services to families, where this is the best way to meet the needs of the child. The criteria in the Children Act, which defines those are in need, includes all disabled children.

    Children in Care
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has undertaken into the wraparound model for caring for looked after children. [106784]

    Jacqui Smith
    The Department of Health recognises that some looked after children displaying severe levels of challenging or anti-social behaviour require a specialised approach. The care planning process used for all looked after children seeks to ensure that the most appropriate carers, services and supports are available to meet the child's identified developmental needs. For some children, a specialised multi-agency approach, that will address the child's individual needs by providing specific therapeutic and behavioural management, will be required. The Department is therefore funding a Treatment Foster Care Intervention to provide structured support to the child, his/her foster carers and birth or adoptive families that addresses all the child's needs simultaneously. The model being used has been extensively evaluated in the United States and the Department of Health is commissioning evaluation of the English model.

    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the written ministerial statement of 31 March 2003,Official Report, columns 39–40WS, on children in care, what the outcomes are for 11-year-old looked-after children in (a) English and (b) maths in each of the last five years; and what results will be measured for 11-year-old looked-after children under the new PSA target. [107002]
    97W
    Jacqui Smith
    Data were first collected for the year ending 30 September 2000. This data and the data from 2001, are shown in the table. Data for year ending September 2002 will be available at the end of June 2003.

    Eligibility and performance of looked-after children1 in Key Stage tasks and tests, compared with all children, school years ending 30 September 2000 and 2001: England

    Looked-after children

    All children

    Number

    Percentage

    Percentage

    Year 6

    2000

    2001

    2000

    2001

    2000

    2001

    Number eligible to sit Key Stage 2 tasks and tests

    2,700

    2,800

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Number who attained at least Level 42 in the following:

    English

    860

    940

    32.3

    33.3

    74

    74

    Mathematics

    810

    820

    30.4

    29.1

    71

    70

    1 Children who had been looked after continuously for at least 12 months at 30 September

    2 Target level for age group

    Sources:

    1. For 'all children': DfES statistical bulletin 'National curriculum assessments of 7, 11 and 14-year-olds in England—2001'.

    2. For 'looked after children': OC2 return. Annual publication: 'Outcome Indicators for Looked after Children, year ending 30 September 2001, England'.

    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the Written Ministerial Statement of 31 March 2003,Official Report, columns 39–40WS, on children in care, what targets will be set for looked-after children who undergo less than one year of continuous care. [107003]

    Jacqui Smith
    The attainment of children who spend shorter times in care is important. We will, therefore, be consulting stakeholders on how best to achieve the introduction of individual education targets for all children in care. The Government will also put in place arrangements to analyse data from the new pupil level annual school census, in order to improve our understanding of outcomes for those young people who have spent any time in care. The results of this analysis will be used to inform the development of future policy.

    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the Written Ministerial Statement of 31 March, on children in care, whether a child who has entered a period of foster care is classified as a child in continuous looked-after child care. [107005]

    Jacqui Smith
    Yes. If a local council provides foster care for a child, under the Children Act 1989, that child is regarded as being looked after by the council.

    Community Pharmacies
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many community pharmacies in the Buckinghamshire health authority(a) closed and (b) opened in 2001–02. [106954]

    Mr. Lammy
    In the year ending 31 March 2002, two community pharmacies in contract with the national health service to dispense prescriptions opened in Buckinghamshire health authority and two closed.

    Consultants
    Dr. Evan Harris
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department has issued on the(a) minimum and (b) optimum number of consultants needed to staff an accident and emergency department; and if he will make a statement. [106174]
    98W
    The revised target measures the relative proportions of children in care achieving level 4 in English and Maths at Key Stage 2 compared with the proportions of all 11-year-olds achieving that level.

    Mr. Lammy
    The Department has not issued any specific guidance on the number of consultants needed to staff an accident and emergency department.

    Dentists
    Mr. Burns
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what levels of professional indemnity cover(a) dentists from EU countries practising in England and (b) dentists trained in England receive. [106885]

    Mr. Hutton
    All dentists working in the United Kingdom must be registered with the General Dental Council (GDC). The GDC's guidance to dentists states that:"a dentist involved in advising or treating patients must … be indemnified against claims for professional negligence. … A lack of adequate indemnity cover … would almost certainly lead to a charge of serious professional misconduct."

    The GDC makes no distinction in this about where a dentist was trained.

    Departmental Budget
    Chris Grayling
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the internal departments, agencies and other public sector organisations which receive funding from his departmental budget. [106622]

    Mr. Hutton
    At 1 April 2003, in addition to the main Department itself, the departmental budget funds the following statutory bodies in whole or in part.

    Executive Agencies:

    Medicines and Health Care Products Regulatory Agency

    NHS Estates

    NHS Pensions Agency

    NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency

    Strategic Health Authorities.

    Primary Care Trusts.

    Special Health Authorities:

    Counter Fraud and Security Management Service

    Dental Vocational Training Authority

    Family Health Services Appeal Authority (Special Health Authority)

    99W

    Health Development Agency

    Health Protection Agency

    Mental Health Act Commission

    National Blood Authority

    National Clinical Assessment Authority

    National Institute for Clinical Excellence

    National Patient Safety Agency

    National Treatment Agency

    NHS Appointments Commission

    NHS Information Authority

    NHS Litigation Authority

    NHS Logistics Authority

    Prescription Pricing Authority

    Retained Organs Commission

    UK Transplant

    Dental Practice Board.

    NHS Trusts.

    Executive and Tribunal Non Departmental Public Bodies:

    Care Standards Tribunal

    Commission for Health Improvement

    Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health

    Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals

    Family Health Services Appeal Authority

    General Social Care Council

    Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority

    Mental Health Review Tribunal

    National Biological Standards Board

    National Care Standards Commission

    National Radiological Protection Board

    NHS Tribunal

    Pharmaceutical Price Control Tribunal

    Public Health Laboratory Service

    Local Authorities responsible for social services.

    Certain Statutory Inquiries:

    Ayling Inquiry

    Climbie Inquiry

    Kerr/Haslam Inquiry

    Neale Inquiry

    Shipman Inquiry

    Toft Inquiry

    In addition, funding support is provided towards the transitional costs of establishing the Nursing and Midwifery Council and the Health Professions Council (self-funding independent statutory bodies established in April 2002), to a number of advisory non-departmental public bodies and to statutory Inquiries run by NHS bodies.

    The information above excludes cases where payments are made to other statutory bodies in respect of goods or services provided.

    Departmental Expenditure
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of the expenditure of his Department on newspapers, magazines and periodicals in 2002. [106308]
    100W
    Mr. Lammy
    The estimate of expenditure on newspapers, magazines and periodicals in 2002–03 was £419,680.

    The expenditure covers central purchasing through the Departments library and direct purchasing by individual units. The figures do not include expenditure by agencies or official publications which are published weekly, monthly or quarterly by Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

    E-prescriptions
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what model his Department intends to roll out for e-prescriptions; what timetable has been set for the roll out; and what the budget was in each of the last three years. [106789]

    Mr. Lammy
    To take forward the Government's commitments to electronic transmission of prescriptions (ETP) made in "Information for Health, Pharmacy in the Future—Implementing the NHS Plan and Delivering 21st Century FT Support for the NHS", three pilots were initiated in June 2002. While the three pilots are currently working on different technical solutions in respect of information flows, lessons already learnt from the pilots are contributing to the development of a national model for ETP. This means that appropriate technical standards are being developed covering such areas as the format and content of the electronic prescribing message and security standards. In January 2003 the Department authorised a six-month extension to the pilots to further explore the issues associated with the development of a national model.

    "Delivering 21st Century IT Support for the NHS" called for a phased implementation of e-prescribing. The plan envisages that 50 per cent. coverage will be achieved by the end of December 2005, with national coverage being achieved by December 2007, with full clinician and patient functionality.

    The Department's contribution to the pilots has largely involved funding the costs of pharmacy connections to the NHSnet, the independent evaluation, and the re-engineering of the Prescription Pricing Authority. The costs of setting up and running the pilot has been met fully by the consortia themselves, based on business justification.

    General Practitioners
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to ensure that GP practices have systems for reviewing medicines prescribed to older people; and what assessment he has made of the implications on the over medication of older people in(a) their own homes and (b) care homes. [106073]

    Jacqui Smith
    A number of steps have been taken nationally and locally, to support general practitioner practices in reviewing the medicines prescribed to older people. For example the National Collaborative for Medicines Management is introducing medication reviews as part of its programme.
    101W
    Information is not routinely collected on the over-medication of older people. We are aware of the concerns about inappropriate use of medications among older people, within care homes in particular. Medication reviews will play an important part in preventing inappropriate use of the medication.

    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what policies are in place to encourage GP surgeries to open for longer hours and at weekends. [106565]

    Mr. Hutton
    The NHS Plan and Planning and Priorities Framework 2003–06 makes it clear that development of fast, convenient and responsive primary care services is a key priority for primary care trusts (PCTs). It is, however, for PCTs, working with their local practices and other providers to decide how to achieve this whether through general practice or by promoting alternative service models including use of personal medical services, salaried doctors, NHS walk-in centres or local walk-in services.

    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent guidance he has issued to primary care trusts on longer opening hours for GP surgeries. [106566]

    Mr. Hutton
    None.

    Gulf War
    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what impact the deployment of NHS professionals to the Gulf has had on the provision of services in accident and emergency departments. [106636]

    Mr. Hutton
    So far, the impact on the provision of services in accident and emergency departments across the National Health Service as a whole resulting from the deployment of NHS professionals to the Gulf has been minimal. The Department is working closely with the Ministry of Defence and the NHS to ensure this continues to be the case.

    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how he expects the deployment of NHS staff to the Gulf to affect levels of NHS activity. [106637]

    Mr. Hutton
    The Department has worked with the Ministry of Defence and the National Health Service to put in place contingency arrangements designed to minimise the impact of the deployment of NHS staff to the Gulf. It is expected that levels of NHS activity will be maintained.

    Health Care (Somerset)
    Mr. Liddell-Grainger
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many disabled people are registered in England; how many have learning difficulties; how many NHS registered wheelchair users there are; and how many have hearing loss. [107326]

    Jacqui Smith
    Figures on how many disabled people are registered in England are not collected centrally, except for figures relating to sensory impaired disabled people. However, each local authority is required by law to maintain a register of disabled people living within its area, for the purposes of planning and providing 102W
    appropriate social services. Registration, though, is entirely voluntary, and is not required as a condition of receiving services from local authorities.

    The White Paper "Valuing People: A New Strategy for Learning Disability for the 21st Century" (CM 5086), published in March 2001, estimated that there were around 210,000 people with severe and profound learning disabilities in England and a prevalence rate of around 25 per 1,000 population, or up to 1.2 million people, for mild/moderate learning disabilities.

    The Audit Commission estimates that there are at least 640,000 long-term wheelchair users in the United Kingdom, about 70 per cent. of whom are over 60 years. The current total number of manual wheelchairs within the national health service in England is estimated to be approximately 1.2 million with some 200,000 issued each year. In addition to the manual wheelchairs, there are approximately 25,000 powered wheelchairs, mainly electrically powered indoor and outdoor chairs (EPIOCs), with some 6,000 new EPIOCs issued each year.

    On 31 March 2001, the last date for which we have data, 194,840 people in England were registered with local authorities as deaf or hard of hearing. The Royal National Institute for the Deaf estimates that as many as one in seven of the population has a hearing impairment.

    Mr. Liddell-Grainger
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what help is given to local authorities to help place elderly people in care homes. [107334]

    Jacqui Smith
    Councils with social services responsibilities have considerable experience in placing older people and other vulnerable adults in care homes. Since 1993 they have had responsibilities for placements in both their own homes and independent sector homes where residents need financial support or do not have care and attention otherwise available to them.

    To assist councils, the Department of Health has published guidance on the way in which older people's needs should be assessed; information that councils should make available to prospective residents; the choices that individuals may make; and the rules for determining financial and care management responsibility for out-of-area placements. Regulations and associated guidance provide councils with a national framework for determining how much individual residents should contribute to care home fees.

    Much of this information is brought together in the 1996 publication "Moving into a care home" that can be used as source material by prospective residents, actual residents, councils and other interested parties. An updated version of this publication will be available later in 2003.

    Health Services (Deaf People)
    Mr. Levitt
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to make additional resources available to implement the recommendations of the review Sign of the Times; and how his Department will ensure that these resources are channelled directly to this purpose; [100348]
    103W
    (2) when his Department will announce the results of the consultation into mental health services for deaf people entitled Sign of the Times; and when the recommendations will be implemented; [100347]

    (3) what steps his Department is taking to ensure that there are better linkages between specialist and local health services for deaf people with mental health problems; [100346]

    (4) what his Department is doing to ensure that the National Service Framework for mental health services applies to British sign language users; and if he will make a statement on the process that will be followed to achieve this. [100349]

    Jacqui Smith
    The Department of Health published a consultation document entitled Sign of the Times in July of last year specifically to address this issue. The consultation period extended to November to allow time for voluntary groups to respond. The Department is now working with an expert group to distil the many responses received and intends to publish its response in the spring.

    Additional resources will be made available to assist implementation of the final guidance.

    A key issue will be the relationship between local and specialist services and this will be addressed in the final response.

    Health Vacancies
    Dr. Evan Harris
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the vacancy rate was for(a) radiographers and (b) biomedical scientists in the NHS in (i) England, (ii) each NHS region and (iii) each NHS trust in each of the last six years. [106596]

    Mr. Hutton
    The National Health Service vacancy survey, first collected in March 1999, collects information on the number of posts which trusts are actively trying to fill which havebeen vacant for three months or more. Vacancy information in March 1999 was only collected for the overall radiographer group and pathology staff and has only beenseparately collected as diagnostic and therapeutic radiographers and biomedical scientists from March 2000. The available information has been placed in the Library.

    Home Helps
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many home helps were employed in each local authority in England in the last year for which figures are available. [106943]

    Jacqui Smith
    Information on the whole-time equivalent number of home helps employed by each local authority in England as at 30 September 2001 (the latest date for which data are available) has been placed in the Library.

    Hospital Standards
    Mr. Jenkins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what incentives are proposed so as to increase standards for the worst performing hospitals. [106508]
    104W
    Mr. Hutton
    The Modernisation Agency runs programmes to turn around poorly performing national health service trusts with an average value of £250,000 per zero star trust. Their performance improvement team addresses failures around access targets, while the clinical governance team assists trusts who received an adverse clinical governance review. This support aims to enable NHS trusts to improve their performance rating so that they have the opportunity to benefit from a range of earned autonomy freedoms, and to apply for foundation trust status. This is part of the Government's Plan to raise standards across the whole NHS, as set out in the Department of Health publication, "Raising Standards Across the NHS—A Programme of Rewards and Support for all NHS Trusts", in December 2002.

    Hypothyroidism
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of a possible link between ADD/ADHD and hypothyroidism: and if he will make a statement. [106595]

    Jacqui Smith
    While congenital hypothyroidism can cause deficits in attention no significant associations between abnormal thyroid hormone levels and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) have been found. Routine screening of thyroid function is not recommended as part of the diagnostic assessment of ADHD.

    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the percentage of children who fail to recover from ADD/ADHD by the time they reach adulthood. [106653]

    Jacqui Smith
    Research indications are that some of the symptoms of attention deficit disorder/attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in childhood can persist into adulthood in 30 to 70 per cent. of people. The wide percentage variation reflects the differing criteria and definitions used in the available research studies.

    Malpractice
    David Wright
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the health service budget is used to settle cases of malpractice. [106849]

    Mr. Lammy
    Information on the amounts used to settle claims for malpractice is not collected centrally.

    According to the National Audit Office summarised accounts 2001–02, for the National Health Service (England), expenditure for claims and associated costs for clinical negligence was £446 million.

    The proportion of health service budget used to settle clinical negligence cases is 0.9 per cent.

    Meningitis C Vaccine
    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research is being conducted into meningitis; and what support is available from the Department of Health to encourage it. [105901]

    Ms Blears
    [holding answer 1 April 2003]: Over the last five years, a total of approximately £4 million has been provided to the Centre for Applied Microbiology and

    105W
    Research (CAMR) for meningococcal research. A total of approximately £2 million has been provided to the Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS) over the last three years for meningococcal research. In 2001, the Chief Medical Officer commissioned an audit, of £120,000 over two years, of the hospital care of adults with meningococcal disease.

    The Department of Health has recently provided £6.1 million over three years to the Vaccine Evaluation Consortium for further vaccine research, some of which relates to meningococcal research. Research into vaccine against Group B meningococcal disease continues as part of the work undertaken by PHLS and CAMR, now the Health Protection Agency.

    Mental Health Services (Children and Adolescents)
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the total number of people who required access to Children and Adolescent Mental Health Services in each of the last three years. [106190]

    Jacqui Smith
    Information is not available in the form requested.

    Ministerial Transport
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost of(a) ministerial cars and drivers and (b) taxis for his Department was in 2002. [101539]

    Mr. Lammy
    Responsibility for the provision of ministerial cars and drivers has been delegated under the terms of the framework document to the Government Car and Despatch Agency. Part(a) of this question will be addressed in a letter from Nick Matheson, Chief Executive of the Government Car and Despatch Agency to the hon. Member. Information about the cost of taxis is available in the Department's central accounting system for the main Department, the Medical Devices Agency, the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency and the NHS Pensions Agency. No discrete information relating to expenditure on taxis is available for the Department's other agencies. Accounts are produced for financial years ending 31 March and the cost of taxis in the current financial year up to February 2003 and in the 2001–2002 financial year was as follows:

    Financial Year

    Amount (£)

    2001–02

    312,226

    2002–03 (to February 2003)

    329,267

    The Department ensures that all business travel is made by the most economic means, taking into account any management benefit and the needs of staff with disabilities.

    National Service Framework for Older People
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many structures identifying nursing leaders with responsibility for older people have been developed as part of the milestones set out on page 172 of the National Service Framework for Older People. [106124]
    106W
    Jacqui Smith
    This information is not held centrally. However, a monitoring exercise conducted at the end of 2002 through the strategic health authorities suggested that 83 per cent. of hospitals have developed structures for identifying nurse leaders with responsibility for older people.

    Neonatal Services
    Ms Drown
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the report of the review of neonatal intensive care provision will be published. [106813]

    Jacqui Smith
    I am considering the report following from a national review of neonatal intensive care and expect to determine the next steps in this process very shortly.

    NHS Dentists
    Mr. Grogan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were registered with national health service dentists in each of the last 10 years in the area covered by the York and Selby Primary Care Trust. [107034]

    Jacqui Smith
    At 30 September 2002, 150,000 patients were registered with a general dental service dentist in Selby and York Primary Care Trust.

    General Dental Service: Number of patients registered with a dentist, 1993 to 2002 North Yorkshire health authority

    Thousand

    At 30 September

    Number of patients registered

    1993

    457

    1994

    448

    1995

    434

    1996

    430

    19971

    429

    19981

    392

    19991

    392

    20001

    399

    20011

    400

    20021

    390

    1 Registration data for these years in not comparable with earlier years due to the change in the registration period. 2002 data are for 31 August.

    Source:

    Department of Health

    NHS Recruitment
    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent on(a) TV and (b) press advertising to publicise the "Join the team, make a difference" NHS recruitment campaign. [106557]

    Mr. Hutton
    The breakdown of television and press advertising expenditure on the "Join the team, make a difference" NHS recruitment campaign, since commencement in February 2000, is shown in the table.

    (£)

    Year

    Television

    Press

    1999–2000

    2,217,880

    892,615

    2000–01

    1,800,000

    1,009,115

    2001–02

    1,850,000

    923,056

    2002–03

    1,986,618

    1,399,476

    107W
    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have taken up jobs within the NHS as a direct result of the "Join the team, make a difference" NHS recruitment campaign. [106558]

    Mr. Hutton
    The "Join the team, make a difference" national health service recruitment campaign is part of an overall recruitment, retention and return strategy aimed at increasing the size of the NHS workforce. This strategy has contributed to the increase in the NHS workforce of 70,336 between September 1999 and September 20011.

    1 Source:

    Department of Health Workforce Censuses.

    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) calls the NHS Careers Hotline and (b) hits the NHS Careers website have received since the recruitment campaign, 'Join the team and make a difference', was launched. [106556]

    Mr. Hutton
    The breakdown of calls to the National Health Service Careers response line during the main "Join the team, make a difference" NHS recruitment campaigns, since commencement in February 2000, are shown in table 1.

    Table 1

    Telephone calls

    Other contacts1

    1999–2000

    51,448

    1,865

    2000–01

    108,893

    21,351

    2001–02

    102,823

    28,701

    2002–03

    121,025

    73,838

    Total

    384,189

    125,755

    1 Other contacts includes responses received by NHS Careers from e-mails, faxes, white mail and returner pro-formas.

    The breakdown of hits to the NHS Careers website are shown in table 2.

    Table 2

    Hits to NHS Careers website

    2000–01

    6,366,242

    2001–02

    16,840,899

    2002–03

    37,016,447

    Total

    60,223,588

    Data were not recorded before April 2000.

    Nursing
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many self-funders there are in each registered nursing care band; [106075]

    (2) how many self-funders have been subject to a review of their entitlement to a registered nursing care contribution, broken clown by (a) band in which they were placed at the time of the initial determination and (b) bands in which they were placed at the first review. [106076]

    Live/Cadaveric organs donated for transplant, United Kingdom, 1999–2003, by financial year

    Living donor kidneys

    Cadaveric kidneys

    Hearts1

    Lungs

    Livers

    Pancreata

    Corneas

    1999–2000

    302

    1,460

    269

    265

    675

    33

    3,637

    2000–01

    343

    1,440

    221

    230

    657

    48

    3,803

    2001–02

    373

    1,395

    187

    226

    641

    67

    3,277

    2002–032

    358

    1,441

    163

    234

    672

    83

    3,358

    1 Includes 'domino' hearts.

    2 To 23 March 2003.

    108W
    Jacqui Smith
    This information is not collected centrally and is therefore not available in the form requested. Of those whose needs had been determined at 31 December 2001, around 19 per cent. had been allocated to the low band; 58 per cent. to the middle band; and 22 per cent. to the high band. There are just under 42,000 self funders in England in total.

    Anyone eligible for national health service funded nursing care should have their needs reviewed regularly, at three months and 12 months. Their needs may also be reviewed at other times if there is a sustained change in their condition.

    Older People
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) specialist multi-disciplinary teams and (b) interfaces for care for older people throughout hospitals have been identified as part of the milestones set out in the National Service Framework for Older People; how many strategic and operational plans, including initial action to address identified age discrimination, he (i) has received and (ii) expects to receive as part of the milestones set out in the National Service Framework for Older People; how many of the intermediate care joint investment plans have been agreed, as set out in the National Service Framework for Older People milestones; and which general hospitals have (A) submitted and (B) not submitted plans to introduce a specialised stroke unit by 2004 as part of the milestones set out in the National Service Framework for Older People. [106224]

    Jacqui Smith
    [holding answer 2 April 2003]: This information is not collected centrally. However, a monitoring exercise conducted at the end of 2002 through the strategic health authorities suggested that:
    73 per cent. of hospitals have developed identified specialist multidisciplinary teams and agreed interfaces for the care of older people throughout hospitals;
    91 per cent. of national health service organisations, strategic and operational plans include action to address identified age discrimination; and
    83 per cent. of hospitals that care for people who have had a stroke will have plans in place to introduce a specialised stroke service from 2004.

    On the intermediate care joint investment plans, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 12 March 2002, Official Report, column 1037W.

    Organ Donation
    Dr. Kumar
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the supply of(a) kidneys and (b) other donor organs within the NHS. [106100]

    Mr. Lammy
    The figures are shown in the table.

    Osteoporosis
    Lynne Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to increase the awareness amongst women and girls of the risks of osteoporosis. [106634]

    Jacqui Smith
    The Department works closely with and provides funding through the Section 64 General Scheme to the National Osteoporosis Society (NOS). NOS is the leading body in this field and produces a range of information leaflets and offers an advice helpline. For the majority of the population, preventative measures of a balanced diet, exercise, ceasing smoking and reducing alcohol intake prove sufficient. The Government has tackled increasing awareness and the importance of adopting these public health measures in a wide variety of ways in recent years.

    Overseas Medical/Dental Staff
    Mr. Burns
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria dentists from(a) countries about to join the EU and (b) EU countries have to meet before being able to practise in England. [106902]

    Mr. Hutton
    [holding answer 3 Apri1 2003]: All doctors and dentists wishing to practise in the United Kingdom must be registered with the General Medical Council and General Dental Council respectively. European Union nationals holding specified medical or dental qualifications awarded by other member states are entitled to automatic recognition in the UK on the basis of agreed minimum training requirements. Once ratified, the Accession Treaty will provide for the recognition of medical and dental qualifications awarded by the new member states on the same basis. Qualifications awarded following training begun after accession will comply with the minimum community requirements and be automatically recognised. In other cases, evidence of recent and substantial experience in the member state concerned may be required.

    Mr. Burns
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what checks there are to ensure that dentists from abroad wishing to practise in England have appropriate language skills to enable them to do so. [106903]

    Mr. Hutton
    [holding answer 3 April 2003]: Overseas qualified dentists wishing to practise in the United Kingdom have to satisfy the General Dental Council that they have the necessary knowledge of English. Nationals of other European Economic Area States are exempt from this requirement and assessing their language skills is a matter for employers.

    Mr. Burns
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria doctors from(a) EU countries and (b) those countries about to join the EU have to meet before being able to practise in England. [106904]

    Mr. Hutton
    [holding answer 3 Apri1 2003]: All doctors and dentists wishing to practise in the United Kingdom must be registered with the General Medical Council and General Dental Council respectively. European Union nationals holding specified medical or dental qualifications awarded by other member states are entitled to automatic recognition in the UK on the basis of agreed minimum training requirements. Once ratified, the Accession Treaty will provide for the
    110W
    recognition of medical and dental qualifications awarded by the new member states on the same basis. Qualifications awarded following training begun after accession will comply with the minimum Community requirements and be automatically recognised. In other cases, evidence of recent and substantial experience in the member state concerned may be required.

    Prison Health Care
    Mr. Paul Marsden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the responsibilities of hospital officers in prison health care facilities. [107205]

    Jacqui Smith
    The role and responsibility of health care officers were considered in a report on 'Nursing in Prisons', and published in October 2000. It is available at: www.doh.gov.uk/prisonhealth

    As a result of the recommendations in that report, National Occupational Standards have been developed for custodial health care. They include clinical and custodial competencies, and apply to all health care staff including health care officers.

    Prisons
    Mr. Paul Marsden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the practice of automatic detoxification within prisons of patients previously stabilised in the community on substitute prescriptions has been discontinued. [106592]

    Jacqui Smith
    On first reception into custody, each prisoner has a general health examination/assessment, which aims to identify any current or previous drug usage and engagement with community drugs services. The decision whether, in the light of this information, to proceed with either detoxification or substitute prescribing, as a prelude to a broader based drug treatment programme, is a matter for the clinical judgement of the practitioner concerned.

    The prison service's standard for clinical services for substance misusers requires all prisons which receive prisoners from court to have detoxification guidelines in place for at least one of Methadone, Lofexidine, and Dihydrocodeine. It also requires establishments to have evidence-based guidelines for maintenance prescription that are consistent with current Department of Health guidance and provides advice about the particular categories of prisoners for whom maintenance prescription is likely to be suitable.

    Respiratory Diseases (Emergency Admissions)
    Mr. Luff
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many emergency admissions to acute hospitals in(a) the West Midlands (South) Strategic Health Authority area and (b) the Worcestershire Acute Hospital Trust related to respiratory diseases in the most recent 12 month period for which figures are available. [106493]

    Mr. Lammy
    The information is shown in the following table.

    The table shows the number of emergency admissions where the primary diagnosis was respiratory diseases for the year 2001–02 for all acute trusts within the West Midlands South Strategic Health Authority geographical area.
    111W

    Acute Trust

    In Year Admission Episodes

    South Warwickshire General Hospitals NHS Trust

    1,618

    University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust

    3,353

    Hereford Hospitals NHS Trust

    1,303

    George Eliot Hospital NHS Trust

    1,387

    Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

    4,286

    Source:

    Hospital Episode Statistics

    Social Services/NHS Use
    Mr. Paul Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) over 65 year olds, (b) under 18 year olds and (c) 18–65 year olds used (i) social services and (ii) the NHS each day in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [106087]

    Jacqui Smith
    The information requested is not centrally available. Information on key measures of National Health Service activity is available in the Chief Executive's Report to the NHS Statistical Supplement which is available on the Department of Health website at the following address: www.doh.gov.uk/nhsreport/statisticalsupplement.pdf

    South Worcestershire Primary Care Trust
    Mr. Luff
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with(a) the West Midlands (South) Strategic Health Authority and (b) the South Worcestershire Primary Care Trust on the strategies the trust will adopt to address its deficit; and if he will make a statement. [106492]

    Mr. Lammy
    I have had no discussions about the strategies South Worcestershire Primary Care Trust will adopt to address its deficit. It is for local strategic health authorities to monitor the strategies of the individual primary care trusts within their area.

    Mr. Luff
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the South Worcestershire Primary Care Trust to(a) bring its annual expenditure into balance and (b) eradicate its cumulated deficit; what the latest date is which he will accept for both; and if he will make a statement. [106589]

    Mr. Lammy
    [holding answer 1 April 2003]: This is a matter for West Midlands South Strategic Health Authority (StHA). I expect South Worcester Primary Care Trust (PCT) to bring its annual expenditure into balance. The StHA is currently agreeing a date with the PCT, by which time its cumulated deficit will be eradicated.

    Student Location
    Mr. Jenkins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to maintain students at the best performing hospitals within the present NHS structure. [106509]

    Mr. Hutton
    Student placements are a vital component of our strategy for training the future national health service work force. NHS organisations and their partners in the education sector will continue 112W
    to work together with work force development confederations to maintain the availability and quality of practice placements at all hospitals.

    Travel Costs
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost was of travel by train by staff in his Department in 2002. [106346]

    Mr. Lammy
    Information about the costs of rail travel is available in the Department's central accounting system which holds details for the main Department, the Medical Devices Agency and the Purchasing and Supply Agency. Accounts are not produced on a calendar basis but for a financial year ending 31 March. The amounts spent on travel by train in the current financial year up to February 2003 and in the previous financial year were as follows:

    Financial year

    Amount (£)

    2001–02

    3,744,913

    2002–031

    3,465,786

    1 To February 2003.

    As well as including expenditure for all staff these amounts also comprise rail expenses Incurred by other travellers authorised to undertake business on behalf of the Department such as consultants and members of departmental committees.

    The Department ensures that all business travel is made by the most economic means, taking into account any management benefit and the needs of staff with disabilities.

    Treatment Guidelines
    Mr. Amess
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on the guidelines for doctors issued by the British Medical Association and the General Medical Council on withdrawing tube feeding and hydration from patients who are not dying. [106539]

    Mr. Lammy
    Artificial nutrition and hydration are a form of medical treatment and are subject to the same principles as those governing medical treatment. There is no lawful justification for giving or continuing treatment that is not in the best interests of a patient who is unable to consent. The guidance from the British Medical Association and the General Medical Council is in line with this legal position.

    Type 2 Diabetes
    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of Type 2 diabetes were recorded in school children in each year since 1997. [107728]

    Mr. Lammy
    An estimated 3.2 per cent. of the adult population in England (around 1.3 million people) have diagnosed diabetes. Approximately 15 per cent. of people with diabetes have Type 1 and 85 per cent. have Type 2. Information on the number of school children with Type 2 diabetes is not collected centrally.

    Waiting Lists
    Ms Walley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what resources are being made available to reduce waiting lists for knee operations; and if he will make a statement on waiting times in North Staffordshire. [106203]

    Mr. Lammy
    Primary care trusts (PCTs) are responsible for decisions about what healthcare to commission for their local population using available resources and each PCT's budget will grow by a minimum of 28.08 per cent. over the next three years.

    The Government are aware that orthopaedics is a particularly challenged speciality in terms of waiting times. We are working with a group of 43 of the most challenged trusts in this speciality to support them in analysing the size of the problem that they face. Through this work, we will help them to create an action plan to enable them to meet the waiting times targets for 2005 for their orthopaedic patients.

    The Government are also actively working with the British Orthopaedic Association to look actively at the supporting issues in orthopaedics, e.g. workforce and epidemiology and benchmarking of services.

    Significant headway has been made on the key Government targets of waiting times for inpatient and outpatient appointments within the Shropshire and Staffordshire Strategic Health Authority (StHA) area. I understand from the StHA that it expects to meet the key waiting list targets and currently has no English person waiting more than 12 months for an inpatient appointment or more than 21 weeks for an outpatient appointment.

    Worcester Acute Hospitals NHS Trust
    Mr. Luff
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 27 March 2003, ref 104986, what the latest date is which he will accept for the eradication of the cumulated deficit of the Worcestershire Acute Hospital NHS Trust. [106588]

    Mr. Lammy
    [holding answer 1 April 2003]: This is a matter for West Midlands South Strategic Health Authority (StHA). The StHA is currently agreeing a date by which the cumulated deficit of the Worcestershire Acute Hospitals National Health Service Trust will be eradicated.

  DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

    Council Tax
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the level of council taxes in England for the 2003–04 financial year. [106016]

    Mr. Leslie
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Minister for Local Government and the Regions, the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) to the hon. Member on 2 April 2003,Official Report, column 901W.

    Bob Russell
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the average rate of council tax increase was in each financial year since 1996–97. [107031]
    114W
    Mr. Leslie
    The table sets out the average council tax increase and change in increase in average council tax on the previous year (in percentage points) for each year.

    Increase in average council tax (percentage)

    Change in increase in average council tax on previous year (percentage points)

    1996–97

    6.1

    1.1

    1997–98

    6.5

    0.4

    1998–99

    8.6

    2.1

    1999–2000

    6.8

    -1.7

    2000–01

    6.1

    -0.7

    2001–02

    6.4

    0.2

    2002–03

    8.2

    1.9

    2003–04

    12.9

    4.7

    Crime
    Mr. Pickles
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps his Department is taking to combat the fear of crime among(a) women, (b) men, (c) the elderly and (d) young people. [106818]

    Mr. Bob Ainsworth
    I have been asked to reply.

    The latest statistics from the British Crime Survey (BCS) report that levels of fear of crime in the key categories of burglary, vehicle and violent crime have fallen compared to 2001–02. 15 per cent. of adults had high levels of worry about burglary (compared with 16 per cent.), 17 per cent. had high levels of fear about car crime (compared with 19 per cent.) and 21 per cent. had high levels of fear of violence (compared with 22 per cent.).

    We are addressing misperceptions about crime by promoting the facts about crime levels and common sense precautions which individuals can take to prevent becoming a victim of crime. In order to do this, we are working with Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs), other Government Departments and organisations representing vulnerable groups including women, young people and the elderly.

    A Fear of Crime Toolkit will be published on the Home Office Crime Reduction website in May 2003 to aid the further dissemination of this message, as well as provide best practice to all practitioners who are working towards reducing fear of crime within communities and vulnerable groups.

    Grants
    Mr. Andrew Turner
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 18 March 2003,Official Report, columns 743–8, how much has been provided each year, in aggregate, for grants aimed at (a) ethnic minorities and (b) asylum seekers; and what value of the aggregate rate support grant is directed to local authorities in accordance with criteria based on those factors. [105004]

    Mr. Raynsford
    The information is as follows:

    Specific Grants:

    The following table shows the amount in millions provided to local authorities by central Government in specific grants for ethnic minorities and asylum seekers.
    115W

    Ethnic minorities

    Asylum seekers

    Race equality1

    Education1

    Total

    Education

    Race equality

    Adults and families2

    UASC3

    Total

    1997–98

    70

    —

    70

    —

    —

    70

    —

    70

    1998–99

    105

    —

    105

    —

    —

    190

    —

    190

    1999–2000

    —

    91

    91

    —

    36

    217

    —

    253

    2000–01

    —

    94

    94

    —

    6

    557

    18

    581

    2001–02

    7

    90

    97

    2

    —

    415

    110

    527

    2002–03

    —

    89

    89

    4

    —

    4

    4

    4

    1 The figures given represent the amount provided by central government, elements of this money required matched funding from local authorities.

    2 As central Government accounting practice changed in 2001–02, until that year figures for adults and families and UASC are on a cash basis and after they are given on an accruals basis.

    3 Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children.

    4 Figures for 2002–03 are not yet available for Adults and Families or UASC.

    Revenue Support Grant(RSG):

    Revenue Support Grant and redistributed business rates are distributed through Formula Spending Shares (FSS). The Education, Personal Social Services, and Environmental, Protective and Cultural Services block all use indicators which relate to ethnic minorities. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not distinguish asylum seekers in any of the formulae.

    Since 2001–02, following the FSS calculation of grant, floors and ceilings have been applied to ensure that all authorities receive at least a certain level of grant. For example in 2003–04 authorities with education responsibilities receive at least a 3.5 per cent. increase in general grant. As a result it is not possible to calculate the amount of Revenue Support Grant that is paid out to local authorities as a result of the inclusion of ethnicity indicators in the FSS formulae.

    Aggregates
    Mr. Rendel
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) when he will publish the review of the draft national and regional guidelines for aggregates provision in England 2001–16; [107382]

    (2) if he will publish the review of the draft national and regional guidelines for aggregates provision in England 2001–16 on or before 18 April. [107384]

    Mr. McNulty
    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister hopes to publish the final guidelines within the next couple of months, but the remaining work to be done means that they will not be published before 18 April.

    Inspectorates
    Mr. Norman
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many(a) staff and (b) staff engaged in inspection work have been employed by (i) the Single Housing Inspectorate and (ii) the Planning Inspectorate in each year since 1997. [105871]

    Mr. McNulty
    Housing inspection between 1997 and March 2003 was carried out by the Audit Commission (for local authorities) and the Housing Corporation (for registered social landlords). Both functions will be carried out by a single housing inspectorate within the Audit Commission as from 1 April 2003. The figures are shown in table 1.
    116W

    Table 1

    Total staff employed by the Audit Commission on inspection

    Estimated number of staff in Inspection Directorate engaged in housing inspection work (full-time equivalents)

    Total staff employed by the Housing Corporation on inspection

    1997–98

    4

    1

    —

    1998–99

    18

    3

    —

    1999–2000

    73

    11

    —

    2000–01

    324

    59

    —

    2001–02

    438

    66

    43

    Notes:

    1. The Audit Commission's financial year runs from 1 November to 31 October.

    2. The Housing Corporation's financial year runs from 1 April to 31 March: figures in column 4 therefore refer to 2002–03

    The Audit Commission is responsible for carrying out inspections of local authority planning functions. The Planning Inspectorate deals with appeals and other casework under planning, housing, highways and allied legislation: the figures in shown in table 2, the Planning Inspectorate are not therefore directly comparable with those in table 1.

    Table 2

    Full-time equivalents

    Total stuff employed

    Number of inspectors

    1997–98

    828

    410

    1998–99

    766

    373

    1999–2000

    803.8

    378

    2000–01

    780.8

    346.3

    2001–02

    783.2

    344.4

    2002–03 (as at 3 March 2003)

    876.9

    429.2

    Note:

    The Planning Inspectorate's financial year runs from 1 April to 31 March.

    Local Authority Finance
    Mr. Hammond
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to adjust formula spending share of local authorities to reflect different costs and savings incurred in modernisation of the Fire Service. [106994]

    Mr. Raynsford
    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is aware that the costs and savings incurred as a result of the modernisation of the Fire Service may have a varying impact on individual Fire Authorities.
    117W
    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will work with the relevant stakeholders to establish a clearer understanding of these effects. It will be considered whether and how the results of this work needs to be reflected in due course.

    Millennium Dome
    Mr. Redwood
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what contamination there is under the Dome site; [105923]

    (2) what remedial action has been undertaken to clear the land of the Dome site; [105921]

    (3) what the cost is of land reclamation at the Dome site; [105930]

    (4) what works have to be done to clean the ground at the Dome site to make it suitable for houses; [105924]

    (5) how long it will take and how much it will cost to decontaminate the Dome site sufficiently for it to take deep foundation housing. [105929]

    Mr. McNulty
    Remediation of the Dome site and Greenwich Peninsula, comprising some 121.4 hectares, was carried out in two stages. British Gas, as the original landowner, carried out statutory remediation. The second phase was carried out by English Partnerships (EP) to make the site fit for purpose as per the masterplan for the site.

    British Gas and EP employed WS Atkins as remediation consultants, who secured agreement from the Environment Agency and the Environmental Health Department of the London Borough of Greenwich for the adopted remediation solutions. This has involved either the removal of any remaining contaminated material or works to contain and isolate remaining traces of contaminants such as polyaromatic hydrocarbons and petroleum hydrocarbons, which were tar by-products from the site's original use as a gasworks.

    The depth to which materials were removed and treated varies across the site. In some areas material was removed to a depth of 14 metres. The containment of any residual contamination after treatment involved the construction of surface and vertical barriers. Such barriers vary according to the end use but in landscaped areas, for example, they are typically about 1.5 metres thick. Works were undertaken toachieve remediation fit for purpose as per the masterplan.

    The cost to EP for the purchase and remediation, servicing and landscaping of the Greenwich Peninsula site was £185 million. The requirement for any future remediation will depend partly upon whether there is a change of use from that proposed under the existing masterplan to a use proposed under the masterplan that
    118W
    is currently the subject of a planning application to Greenwich Council. In any case, as with any brownfield site, further development will need to be done in such a way as to preserve the integrity of the capping layer, for which there are standard construction processes. Therefore, further remediation may not necessarily be required.

    The land under the Dome itself will not be used for housing. A planning application was submitted to the London Borough of Greenwich, by Meridian Delta Ltd. jointly with Anschutz Entertainment Group, Quintain Estates and Development and English Partnerships, on 23 December 2002. The plan proposes a new 26,000 capacity arena in side the Dome and surrounding facilities in the Dome for various leisure, sporting, entertainment, exhibition, retail and community uses. It also outlines development over a 20-year period for: over 10,000 homes on the Peninsula with associated community facilities and public open space; and 3.5m sq. ft of commercial development on the Peninsula. The application covers some 76.9 hectares, and is currently being considered by Greenwich Council under the normal planning procedures.

    It should also be noted that the delivery of housing on the Peninsula is already well underway, with the construction of the Millennium Village.

    Mineral Land Banks
    Mr. Rendel
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to reduce the required mineral land bank for Berkshire for the period between 2001 and 2016. [107383]

    Mr. McNulty
    This is a matter for the unitary district authorities responsible for minerals planning in Berkshire to consider. In doing so they will need to take into account their revised individual apportionments within the regional guidelines for aggregates provision, which are to be issued shortly. The apportionments for individual authorities will be recommended by the South East Regional Aggregates Working Party, on which minerals planning authorities in the region are represented, in consultation with the Regional Planning Body for the South East. This will follow a process of testing the proposed regional apportionments against local environmental and economic circumstances, to be carried out in the months following their publication.

    Tuberculosis (Homeless People)
    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many homeless people in London who have had health checks last year were found to be suffering from tuberculosis. [106573]

    Mr. Hutton
    I have been asked to reply.

    This information is not held centrally.

TRANSPORT

  Airports Consultation
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling)
  Last summer the Government published a set of seven consultation papers on the future development of air transport in the United Kingdom.

  On 27 February 2003, Official Report, columns 25–26WS, I informed the House of publication of the second editions of the main South East consultation paper, the summary South East paper and the questionnaires for both the South East and other areas of the UK.

  The consultation paper highlighted the potentially significant risks of birds colliding with aircraft at the option for a new airport at Cliffe and advised that further work would be commissioned. The Government gave a commitment to publish this further work during the extended consultation period.

  I am today therefore publishing the study which I commissioned and which was undertaken jointly by the Central Science Laboratory and the British Trust for Ornithology. The study provides a detailed assessment both of the populations, movements and behaviour of birds at and around the site and the risks of birdstrike after applying mitigating measures to a new airport at Cliffe. The key conclusions are:
  Without a comprehensive and aggressive bird management programme in place, incorporating careful and considered airport design, appropriate habitat management and active bird control, an airport could not operate safely in this location.
  Even with such world class management and mitigation measures in place, the hazard posed by the birds is severe and would probably be higher than at any other major UK airport.
  I will consider these conclusions carefully together with all the consultation responses, before announcing my decisions in the air transport White Paper later this year.

  The consultation, for all parts of the UK, will close on 30 June.

  Copies of the study are now available in the Library. My officials will also distribute the study to key stakeholders, and it will be posted on my Department's website.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Induction Centre Arrangements
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes)
  On 3 March I confirmed that, after the consultation period was completed, I would make a2WS
  decision on whether or not we would use the Coniston Hotel, Sittingbourne as accommodation to support an induction centre. I have also been considering whether to proceed with contract negotiations in respect of the Grand Ocean Hotel in Saltdean. I can now confirm how we intend to proceed with Induction Centre arrangements nationally.

  In light of a thorough review of all the facts, I have decided not to proceed with an induction centre at the Coniston Hotel, Sittingbourne, and not to proceed with negotiations at the proposed site in Brighton.

  These decisions reflect the facts of the two cases, and the arguments put to me, and do not diminish in any way our commitment to having a national network of Induction Centres. In creating such a network, we intend to build on existing arrangements by proceeding in partnership with regional consortia and voluntary groups. Induction Centres bring about obvious benefits in helping us to process asylum applications quickly and efficiently and allowing us to tell asylum seekers what is expected of them and give them health screening. At Dover the Induction Centre is working well and we will build on this to develop the good practices that will be subsequently implemented at other centres.

  Deprivation of Citizenship
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett)
  Section 4 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which amends section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981, came into force on 1 April. The law now provides that a person can be deprived of his British nationality—provided that he has another nationality—if he has done anything seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK.

  I confirm that I have now commenced action under the new provision by giving written notice to Mr Abu Hamza of my decision to make a deprivation order in respect of him. I am satisfied that his activities have been seriously prejudicial to this country's vital interests. It will be open to Mr Hamza to appeal against my decision. Any appeal will in the first instance be heard by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission.

  Asylum Seekers
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes)
  Regulations were laid before Parliament on 18 March 2003 amending the Asylum Support Regulations 2000. The amendments, which come into effect today, increase the levels of support provided to destitute asylum seekers supported by the National Asylum Support Service (NASS). The changes in the support rates are detailed here:

  Levels of NASS cash Support from 11 November 2002

  Levels of NASS cash support from 7 April 2003

  Single person Aged 18–24

  £29.89

  £30.28

  Aged 25 or over Qualifying couples

  £37.77

  £38.26

  At least one member of the couple

  £59.26

  £60.03

  3WS

  Levels of NASS cash NASS cash Support from 11 November 2002

  Levels of Nass cash support from 7 April 2003

  is aged 18 or over

  Lone Parent aged 18 or over

  £37.77

  £38.26

  Allowances for dependent children

  Person aged under 16

  £37.00

  £38.50

  Person aged at least 16 but under 18 (except a member of a qualifying couple)

  ¢32.50

  £32.90

NORTHERN IRELAND

  North/South Implementation Bodies and Tourism Ireland Limited
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy)
  I have today placed in the Library details of the decisions that have been taken relating to the North/South Implementation Bodies and Tourism Ireland Limited under the terms of the exchange of notes of 19 November 2002 (Cmnd 5708).

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Employment Laws (Working Parents)
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt)
  On 6 April 2003, the Government introduced new employment laws to provide working parents with more choice and support to help them balance their work and family responsibilities, to the benefit of employers, employees and their children.

  The new rights include: the extension and enhancement of maternity leave and pay, so that most new mothers can take six months' paid leave with a further six months' unpaid if they want; the introduction of two weeks' paid paternity leave; the introduction of adoption leave and pay which broadly mirrors the rights available to biological parents; and the introduction of the right for parents with children under six, or disabled children under 18, to apply to work flexibly, with a corresponding duty on employers to consider these requests according to a set procedure.

  All these rights have been the subject of extensive public consultation, and we have ensured that we have taken fully into account the needs of business in developing the detail. In particular, the new right to request a flexible working pattern is a light touch approach based on best practice, and has been designed specifically to be workable for all businesses, whatever their size.

  We believe that together these changes will help to provide effective n, and we have ensured that we have taken fully into account the needs of business in developing the detail. In particular, the new right to request a flexible working pattern is a light touch approach based on best practice, and has been designed specifically to be workable for all businesses, whatever their size.
  4WS
  We believe that together these changes will help to provide effective support for parents with young children in a way that is compatible with the needs of business.

  The new right to apply for flexible working aims to promote dialogue in the workplace, and to create a framework in which culture change can happen more quickly. Employers who already offer their employees flexible working opportunities do so because they recognise the benefits they can bring, such as greater commitment and loyalty, better morale and reduced absenteeism and staff turnover costs. This legislation ensures that flexible working practices are now on the agenda of every business, and encourages employers and employees together to think creatively about the solutions which suit them both.

  A package of support accompanies the legislation to help employers and employees use these new measures. Summary and detailed guidance, including sample forms and case study material, is available on both the DTI website and in hard copy, www2.dti.gov.uk/er/workingparents.htm Tailored interactive guidance is also available for both employers and employees on the internet at www.tiger.gov.uk. A national helpline 08457 47 47 47, staffed by Acas advisors is also available.

  To ensure awareness of the new rights and of the guidance available the Government has taken steps to highlight these to key business intermediaries and employee and parenting groups, An advertising campaign has also been running in the national press and trade press since February to ensure high levels of awareness among both employers and employees.

  Copies of the guidance and the Regulatory Impact Assessments for all these new rights have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Fire Authority Integrated Risk Management Plans
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Christopher Leslie)
  Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Fire Services, Sir Graham Meldrum, published Fire Service Circular 7/2003 on "Fire Authority Integrated Risk Management Planning" on 2 April 2003. On 3 April, he issued for consultation two guidance notes on developing Integrated Risk Management Plans and on consultation arrangements fire authorities should undertake in developing these plans. Consultation on these guidance notes closes on 30 May 2003.

  Copies of these documents are available on the ODPM website http://www.safety.odpm.gov.uk/fire/consult/irmp/index.htm and have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Satellite Antennae
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty)
  Today the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is publishing a consultation document on proposed changes to the General Permitted Planning Order (GPDO) pertaining

  5WS
  to the treatment of satellite dishes and other antennae. The three-month public consultation looking at the siting of satellite dishes and antennae will offer communities five choices, ranging from no change to full deregulation except in particularly sensitive areas such as national parks and conservation areas.

  The Government are committed to delivering equality of access to broadband and digital TV across the country and this document is an important step in that direction. However, we must ensure that whatever changes are made provide proper protection for the environment, particularly in sensitive areas such as national parks and conservation areas.

  Copies of the consultation document have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Local Authority Allowances and Pensions
  The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford)
  As part of our agenda on modernising local democracy, I have today laid before Parliament Regulations dealing with remuneration and pensions for members of local authorities. This is in line with our White Paper commitment to reduce the burden of red tape on local authorities and providing councils with flexibilities in managing their business, balanced by local accountability.

  The Local Authorities (Members' Allowances) (England) Regulations 2003—the allowances Regulations replace six existing sets of regulations and put in place a consolidated and simplified regime for allowances.

  The Local Government Pension Scheme and Discretionary Compensation (Local Authority Members in England) Regulations 2003—the pensions Regulations will allow councils to decide whether their councillors should have access to the Local Government Pension scheme.

  These two sets of Regulations give effect to the broad policy which I announced 28 November 2002 in my response to the Urban Affairs Select Committee Report on the Local Government Act 2000.

  Both the allowances and pensions Regulations, which we have introduced following extensive and detailed consultation, will provide a simple, fair system for remunerating local councillors. Local authorities will have discretion to come up with remuneration schemes reflecting local circumstances. The system also provides for clear and transparent local accountability since councils will have to have regard to the recommendations of local independent remuneration panels. This approach is in line with our commitments given in the White Paper—Strong Local Leadership, Quality Public Services—to remove unnecessary red tape and regulation from local government, and balancing this freedom with the responsibility to be clearly accountable to their communities.

  The allowances Regulations replace the six previous sets of Regulations dealing with allowances for elected local authority members, dating back to 19911, which we have now revoked. As before councils will be able to decide for themselves the levels of allowances for elected
  6WS
  members, and in doing so will have to have regard to the recommendations of a local independent remuneration panel.

  The allowances Regulations make a number of changes to the system of allowances, following from consultation we conducted in 2001 and further detailed discussions with key stakeholders, including the Local Government Association.

  Local authorities will now determine their own travel and subsistence allowances, having regard to the recommendation of their independent remuneration panels. The Secretary of State will no longer be involved in setting maximum levels. Councils will have to set out the circumstances in which they will pay these allowances, so that these are open to public scrutiny. Local authorities and other bodies will to be able to pay a cycling allowance to be determined in the same way as other travel allowances.

  Parish councils will be able to make payments to their members, and in doing so will have to have regard to the recommendations of a local independent panel. This brings the approach allowances to parish councillors very much in line with the allowances for principal councils.

  Combined fire authorities and the conservation boards of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty will be able to establish their own schemes of allowances, rather than members being paid by their constituent authorities. All secondary authorities which set up allowance schemes for their members will be required to have regard to the recommendations of the panels of those authorities which make nominations to the secondary authority.
  Councils will be able to pay co-opted and appointed members of principal councils a "co-optees' allowance". This will be determined by the local authority taking into account the recommendations of the independent remuneration panel.

  Authorities will be able to make provision for the withdrawal of allowances where a member has been wholly or partially suspended because of a breach of the Code of Conduct. Authorities will be able to make provision for the repayment of any allowance which has been paid in respect of a period when a member was suspended, or had ceased to be a member.

  The council's local independent remuneration panel will make binding recommendations on which councillors may be eligible for access to the Local Government Pension Scheme.

  The Association of London Government may pay special responsibility allowance to those serving on it. The ALG must establish a scheme specifying for which responsibilities the allowance may be paid, and the levels of payments.

  The allowances Regulations clarify that authorities may backdate changes to their allowances to the beginning of the financial year. They similarly clarify that authorities may alter their allowance levels by reference to an index.
  7WS
  The allowances Regulations finally provide a transitional period until 30 September 2003 to allow authorities to make any necessary changes to their schemes in line with the revised arrangements.

  The Local Government Pension Scheme and Discretionary Compensation (Local Authority Members in England) Regulations 2003 modify the Principal regulations, The Local Government Pension Scheme Regulations 1997. They are intrinsically linked to the allowances Regulations. In effect the amendments provide access to the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) to those Councillor members' whose authorities, acting on the recommendations of the locally appointed Independent Review Panel (IRP), decide should be eligible for membership.

  The key changes to the LGPS as it applies to eligible Councillor members are: they will be treated as if they are in local government employment for the purposes of the regulations; an eligible councillor will have to positively elect to become a member of the LGPS; a councillor member's pay in any year comprises (a) the basic allowance and (b) any special responsibility allowance payable under the allowances Regulations; pension benefits will be calculated by reference to career average pay not final salary; the retirement age for a councillor will be age 70; and councillor membership will not count towards calculating any other period of local government employment/LGPS membership. An eligible councillor will be able to contribute to AVCs to enhance his pension benefits where appropriate.

  Essential consequential changes have also been made to the injury allowances and gratuities provisions of the Local Government (Discretionary Payments)
  8WS
  Regulations 1996 to exclude eligible councillors, the Mayor of London and members of the London Assembly in connection with their employment. The Local Government (Early Termination of Employment) (Discretionary Compensation) (England and Wales) Regulations 2000 have also been amended so that the calculation of discretionary compensation for redundancy for a person does not include a period of membership as a councillor member, Mayor of London or member of the London Assembly that he may have in the LGPS.

  The Regulations reflect our commitment made during the passage of the Local Government Bill which gave rise to the Local Government Act 2000.

  The provisions for pensions take into account the commitment of local councillors, and their contribution to public life. Many members of local authorities may have lower personal or occupational pension provision than they could otherwise have had, due to missing out on full time employment or forgoing promotions and other opportunities on account of their public duties.

  The pensions Regulations address this disincentive from serving in local politics.
  1 the Local Authorities (Members' Allowances) Regulations 1991;
  the Local Authorities (Members' Allowances) (Amendment) Regulations 1995;
  the Local Authorities (Members' Allowances) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2000;
  the Local Authorities (Members' Allowances) (Amendment) (England) (No. 2) Regulations 2000; and
  the Local Authorities (Members' Allowances) (England) Regulations 2001.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIR MAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth.

Parkinson's Disease
Baroness Gale Baroness Gale asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to meet the specific needs of people who care for someone with Parkinson's disease.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, all carers are entitled to an assessment to determine their needs as carers and eligibility for support.
The carers' grant, which will more than double to £185 million by 2006, supports local councils in providing short breaks for carers to enable them to continue caring. The Department of Health is also funding several projects through Section 64 to support all carers, including those of people with Parkinson's disease.
Baroness Gale: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her positive reply, especially as this week is Parkinson's Awareness Week, during which we are concentrating on carers. Is the Minister aware that one in 20 people suffering from Parkinson's disease is under 40? Consequently, many carers are young people. What special efforts are the Government making to ensure that those young carers have a better quality of life, bearing in mind that they could be long-term carers?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, it is a pleasure to mark Parkinson's Awareness Week and to pay tribute in any way we can to all the people who care for those
2
suffering from the disease. We are conscious of the fact that many carers are likely to be young; indeed, throughout the country there may be as many as 50,000 young carers altogether.
Our policy has been to recognise that there is a balance to be struck between endorsing what they do and helping them to care, which is something that many of them take pride in, and making sure that they have the support. We must ensure that they are not caring inappropriately, that the burden is not too great and that they are not sacrificing their education. For example, we are making it clear within the carers' strategy that they are a priority. Within the Quality Protects programme, they have a very high priority in terms of social services. We have allocated 20 per cent of the carers' grant especially for their services, along with children's services. We have also funded initiatives, such as the Children's Society's Young Carers Initiative, which works with young people to enable the development of guidance that will draw on their experience so that we know how best to support them.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that paid employment is enormously helpful to carers in combating the social isolation and economic deprivation often associated with long-term caring, such as for Parkinson's disease patients? What is the Government's policy on helping carers to remain in or return to the workplace?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, it is absolutely essential that we support carers as much as we can, to balance the life of care with the work that many of them need and want to do. For example, tomorrow we will be laying regulations to make provision for direct payments, which will enable carers to buy-in the services that they want at their request. They will be able to buy personal care, for example, which will give them more flexibility and choice to go out to work. We have also raised the earnings limit to £77 from this April, which means that they will be able to earn a little more in work.

3
In addition, Carers UK is working with the Department of Health on a project, for which we have great hope, called Action For Carers and Employment. That project is examining the barriers to employment and considering how we can work effectively to remove them at a local level.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I should declare an interest, as I have a husband with Parkinson's disease, along with other conditions. Is the Minister aware that there is a very serious shortage of neurologists? In the whole of north Yorkshire, where I live, there is not one specially trained neurologist with a special interest in Parkinson's, nor is there a specially trained nurse.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, we are aware that there is a shortage of neurologists nationally. I can tell the noble Baroness that the latest workforce projections suggest that by March 2004, there may be sufficiently trained specialists to increase numbers in neurology by about 80 over the 2000 figure. That is obviously good news. We also have the long-term care workforce team considering the whole range of issues presented by the shortage of neurologists in many long-term conditions. We are attacking the problem very systematically.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, following on from the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, will the Minister tell me at which point people become eligible for a carer if they have Parkinson's disease? Is it immediately on diagnosis, or is there a certain stage at which they require full-time care? That question tends to relate to the previous question.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, as I understand it, if one was caring for someone with Parkinson's disease and in touch with a local GP, one could ask for some advice about how one might go about getting any sort of assistance. It may be low-level assistance, depending on the stage that the disease has reached. It would be important for social services to be notified that there was a need. Parkinson's disease is progressive, so we must build in the ability for local support to grow alongside the need itself. That should happen as early as possible.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether support for people with Parkinson's and their carers will be included in the forthcoming national service framework on long-term conditions? Will the NSF be introduced with resources to back its implementation?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the NSF will certainly include Parkinson's, along with other neurologically dependent diseases and conditions. As the noble Baroness knows, the purpose of the NSF is to set the highest possible standards and to establish the quality
4
frameworks to ensure that care and treatment are as good as they can be and, by implication, that the resources will be there to deliver the objectives.
Earl Howe: My Lords, can the Minister say any more about the voucher scheme that was announced towards the end of last year designed to give carers short breaks?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the regulations on the voucher scheme for respite care will be laid at the beginning of May, if not sooner, and implemented as soon as possible. That will add to the flexibility that carers will have to buy-in respite and short break support when they need it. Families with disabled children will also be eligible. We hope that the provision will enable families to plan for respite breaks over the year and that they will be provided with the kind of assistance that they need.

Charities: VAT Recovery Relief
2.43 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester Lord Faulkner of Worcester asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will reconsider their decision to deny charities VAT recovery relief.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government recognise the valuable contribution that charities make in delivering services, and realise that the question of irrecoverable VAT provides difficulties for some charities. We have looked at this issue twice since 1997, most recently in the context of the last spending review, to determine whether these difficulties could be overcome. We concluded that no fundamental changes should be made to the way the VAT system operates. Available resources are better deployed through existing tax reliefs and the new £125 million futurebuilders investment fund. This fund will be designed specifically to assist the voluntary and community sector organisations in their public service work.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. In light of the fact that irrecoverable VAT costs charities in excess of £400 million a year, does he not find it a little perverse that service providers such as the Disabilities Trust, which wrote to me this morning, are obliged to increase the charges they make to statutory local authority undertakings in health, education and social services when they are providing services, thus increasing the cost in that way? Further, has my noble friend seen the report in the March issue of Charity Times in which the head of the indirect taxation unit in the European Commission, Mr Stephen Bill, says that there is no EU requirement that forces us to have uniformity in this area and that if national governments wish to give relief to charities they are free to do so?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as regards my noble friend's first question, local authorities are encouraged to take account of the VAT situation and to make full cost recovery including overheads when they make payments to charities for providing services. I remind my noble friend that he is right that the figure is estimated at something over £400 million but one has to look at that in the light of approximately £2 billion in tax relief to charities, £2 billion in grant funding and the fact that 30 per cent of charities' income comes from government. As regards my noble friend's second question, that article has been drawn to my attention. We have not received any communication from the Commission on that matter. No doubt if we do, there will be a submission to Treasury Ministers. But I remind my noble friend that I did not refer to the EU in my first Answer.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I think I am right in saying that the amount of VAT lost to charities is in excess of £4 billion but, be that as it may, is it not a fact that charities reach the parts that others do not reach, if you want to put it that way and, further, that they provide the best value for money that there is in our society? For every pound that a charity gives, the good citizens of this country add several times more in the shape of free volunteer labour currently valued in excess of £15 billion a year. So why is it therefore beyond the imagination of government to realise that they could and should extend the scheme, which I believe currently applies only to repairs to places of worship, whereby there is a grant back scheme for the VAT that is paid in the course of having those repairs carried out? Surely the living are as valuable as the dead.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, lost a zero from his figures. Charities themselves estimate that the cost of irrecoverable VAT is between £400 and £500 million, not £4 billion. I ask the noble Lord to consider those figures in the light of the amount of support which government give to charities. I acknowledge the truth of everything that he said in regard to the value of what charities provide. In terms of support for charitable activity through tax relief, there is a saving of £360 million on inheritance tax, £600 million on business rates, £850 million on income tax and £200 million on VAT zero rates and exemptions for matters such as advertising, construction, disabled access and so on. There is quite rightly a great deal of public support for charities.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, in light of the fact that voluntary organisations probably contribute at least £15 billion to the well-being of citizens in this country, how can the Minister continue to justify no VAT relief for voluntary organisations when the same or equivalent public service provided by the public sector is exempt? Further, in view of the £125 million futurebuilders investment fund which is to last for three years, what is expected to happen after that period? The measure is clearly a sop in view of the irrecoverable VAT situation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I remind the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, that the irrecoverable VAT problem has existed for many, many years going back to 1973 under a very large number of Chancellors, mainly from the Conservative Party. As regards the noble Baroness's second point, the £125 million applies to a three-year period. It was allocated under the 2002 spending review and will be reviewed in the next spending review.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, what is the gain to the charitable sector as a result of the Chancellor's introduction of gift aid? Might the Minister also compare that figure with the loss to the charitable sector as a result of the Chancellor's introduction of an extra 1p on national insurance?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, in referring to the gain to the charitable sector from gift aid, is talking about the Getting Britain Giving initiative. We are abolishing the £250 minimum limit for gift aid donations and the £1,200 maximum limit for payroll giving, encouraging gifts of quoted shares and securities to charity with a new income tax relief, and modernising the system to allow charities to certify donations over the Internet or by telephone. It is too early to say what the effect of that will be and therefore to make the comparison for which the noble Lord is looking.

Zimbabwe
2.50 p.m.
Lord Watson of Richmond Lord Watson of Richmond asked Her Majesty's Governmen:
Whether new measures are being considered to bring greater pressure to bear on Mr Mugabe and his associates in Zimbabwe.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, Zimbabwe's neighbours, the European Union, the United States and others have voiced their concern about the violence and human rights abuses in Zimbabwe which followed a successful "stayaway" organised by the opposition on 18th and 19th March. We welcome the Southern African Development Community's decision to send a task force to Zimbabwe later this week to investigate the continuing human rights abuses and state repression. Its discussions will include a cross-section of civil society as well as the main political parties.
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. Given the continuing and rapidly worsening situation of human rights abuses in Zimbabwe and the arrest of the leader of the opposition, does she agree that many people in this country will be deeply shocked and offended that Mr Mugabe bears an honorary knighthood from this country? Albeit that the honour is symbolic, will she

7
not consider therefore that it now be removed as a matter of some real urgency? It is an honour that has been dishonoured.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord has raised the issue with me before. As the House knows, the honour was conferred during a state visit in 1994. Withdrawing it now is not our immediate priority. We are concentrating instead on feeding Zimbabwe's hungry and, with our European Union, Commonwealth and US partners, doing all we can to encourage a return to good governance, including a respect for human rights and the rule of law. We may well revisit the question in the future, but I have to tell the noble Lord that there are other priorities at the moment.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, is the question at this stage not one of giving some hope to the brave people of Zimbabwe that their nightmare is going to end? Did several of us not raise the question of the knighthood for Mugabe and the need to remove it? Why is it not a priority now? It should be. Should there not also be a priority to get a resolution through the United Nations, toughen the EU sanctions, and urge SADC, in addition to its mission, to be far more firm in its total approach to Zimbabwe? By not making those a priority, are we not demonstrating that we are not giving enough effort and care to looking after and helping the people of Zimbabwe in every possible way?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord has confused a number of different issues. If the nightmare for the people of Zimbabwe is going to end, what we need to see is a return to the rule of law, and an ending of the political violence and harassment that we have seen. As said by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, the honour is symbolic. It cannot be a priority at the moment in terms of the day-to-day issues that confront the people of Zimbabwe and that have been raised in the House on a number of occasions.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked me about taking resolutions before the United Nations. As he knows, a draft resolution from the European Union on human rights in Zimbabwe is coming before the Commission on Human Rights. There will be a discussion this afternoon of the humanitarian situation in southern Africa in the UN Security Council, and James Morris, the director of the World Food Programme, will address it on that matter.
With respect to the wider issue of international peace and security, which we would like to see considered by the UN Security Council, I have to say what I have said before, which is that there no consensus on the matter. We continue to discuss it with our partners and allies, but at the moment there is no consensus in the UN Security Council for such a resolution. I know that noble Lords do not want to hear that.
Lord Acton: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right in saying that feeding the hungry in Zimbabwe should
8
indeed be a priority. Is she aware that, as a result of the destruction of the commercial farming sector in Zimbabwe, and of the poor rains, especially in Matabeleland and Masvingo, the number of people at risk from lack of food—it is currently 7.2 million—is assessed by independent observers as likely to be 10 million by Christmas? Will the Government continue so generously to provide the funds necessary to support the needy in Zimbabwe as the numbers increase?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we are currently feeding some 1.5 million vulnerable Zimbabweans per day, including children, pregnant women and the elderly. We continue to have a programme looking at HIV/AIDS in Zimbabwe, which has one of the highest infection rates on the continent. As my noble friend will be aware, we have contributed some £51 million to the humanitarian crisis since September 2001. Those are the priorities—dealing with the vulnerable, the hungry and those infected with HIV/AIDS, and restoring the rule of law.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that Dr Sebastian Bakare, the bishop of the Anglican diocese of Manicaland and the chair of the Zimbabwe Council of Churches, recently said that he felt horrified to live in a community where people could not engage in development programmes for fear of being arrested under the draconian Public Order and Security Act? Are the Government seeking to use their influence to work towards the repeal of that Act?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, indeed we are seeking to do so. Members of the Southern African Development Community will be in Zimbabwe later this week and will look at the allegations of human rights abuses and the harassment of the opposition. I discussed those issues in South Africa last week with members of the South African Government.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the Inter-Parliamentary Union council meeting in Santiago in Chile, which is taking place at the moment, will be considering a new report on the arrest and torture of eight different MDC MPs, including, as my noble friend said, the leader of the opposition? As she has on previous occasions, will she write personally to her opposite numbers in all the Commonwealth states, drawing their attention to any resolution passed by the IPU council?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I would happily do that.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords—
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Park!
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, will the noble Baroness tell the House, if it is at all possible to do so—
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, it is the turn of the noble Baroness, Lady Park.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, perhaps I may say to the Minister how very glad I am to hear that James Morris will be active in the matter. He will make a very important contribution. Can she give us any further detail on the nature of what she described as the task force? Will it be heads of state or specialists in humanitarian aid? Above all, will it travel outside Harare?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the task force is of Foreign Ministers. I do not know the extent to which there will be advisers to them. My understanding is that they will talk to a wide cross-section of society. I am unable to tell the noble Baroness whether that includes trips outside Harare, but I will do my best to find out and write to her.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, are we really expected to believe that President Mugabe, who has described himself as being a Hitler and would be 10 times a Hitler to get his own way, will be moved by the threat from this country of removal of an honorary knighthood? Do we really think that the people starving and facing grave torture in Zimbabwe are likely to be moved by the plea to remove the honour? Are they not more likely to ask whether that is the best that we can do? Would it not be better to support the Government in what they are doing?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I can only agree with my noble friend.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we are well past time now. We should move on to the next Question.

Commercial Activities in Schools
3 p m.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy on promotion of food and confectionery products direct to school children; and what are the circumstances in which schools, local education authorities and government departments may collaborate with manufacturers in such promotions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, the department, the Incorporated Society of British Advertisers and the Consumers' Association issued updated guidelines entitled, Best Practice Principles for Commercial Activities in Schools, in October 2001. These guidelines cover commercial sponsorship in schools by snack-food companies and help teachers and governors to make informed, sensible decisions about the nature of
10
business involvement in schools. They also help schools to determine whether the education benefits outweigh the disadvantages of commercial activities.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, there is currently a virtual epidemic of obesity among children. The Department of Health has quite rightly encouraged certain national initiatives such as the national school fruit scheme. Is it not extraordinary, in the face of that, that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and indeed the Minister for Sport himself, have endorsed a recent direct marketing scheme designed to encourage children to eat more chocolate—a scheme which is promoted through schools? Therefore, are not the department's guidelines inadequate? Should they not prevent the direct marketing to schoolchildren of fatty and sugary foods?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord refers to the Cadbury initiative with the Youth Sport Trust. My right honourable friend Richard Caborn has endorsed the initiative, as indeed has the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross—who is not in her place—in her capacity as chair of the All-Party Corporate Social Responsibility Group, by saying that this is a good example of a carefully crafted corporate social responsibility initiative. Within the context of the guidance that we have produced, it is important to ensure that we have the opportunity to work closely with business. We believe that this is a good initiative.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, what attention is paid to health guidelines, particularly in regard to dental health? I must disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in so far as chocolate is much better for the teeth than any other form of sweet. I wonder whether the initiatives are taking that into consideration.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, on a personal level, I am delighted to hear that chocolate is less bad for teeth than other sweets. More seriously, it is important that health considerations are taken into account. I draw the attention of the House to the specific point that this is not about government telling children in schools and their parents what they should do in regard to different kinds of food products. It is about teaching our children to have a health lifestyle and to have an appropriate response and approach to sweets and to other foods. We believe that this is the way to approach the matter.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the Minister agree that perhaps the fault lies with parents, who give their children far too much pocket money?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House says, "Not in Scotland, they don't"! I have a feeling that my children would probably echo that in St Albans.
There are issues in regard to parental responsibility. One of the pieces of information that I gathered in preparing for this Question was that there is research

11
to indicate that children, on the way to and from school, are likely to spend up to £1.50 on sweets and snacks. We have a big job to do. I do not in any way suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in raising the issues that there are not important elements in this. However, the initiative about which he was particularly concerned has worked hard to ensure that, for example, there will be no branding on sports equipment in schools by any chocolate manufacturer. It is about training for teachers as well and should therefore be supported in that context.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the real issue relates to changing eating habits among schoolchildren, and that the "five a day" and "fruit in schools" projects, which are promoted through the New Opportunities Fund, are having excellent results? We are told that children are now asking for an apple in their lunchbox instead of chocolates or crisps.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I pay tribute to the "five a day" scheme, which has reached parts of the country that other initiatives do not often reach. Indeed, we have support in terms of fruit for our youngest children, through healthy school standards, and through the work that we are doing with the Food Standards Agency to monitor compliance in terms of the impact of nutritional standards on school lunches. These are all part of a rather complex whole to try to ensure that our children grow up with the right balance between their desire to enjoy themselves in terms of the food that they eat, hut, most importantly, to recognise what is healthy and good for them.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, quite apart from advertising, is the Minister aware that a recent book—a very thoughtful book—by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury points out the great dangers of allowing young children to become the targets of commercial advertising before they have the maturity to make judgments between the different products advertised? Will the Minister draw the attention of her right honourable friend the Secretary of State to that book? I personally think that it is very important, as I am sure the Minister does if she has read it.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I will indeed draw my right honourable friend's attention to the book. It is important in this context to ensure that we give our children all that they need to understand and deal with the plethora of advertising, particularly at Christmas time. It is important that children are able to understand what this is about and to make reasoned and sensible judgments. I do not believe that this is about banning things; I believe it is about giving them the kind of ammunition they need to make the decisions for themselves, based on an understanding about health and about what advertising seeks to do. If we could do that, we should equip them well for life.

European Parliament (Representation) Bill
3.6 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 14 [The Gibraltar register]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 8, line 6, after "Assembly" insert "of Gibraltar"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 17 [Regulations relating to sections 14 to 16]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 9, line 22, leave out "this section" and insert "section 16"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment formally and the other amendments in the group.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, although the Minister seeks to move all the amendments formally, just to prove that I have read the amendments with great care, I should like to express my serious concerns about Amendment No. 3. It suggests that Clause 14 contains a definition of the words "the European electoral registration officer". It does not. It states that the holder of one particular office—namely, the—
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way. The Question before the House is Whether Amendment No. 2 shall be agreed to? The noble Lord wishes to speak to Amendment No. 3.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the Minister did say that he was moving all the amendments formally.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I must put the Question in any case: it is Whether Amendment No. 2 shall be agreed to?
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am sorry for being out of order. The Bill states that the Clerk to the House of Assembly shall be the European electoral registration officer. That is not a definition of what the European electoral registration officer is. It is saying that the holder of one office—namely, the Clerk to the House of Assembly—is also the holder of a different office, that of European electoral registration officer. It seems to me, therefore, that the appropriate wording would have been not "within the meaning of", as in the amendment, but "as specified by". The Minister will be glad, however, to know that I do not intend to press this issue to a Division.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I apologise for the fact that I was not in my place when the amendment was first called. But I understand that the noble Lord from the Liberal Front Bench has spoken to the amendment and I take it that I am entitled to do the same.

13
I have wondered quite often why this Bill is in front of us without getting a clear answer either from my own resources or from Ministers. On reading through the three days of Committee stage, I came to the conclusion—I have made this point before—that gobbledy and gook have met together and made the language incomprehensible. In my view, my noble friend Lord Waddington asked the key question which has not yet been answered; namely, that the assemblies, if and when they happen, will have no new funds and no new powers from either central government—
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we are not on that Bill yet.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am sorry. I thought that we were discussing Amendment No. 2.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord believes that we are on the next item of business.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I beg the pardon of the noble Baroness. I have been caught before, unfortunately, by an unexpected speed with which your Lordships handle certain business. I was very confused on that occasion and my fear that I had made the same mistake again led me to make a mistake of a different kind. I apologise. I await my turn.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I guess that I ought to apologise to your Lordships' House. I thought, and the notes that I had been given indicated, that there was very little controversy this afternoon associated with this Bill. For that reason, I took a liberty in moving the amendments formally. I shall address Amendment No. 3 because the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has raised it. My apologies to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, for exercising him in the way in which he was exercising his knowledge about a Bill which we were not discussing.
Amendment No. 3 looks at Clause 14. This was amended in Grand Committee to replace the early arrangements for appointing the European electoral registration officer for Gibraltar with a simple statement that the Clerk to the House of Assembly for Gibraltar should be the electoral registration officer for Gibraltar. The reference in Clause 20 in the new Section 6(5)(b) of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002 to the ERO appointed under Clause 14 of the Bill is, therefore, no longer appropriate. It is for that reason that Amendment No. 3 replaces it with a more suitable reference.
I hope that that answers the point made by the noble Lord. I f not, I shall follow up his point happily outside the Chamber. All the amendments in this group are essentially simple, technical and have been uncontroversially argued through. I think that they were looked for and to be welcomed this afternoon.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 20 [Returning officers]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 11, line 2, leave out "appointed under" and insert "(within the meaning of"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 23 [Jurisdiction of courts]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 12, line 9, at beginning insert "Without prejudice to the generality of the power under which it is made,"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 28 [Short title, extent and commencement]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 14, line 11, leave out "22" and insert "24"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I thank the Minister and the Liberal Democrats for their co-operation. The Bill is very good news for the people of Gibraltar. We wish it well.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I echo that support for the Bill. We are very glad to see that Gibraltar will now get the vote in the European elections.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill
3.14 p.m.
Report received.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
"PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of this Bill is to provide voters with a choice as to the establishment of regional assemblies in their region and as to options for change in the organisation of local government."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 12 with which it is grouped. It will be fairly obvious to noble Lords that the two amendments have been drafted by different hands. Amendment No. 1 is far less detailed—indeed, I may say far less refined—but it enables me to explain the approach of these Benches at this stage.
At the previous stage, we made it clear that we had considerable problems with the Bill. I want to be clear with noble Lords that we have discussed with Ministers and found a way which, if the House agrees, will take forward the possibility of regional government in a way which we, certainly, regard as far more appropriate.
I should also like noble Lords to be clear as to why. The Minister has made it plain that if we had pressed for every change that we wanted, including—indeed, in particular—the retention of two-tier local government in regions which opt for regional government, Her Majesty's Government would have resisted that approach. That would have meant that the Bill, the first step towards regional government, would have been lost or that the Parliament Act would have been applied and we should have had the Bill in its original form which, as I have said, is not one which we regarded with any great enthusiasm.
We have long been enthusiastic on these Benches for regional government where it is wanted. We are aware that here our policy differs sharply from that of the Conservatives, although I have absolutely no doubt that they, too, are anxious to improve the Bill. In some cases, improvement to the Bill in their terms would not be quite the same as our terms. However, I accept that we have expressed similar thinking on some amendments.
We differ from Her Majesty's Government, in particular, in that we do not regard the reorganisation of local government as appropriately dealt with as part of the introduction of regional government. We still regard it as a separate issue. However, we are clear, and the Minister was clear with the House at the previous stage, that No. 10 has set strict constraints on what it is possible to do regarding local government—the number of tiers or, as I have often said, perhaps tediously, spheres. It is important to take forward the prospect of regional government and to build on past co-operation between these Benches and the Labour Party—Her Majesty's Government—on matters of constitutional reform.
The simple aim in Amendment No. 12 is to give people living in two-tier areas a say about local government structure. Therefore, we propose two questions—technically, as noble Lords will see, two ballots. Residents in those areas will be asked a second contemporaneous question and will be given a choice between at least two options for local government in their area. All the options will be for unitary government. It is clear that the retention of two-tier government could not be achieved.
That means that only those affected will be entitled to vote. Therefore, the big conurbations cannot dictate to other areas the form of local government in their area if regional government goes ahead. I accept that voters in urban areas, which are now unitary, could impose a change by the outcome of the question regarding regional assemblies. But which change will be a matter of local choice. For the first time ever local people will have a vote with regard to their form of local government.
There are three additional points, some of which we shall cover later in more detail. It is appropriate to refer briefly to them as they are part of our overall approach. The Government have agreed that the boundaries of existing unitary authorities can be considered by the Boundary Committee for England if
16
those councils wish them to be considered. That will mean that possible nonsenses, to which some of your Lordships referred at the previous stage, can be avoided.
I turn to the publication of a draft powers Bill before the first referendum. I am assured that the Government will do their best to have a Bill published with a view to pre-legislative scrutiny. I understand that the Government by definition cannot foresee the unforeseeable—for instance, urgent matters coming out of nowhere that may take up parliamentary counsel's time—but I have no doubt of the Government's good faith in this matter.
There is confirmation that the White Paper is not the final word on powers to be devolved. On 25th March the Minister gave a helpful answer to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, confirming that,
"the Government are keen further to decentralise responsibility for policy and delivery where this will improve regional outcomes. There are likely to be further proposals for the decentralisation of responsibilities to elected regional assemblies as time goes on".—[Official Report, 25/3/03; col. WA 67.]
I believe that the answer referred to paragraph 4(5) of the White Paper. Last time we were all exercised in trying to hunt down that point. Indeed, the Minister responsible for local government has confirmed that after some years' experience of the Greater London Authority, its powers will be reviewed and it would be logical for such a review to consider the powers of regional assemblies also.
Turning to how Clause 12 will work, subsections (1) and (2) require that if there is a referendum about establishing an elected assembly, there must also be a referendum in each county area, the second referendum being about the government options for unitary local government in the county area. Subsections (3) and (4) define a county area, which in the main will be the existing area of a county council—of course containing districts—but recognising that some of the proposed options for single-tier authorities may mean reorganisation across county boundaries. In that case the clause provides that all county areas affected may be combined into a single county area for the purposes of the referendum and voters in that combined area will vote on a common referendum on the local government structure.
Subsection (5) requires the government options to be based on recommendations by the Boundary Committee for England and must include, as I have said, at least two different unitary options. The Government propose an amendment to insert a new clause requiring the Boundary Committee's recommendations to contain two or more options. These amendments, taken together, mean that options put to voters will be based, as we have already discussed, on an independent review. As part of that review people will be able to make their case for a particular structure.
Subsection (6) means that wherever there is a referendum about whether to establish an elected assembly, the local government options have to be put

17
to voters on the same day. In practice that may mean a single ballot paper, but that is not a matter that we need to consider now.
Subsection (7) prevents the Secretary of State from making an order to hold the referendum until six weeks after he has the Boundary Committee's recommendations, in order to give an opportunity for people to make representations about the recommendations.
Subsection (8) gives the Secretary of State, with Parliament's approval, the power to vary an order for a referendum about local government, independently on an order for a referendum on an elected assembly—for example, to make minor corrections to the description of the options for a county area—but he cannot revoke an order for a local referendum without also revoking the order for the regional referendum. In other words, the Secretary of State cannot cancel a local government referendum while a regional one is taking place.
Subsection (9) allows the Secretary of State to make an order about local government referendums, setting the rules, the way in which the options are set out and other matters. An order-making power is needed because the options, of course, will vary from region to region. Compared with putting the arrangements on the face of the Bill, it provides a little more time to work out the best arrangements for local referendums. Subsection (10) includes lists of specific matters for the order.
I do not intend to press the "purpose" clause—Amendment No. 1—which was described to me late last week as "post-modern", unless the Minister thinks that this is very classical and something that would benefit the Bill. In due course, I shall move Amendment No. 12 as a significant strengthening of the Bill. It may not be regional government as we on the Liberal Democrat Benches would have chosen, but it is much improved from what was on offer two weeks ago. I am most grateful to the Minister for the work that he and his officials have undertaken to enable us to arrive at this point. I beg to move.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for tabling the amendment which appears to be an important step forward, allowing people the opportunity to say what form of unitary local government they want in their areas. I rise for one reason. I have had the opportunity to read the full letter written to interested Members by the Minister. I thank him for that letter. He has intimated his preparedness to accept the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, but I notice that subsection (5) of Amendment No. 12 says that the Boundary Committee should be required to set out "at least two options". The Minister in his letter says that he has it in mind to ask the Boundary Committee to produce two recommendations or more if it thinks appropriate. Would it be simpler to ask the committee to list all viable options? I am unsure why it should be limited to two. I am glad that the Minister does not accept that
18
that is the right result. I cannot see why there should not be a requirement on the committee to list all the viable options.
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): My Lords, for the avoidance of doubt the letter said "at least two options": it did not foreclose on any other options. There is a choice. It is up to the Boundary Committee to do that and not the Government. The words "at least" allow for the possibility of more.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I agree entirely with the Minister, that that is better than to limit the committee to just two. I wonder whether it should be said boldly to the committee that it should list all viable options for having unitary local government in a particular area.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I am a little less sanguine about this amendment than my noble friend Lord Waddington. I see more mischief in it than he has. Over the weekend there was a small amount of publicity that I assume arose from the Liberal Democrats' publicity drive, crowing that, as a result of the agreement by the Government to take up their amendment on restructuring unitary government, regional government was now assured. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has now reiterated that. As we knew from the Liberal Democrats, that is what they have been out for all the time. Their views on these proposals are now nailed to the mast, although there has been little doubt about that all along.
What do the amendments amount to? In all honesty, they are the nail in the coffin of the county councils. They finally dispel any possibility of the status quo—I acknowledge that the Minister has not been in favour of that—in terms of the local government structure continuing. I thought that that was an option under regional government in which the Liberal Democrats were interested, with the county councils being protected. Having accepted the amendments, it is clear that the Government no longer see any role for the counties in their present form, despite declaring that they were neutral on their continuation.
The amendment follows on from one tabled in Committee when the Liberal Democrats sought to have a second question asked in county and district areas only: whether the electors were in favour of county and district councils being organised into a single unitary tier of local government. It was one that sought to decouple the reorganisation of local government from the question on regional government. As worded, it might just have had our support because it would have elicited a "Yes" or "No" answer. It was also designed to prevent county and districts being overwhelmed by a vote from the metropolitan and shire areas, a point mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
But the amendment goes far further than that. It asks for views on options for the reform of local government only. There is no chance to vote against reform. Even before a vote on regional government

19
has been decided, voters are asked to decide how the counties and districts should be divided up to form unitary government. As I understand it, there will not even be a second question that asks, "Are you in favour of local government reform?". The two questions will be, "Are you in favour of regional government?" and "Which form of regional government are you going to vote for?", under which there will be several options.
Under the second question there is no possibility that county councils, in particular, can survive in their current form—even if an option were put forward to make a unitary from their boundaries. I recall that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, who, I notice, is not in his place today—I beg his pardon; he is present. He seemed to have some feeling for the counties' position. But, if he has accepted this amendment as likely to help him out, I say to him that he has been sold a pup. Unitary government will willy-nilly come out of this. County councils cannot survive, and it is the Liberal Democrats, along with the Government, who will have ensured their demise.
We have tabled amendments both in Committee and today to ensure that information is available about the powers, structures and costs of regional government. But similar information, not just maps of boundaries, will now have to be made available for unitary authorities, since now we have no idea what unitary government will do. In general, it will have to absorb the powers and responsibilities of county councils, taking on, for example, social services, waste disposal, highways and the other county council responsibilities. Any unitary county council left will provide only its share of those services. It will not provide them for its related districts, as in the past.
The alternatives offered here are as puff and smoke. We are totally opposed to what the amendments will do.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I fear that I have put my case very badly. I am not quarrelling with the case that she put forward. I do not want to see any local government changes at all. I certainly do not want to see the disappearance of counties. But, assuming that the Government will not resile from their determination to use their voting power to ensure that the price of having a referendum is to have unitary local government, does not my noble friend agree with me that, if we are eventually left in that position, it is better that local people should have the opportunity to choose what form of unitary government they should have than be denied it? I will certainly not vote for this amendment if it will foreclose the opportunity for us to insist once more that there should be no change in the local government structure at all.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, noticed that I am in my place, but she did not remark on the fact that I have moved my place since Committee stage. It is with very great regret that I say
20
that the reason I have done so is that I cannot support the amendments tabled by my noble friend today. There has been some vigorous discussion about the matter. My view turned out to be a minority one within our team in this House and in the House of Commons. With considerable regret, therefore, I have withdrawn from the team on this Bill.
I live and am politically active in a two-tier area, so perhaps I look at life from a perspective different from that of those from London and metropolitan areas—or some of them anyhow. I declare that as an interest. Like my noble friend. I shall refer to other amendments on the Marshalled List that are part of a package negotiated between members of my party and the Government—there is no secret about that. The meaning of the amendments moved by my noble friend can be understood only by looking at them in the context of the package.
The crunch is whether people in areas that are to have referendums on regional assemblies, as proposed by the Government, have the democratic option to decide for themselves and not be told by the Minister, 10 Downing Street or anyone else that two-tier local government is not allowed. I would hardly wish to refer to the proposal as regional government, as the proposals are such feeble affairs. We debated that issue vigorously in Committee. It is the issue on which, I believe, the negotiated deal sells the pass.
In Committee, when I spoke from the Front Bench on behalf of my party, I responded to some fairly vigorous comments by the Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said:
"If this measure is decoupled, there will not be a referendum because there will not be a Bill. We shall take it away. That is the price to be paid. It is as simple as that … If you want to kill the Bill, carry on".
Later the Minister referred to those words as being his "mantra". Throughout the three days of Committee stage he kept saying that it was the mantra and that was that. On behalf—I thought—of my own party, I said:
"We now have threats, bluster and blackmail from the Minister—not rational argument".
I added:
"The Minister's attitude is not acceptable … We are being threatened that if we do what we believe is right, the Government will take their bat and ball home. If it comes to that, do not blame us. The responsibility would clearly rest with the Government. It is arrogance of the highest order".
Later I said that the Minister was browbeating us:
"The Liberal Democrats will not be brow-beaten in every instance. If he is saying that if your Lordships' House stands firm on such issues he will not get his legislation, then we might as well all pack up and go home".—[Official Report, 13/3/03; cols. 1515–16.]
I repeat those words at some length because I believed then that I was speaking on behalf of my party. After I spoke, I was not given an indication that I had not been speaking on behalf of my party. But I believe that my party has, regrettably, now agreed to be blackmailed, bullied and browbeaten.
Even if a compromise on the Bill were necessary at the end of the process, it was wholly wrong not to test the opinion of the House, at the very least, on those

21
important issues and to negotiate from strength on that basis instead of having the negotiations that took place. I do not blame my noble friend Lady Hamwee for what I think is a very sad series of events. I blame Ed Davey and my colleagues in the House of Commons, and I am happy to stand up in public and say that. I believe that in my part of the world, and in other parts of the world, too, Liberal Democrats will believe that they have been let down on this issue by their parliamentary representatives. In the press statement which the party put out, Ed Davey is quoted as saying:
"These concessions prevent the absurd situation whereby voters unaffected by local government reform would effectively be imposing changes on voters elsewhere in the region".
That is not true. The amendments do not prevent that. All that they do is give those voters a choice. If they believe that unitary government is some form of hell, it gives them a choice of two kinds of hell. That is not the kind of choice that we should be giving sensible and rational voters—certainly not in my part of the world.
Earl Russell: My Lords, am I right in thinking that members of each House may freely attack each other on neutral ground, but they may not do that from behind the ramparts of the privilege of their own House?
Lord Greaves: My Lords, my understanding is that the Companion states that one can criticise members of the House of Commons, as long as it is done on factual matters, matters of issue and principle, and not as a personal attack. I hope that I am not in any way making a personal attack.
I am merely quoting what has been put out in a press statement by my party, and explaining why I find myself very troubled indeed not to be able to support what my party is saying on this issue. The press statement continues:
"The Government's original proposal of only one ballot question meant a 'Yes' vote in the regional referendum would automatically have led to unitary government, as proposed by the Boundary Committee for England".
That is still the case and nothing has changed.
Finally, the press statement says that this,
"significantly improves the chances of referendums on regional assemblies actually being won".
I do not think that the situation in the North West is any different. It will make it much more difficult in one important respect for any referendum in the North West to be won. There is already a united Conservative Party that will be campaigning against it. The Labour Party in the North West is already split, and will not be campaigning for the referendum in any united way. I had hoped that the Liberal Democrats would be. I have no doubt that the Liberal Democrats in the North West will be split down the middle on this proposal. There will be as many campaigning for a "No" vote as for a "Yes" vote. If there is going to be a referendum, the Government has to win—it is not there for the taking. I believe that the chances of a referendum being won are receding by the minute—certainly in the North West, which is the region that I know.
22
If the Government hold a referendum in the North West, and they lose, they would set back regional government in our region for a long time. I regret that the amendments that are being moved by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, and later by the Minister, do nothing to help us—or them—to win a referendum in the North West. I now do not genuinely know what side I will be on in that referendum, which is again why I am sitting here and not on the Front Bench.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I have not spoken before on the Bill, but the issue has now been widened, far beyond the question of regional assemblies, to a constitutional issue. It is clear that the Liberal Democrats are now the little friends of Labour in England, as well as in Scotland. I am surprised to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, about what has happened. It is to his eternal credit that he has made quite plain what has been going on. It looked to me, when I received a letter from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to explain the Government's view, that there had been a murky deal between them and the Liberal Democrats behind closed doors. However, the noble Lord has explained more to us.
It is an enormous matter to suggest that people in a referendum should change their local government arrangements, linked to an assembly decision, without conceivably having enough information to know what they should do. When local government became single tier in Scotland in preparation for the Scottish Parliament, it was done openly through primary legislation in a separate Bill. People knew the ins and outs of what was happening. It was not subject to a referendum.
This is a completely different way of approaching the issue. To think that the county councils are likely to be abolished in that cause before local government elections, for purely political ends, is something that the public should be aware of.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lady Hanham. I join her in saying. that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has been very courageous and highly principled. One of the great strengths of this House is that when Members of this House feel strongly about something, and consider it a matter of principle, we have a reputation for always respecting individuals' consciences. Certainly we do in this instance. We are sad at the story that we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Greaves.
I rise briefly to ask what is at stake. We now know—and always did—that the Government's price for regional government was to have single tier government. There was much unease on both the Liberal Democrat Benches and ours when this was being discussed. It seemed to us that to ask one question, which then invited wholesale reorganisation of local government, was wrong. There is now a shabby compromise, where the second question on the ballot paper will be, "Which way do you want to die?" "Do you want regional government?" requiring a straightforward answer, "Yes" or "No". If you answer

23
"Yes", then you will get a shabby compromise and you will have to say whether you want to die by hanging or by the electric chair. You are going to get single tier government whether you like it or not.
Make no mistake, that is what is at stake, both in Amendment No. 1 and certainly in Amendment No. 12. We believe that this is the death knell for county government for the following reasons. In practice, one can conceive of it being a less serious reorganisation for districts to absorb the functions of the counties, although it would be a major upheaval. We know that planning is being taken from the counties anyway, and we also know that transferring education to learning and skills councils is only a step away. All that would be left would be easily absorbed by the district councils.
It becomes a clear operation from the point of view of the Government. I say that because I have been listening to Labour politicians for a long time, and I know that their desire has been to see the end of county government. It is impossible to envisage the upheaval that would be caused in the unlikely event of counties becoming the regional single tier. County government has neither the reputation nor the functions and powers of district councils.
It would not just be a question of reorganising local government, there would be completely new kinds of county councils. They would not be the kind that we know at present. Instead of losing districts and having counties as single tier government, it would be much more likely in practice that one would lose the counties, and there would be single tier government at district level. Even at that level, many of the districts are too small to be unitary authorities. Local people would lose their district councils as they now know them, in favour of a considerable merging of district councils across the country. We know what a pain that would be. Whichever way one looks at it, local government will be moved further away from the people.
My final point is purely political, and I make no apologies for that. Let the Liberal Democrats go out around the country and explain to the people. We are still at the Report stage of the Bill; it has another stage to go before it goes to the Commons for them to consider what we have had to say. At this early stage of the Bill, to sell local government down the river is unforgivable. I hope that local people are listening to that message. They have handed the Government local government reorganisation on a plate and it will not receive our support.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I shall be brief. At Second Reading I made allusion to various lessons that might be learnt from the past. The Minister was gracious enough to say that I was right. acknowledging that,
"we should learn lessons from the past when we go in for such changes. In the forthcoming period and during the passage of the Bill, I hope that we will be able to show that we have done that".—[Official Report. 20/2/03; col. 1330.]
24
If the consequence of these amendments is the disappearance of the county councils, it is for the Minister in responding to the debate to indicate in what way he has learnt from the past in that regard.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I support what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. Reorganisation of local government does not come lightly. In a large county with two tiers, 40,000 people might be employed. They will be conscious of their jobs and future. I went through local government reorganisation in the 1990s and in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said that he remembered it in the 1970s. It takes a great deal of work and discussion. The concern is not only political; it exists among people working in local government who look after the elderly, run schools and provide other such services.
As a result of these proposals, during the next year there will be even more chaos as people increasingly fight over two, three or four options. The whole idea is crazy. I do not believe that people understand what local government reorganisation is like. It is vicious. Districts fight districts, and perhaps counties fight counties. We will have a year of such chaos.
It would have been much simpler to have allowed a question such as, "Do you want to retain your local government structure as it is?". We have heard the Minister say on several occasions that there must be two tiers or nothing. But regional government in other countries works well with three tiers. The Minister and the Government should rethink the whole issue.
The amendment makes the situation worse. It would cause more chaos, unease and unhappiness for staff. I could not oppose anything more in the Bill. The Bill was difficult before we began our deliberations; this proposal makes it much worse. It will cause chaos and heartache throughout the whole of local government.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall do my best to respond to the point. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, that the reason might not be the elevated one he wants, but basically the lesson here is, "Do the deal early".
Baroness Blatch: Do the deal early?
Lord Rooker: Yes, that is right. Before the noble Baroness carries on, perhaps I may point out that she raised the matter. She talked of a shabby compromise given away by the Liberals at too early a stage. That is what she said, the implication being that it would not have been so shabby had they done so later on. That point was also made by another noble Lord.
I do not want to mislead anyone. If the soundings are positive, in order to have a referendum in the autumn of next year—not this year—I made it abundantly clear that the Bill would need Royal Assent early. Indeed, I was even told the date in the Chamber. I was told by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that it was 8th May. She had got the date from

25
her Front Bench meeting and discussions with the usual channels. The noble Baroness did not get it from me.
That being the case, noble Lords can work it out. A government defeat in this House in order to make them listen again and then the possibility of ping-pong between the Houses would mean no Royal Assent by that date. There would be no possibility of a referendum next autumn. That is the policy of the Tory Front Bench because they do not want the Bill anyway. They will do anything to wreck the Bill. For example, on the surface, the proposed change looks modest, sensible, considered and mature, but they know that it will wreck the chance of having a referendum in the autumn of next year.
Baroness Blatch: It is not true.
Lord Rooker: Perhaps I may finish this point, then I will gladly give way. I set out the dates during the Committee stage. No referendum next year also means no referendum possibly before the next general election. That point was also made clear. It would mean that the objectives of the Tory Front Bench had been achieved. To that extent, doing the deal early stops that.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I need to correct the noble Lord. If the Bill received Royal Assent on 8th June instead of 8th May, for example, the referendum would be held one month later next autumn—-or one month earlier if it received Royal Assent on 8th April.
It would be only days if it were simply a matter of ping-pong between the Houses. We obtained the date of 8th May from the Minister's own offices in this House—the usual channels. There is no argument, no intellectual support or defence whatever for 8th May being the last date in order for a referendum to be held in the autumn. It could be held in the autumn if the Bill received Royal Assent on 18th May, 8th June, or a matter of days or weeks later. The noble Lord's argument is not defensible.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is, but I shall not now go into the detail of the steps that need to be taken to set up a referendum. I did so in Committee. The procedure takes into account dates when Parliament is sitting to enable proper consultation to take place and notice to be given in relation to all the stages. The date has been worked backwards. We do not really want the referendum on Christmas Eve, thank you very much. Therefore, we have had to take a sensible approach to setting a date.
I make that point only because the consequences of at least two of the speeches would be a knock-down battle in this House where it is clear that the Government do not command a majority in order for them to reconsider the issue and come forward with another solution. The time taken up by ping-pong would not allow that to happen. The effect would be to knock out the possibility of a referendum and even to kill the Bill.
26
The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, before he realised that his Front Bench opposed the clause, said that this was an important step forward—
Lord Waddington: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that I stand condemned of the most appalling naivety? I had not the slightest idea of all the comings and goings between the Liberal Front Bench and the Government. If I had known more about that, I would have thought twice before speaking. I have to tell the noble Lord that I am entirely persuaded by the oratory of my noble friend.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I fully accept that the comment which the noble Lord made in his intervention during the speech of his colleague was valid. Ultimately using the will of another place—if it were minded to take the same view—the consequence will be to give more choice to people within the parameters. That is what the amendment seeks to do. I do not want to debate whether there should be unitary county councils because it is for the Boundary Committee to come forward with options. Nothing is excluded and it is for the Boundary Committee to consider the issue. Therefore, I do not accept that the intention is deliberately to snuff out county council government in this country.
In any event, the Bill represents a pilot scheme because we will not have national referendums on regional assemblies. We have made that clear. We know that a region or a small number of regions will have referendums and there is no possibility of regionally elected government in this country before July 2006. I made that point in Committee.
I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has had to move himself to the Back Benches, but I have to tell him that he has written the election addresses of most of the Tory opponents of his Liberal Democratic colleagues in local elections. However, that is his responsibility and he will have to bear the cost.
I have great respect for the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, but no analogy can be made with Scotland. However, she was good enough to point out that after going through the processes for setting up unitary authorities, local people were not given a chance I o say whether they agreed. Using the noble Lord's words, giving people more choice as regards local government structure must be an important step forward, although I accept that it will take place within the framework of the big picture. Nevertheless, offering more choice cannot be a bad thing.
If the House is minded to accept Amendment No. 12, the Government will move consequential amendments at Third Reading. I shall explain those in detail when I move them. Given that, I do not intend to make a long speech at this point because, in moving her amendment, the noble Baroness explained how it will work and, indeed, she referred to some of those consequential amendments. We have said all along that we are not going to introduce three-tier local government. That is our mantra, if you like. We propose a two-tier system, not one with three tiers. If we had come forward with a proposal to introduce

27
three-tier government, I flatly refuse to accept that we would not have been attacked by the Conservative Front Bench, by Members in another place and by business outside for overloading the layers of government in this country. I know what would have happened and I do not accept the argument that it would have been welcomed in the form that it has been put to the House today.
We think that there is no question that unitary government will offer streamlined government and that such a system will not take local governance further away from the people. Furthermore, the amendment certainly does not seek to deprive voters of the opportunity to learn about our intentions because, as I repeated several times, we shall do our best to introduce a draft Bill before the referendum takes place. In any event, we guarantee that details of the consequences of any changes to local government structure will be put before the electorate, and that those will include setting out the options detailing the proposed powers of the regional assemblies. People will know, first, exactly what they are voting for in the referendum and. secondly, what will be the consequences on other elements of local government depending on how they vote.
We shall require the vote to be taken in each county area to ensure that only those in the affected two-tier areas will be offered a vote in a referendum on the options for unitary authorities. That is an important point. To be honest, a powerful, logical case was put to me on this point. I squirmed as I listened to the speeches in which the point was repeated several times; namely, that it would be unfair in those areas where nearby large urban areas that would not be affected by the relevant local government structure could considerably outvote the electorate in two-tier areas and thus reach a decision on their behalf. That did not seem fair. The form of unitary government we intend to introduce in the event of there being an elected assembly therefore will not be dictated by voters who would be unaffected by any local government reorganisation. The amendment is fully consistent with what we have said all along about the Bill: there will be no new tier of government. That is why I am more than happy to support it.
Assuming that the amendment is carried, a number of other changes will need to be made to the Bill. Government amendments that I shall move later will ensure that the principle of the amendment can successfully be put into practice. In particular, I shall bring forward amendments to Part 2 of the Bill to provide that the Boundary Committee will make recommendations setting out two or more options for each county area. These are basically provided for in Amendment No. 48, which seeks to insert a new clause immediately following Clause 14.
The amendments will also make provision to allow the Secretary of State to direct the Boundary Committee to come forward with different recommendations or to carry out further reviews if that is necessary, perhaps to deal with representations made on the original recommendations. In that event,
28
we intend to specify that a period of six weeks should elapse between the receipt of recommendations and the order for the second referendum, which is allowed for in subsection (7) of Amendment No. 12. The period needs to be extended to allow for further representations to be made on the committee's revised recommendations. The amendments will require a certain amount of tidying up of the references to Part 2 in the proposed new clause set out in Amendment No. 12, in particular to subsections (5) and (7). I shall bring forward relevant amendments at Third Reading so that those subsections will contain forward references to the main direction-making power set out in Part 2 and the new one to be introduced by Amendment No. 48.
We have debated this issue for several hours over the course of our discussions on the Bill. I make no complaint about that because it is the point of principle on which the Bill is based. I did not intend in any way to be threatening when I said to the noble Lord that it is a simple fact that this is a government Bill. If any dislocation had taken place, the Government would not have proceeded with it. That is the choice of any Member in charge of a Bill, whether it is a Private Member's Bill or a piece of government legislation. If a point substantially changes the heart of a Bill, a decision must be made about whether to proceed. I made it abundantly clear that we would not have proceeded unless we could introduce a unitary form of government to sit alongside the elected regional assemblies.
4 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he would be kind enough to answer one question. During the course of our debates I think the Minister said that, if it was rational, the county council boundary could form a unitary authority. He went on to say that it would be up to the Boundary Committee to decide how unitary authority government is formed.
Can he confirm that if a unitary authority was established from a county council boundary, that county council would no longer hold the powers it has at present and that it would adopt those of the unitary structure?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, it would become a unitary county council. We do not have to invent that form. A unitary county council is already in existence and so what is the difference? What would be the difference between that form and what is in place in Herefordshire?
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I hope that Hansard will show clearly—as I have endeavoured to make it clear—why we have approached the matter in this way. I assure the House that it was not done lightly and certainly did not intend to suggest that this was a murky deal, as one noble Lord put it. Indeed, the Liberal Democrats agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, in that they wish to see a future for regional government. We want a future that gives people choice.

29
Much has been said about the counties, and rightly so. Their future depends on the referendums and, first, on a referendum on whether the local people in any given region want to go ahead with regional government. Furthermore, I have sought to make it clear that I would have preferred to see the two-tier option retained. I shall return to that matter in a moment.
Building on the last point made by the noble Baronesses, there is the possibility of setting up a form of unitary government on the boundaries of an existing county with the powers of the unitary authorities—although of course one can never be absolutely accurate when attempting to give a two-line summary—that is, with the powers of counties and districts effectively tied together.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to ask the noble Baroness a question. Does she agree that if a unitary authority were based on the county boundaries, the district authority would have to be removed and its functions and powers absorbed into the county? One way or another, under the Liberal amendment, local people will lose either their district authority or their county.
Baroness Hamwee: Yes, my Lords, of course; I have never suggested otherwise. On previous occasions I have spoken forcefully about the importance of districts because they are local. Although we have not discussed the position of parishes in this debate, if a noble Lord tests me then I shall discuss the position of community councils and parishes as well. Of course that is right.
The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, got it absolutely right. If the Government are determined not to resile from their position, it would be better to provide the options. He asked why all the viable options could not be listed in the legislation. My Amendment No. 12 provides for "at least two options", but given that the options would be different for each area, it would not be practicable to list all the detailed options.
I turn now to the reorganisation of local government. I understand very well, although I have not lived through it myself, how agonising that can be and how agonising it was during the 1990s. I do not think the Conservatives should be as proud of that reorganisation as they appear to be indicating today.
As my noble friend Lord Greaves said, he and I have different perspectives on this matter. There is not as sharp a distinction in our objectives as one might think. It is a matter of judgment whether to allow the Bill to be killed, which the Minister has been very clear about, or to keep the original form of the Bill. I cannot emphasise too much that it is also a matter of judgment when to negotiate over what might be on offer to achieve what is likely to be the best outcome.
My noble friend Lord Greaves—he is still my noble friend and I hope he is still my friend as well as being noble—said that the referendum has to be won and is not there for the taking. I agree. The referendum in
30
each region must be won. It goes without saying that it is a matter of considerable sadness that my noble friend and I disagree on this issue. He finds himself behind me. We will be together, not in parallel, on an awful lot of issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, described reorganisation as sometimes vicious. He rightly referred to the unhappiness and uncertainties that can be caused for staff, among other people. I accept that, but it must also be accepted that for reasons such as resources, reorganisation is not in prospect for most regions for some considerable time. It does not do our colleagues in local government any good—I count staff and officers among colleagues—for them to worry that what we are discussing is galloping over the horizon and will threaten their future in the next few weeks. That is not the case.
The Minister has been clear about the position. I am grateful for his recognition that the vote on local government should be local and not region-wide.
We want the prospect of regional government brought forward, with voters being given the vote regarding regional assemblies and options for local government. The first amendment about the purpose of the Bill was tabled to explain the issues to the House at the start of the Report stage. I shall move Amendment No. 12 when we reach it. At this point, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 1.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 7, at end insert "provided that in any order made under this subsection, it shall be made clear what will be the powers and functions of the assembly proposed, and how it will be funded"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I should repeat my apology for having mistimed my entry because I thought this was a different Bill. I have been surprised on a past occasion by your Lordships going, for once, rather faster than is customary and therefore missing my cue. I apologise for any inconvenience I caused.
When the Bill came forward, I wondered what on earth it was for. There was so little accompanying information. My guess was that the local government offices of the different regions which have been established probably needed some garments of democratic respectability to explain what they were at. I still think that there may be something in that. On the other hand, I have had the benefit of considerable guidance from my noble friends on the Front Bench and my noble friend Lord Waddington. My noble friend Lady Blatch made no secret of the fact that she thought the Government were bent on a whole-hog reorganisation of local government which they needed to explain much more thoroughly.
My noble friend Lord Waddington, as is his practice, put his finger on the key question. If these assemblies are not to have any new powers or enjoy the benefit of new funds, what on earth are they going to do? My noble friend asked that question very clearly but did not receive a clear answer from the Minister

31
who is more capable than many Ministers I have known of giving perfectly clear answers when he wants to. If he cannot find one—if there is not one available—not even his love of clarity is sufficient to meet the requirement.
I have assembled, in the best way I can, some information I gleaned from reading at least parts of the Committee stage. I shall be bold enough to remind your Lordships of some eight or nine items. First, this is not another tier of local government. I had always suspected that that was exactly what it would be, but I still do not know what it is. When the Minister told us that the work of existing regional bodies will be brought under democratic control, I wondered which regional bodies he had in mind, what they had been up to and why they needed this sort of discipline. I am still curious to know.
We have also been told by the Minister that the bodies are strategic. I do not think I recall being told whose strategy they have adopted or of what it consists. Here is another slight gap. As one who adheres to the belief that small is beautiful—unfashionable though that is—I was slightly comforted to be told that the assemblies will be very small. I wondered about that. We are told that they will be paid. But why will they be very small when they are representing larger areas? In other words, they will surely have very large constituencies indeed.
The next point I noted is that they will be legally distinct from a local authority. What on earth are they going to do? They are not part of central government—or are they? My original suspicion was that they will be put there to give a cloak of decency to the local government offices which the Deputy Prime Minister has been so busy setting up.
The next piece of information, which, again, I make little comment on—
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Lord has said this before, but it simply is not true. The regional offices of government were set up in principle and in function by the previous administration. They are nothing to do with the Deputy Prime Minister and nothing to do with the present Government. It is true we have added other departments to them, but the regional government offices were cherished bodies set by the previous Conservative government. The noble Lord must not keep saying it. I know he likes to have a dig at the Deputy Prime Minister, but it is nothing to do with him.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I accept what the Minister says. However, it seems to me that the regional government offices have had new life breathed into them under the direction of the Deputy Prime Minister. They have certainly grown from having a weak influence to being much more robust. Obviously, they need some sort of democratic clothing, with which the Government are kindly going to provide them, with Parliament's agreement.
32
The Minister told us that the assemblies would be only a modest advance in democratic accountability, in spending large sums of public money. That has not really been explained to us in any way: we still need to know what the bodies are, and why they need the extra degree of control. We are told that it cannot be "big local government", because it is not local government. The Minister could have gone further with that explanation. We are also told that no existing unitary authority will have its boundaries interfered with. Only when the structure is two-tier are the Government likely to intervene. However, I still do not know to what extent the fears expressed by my noble friend Lady Blatch, that this heralds a wholesale intrusion into the present framework of local government, are justified or not. One suspects that my noble friend has got it right.
We are told, too—and I take comfort from this, although I do not understand what it really means—that no case has been made out for another tier of elected people. What will the new framework of assemblies constitute, other than another tier? After all, it is new—we do not have it at the moment. When I sought an explanation from the Government, I failed to get anything satisfactory.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the noble Lord remember that when we discussed the free posts for the mayoral election in 2000, the Government maintained that their position was justified because, although London had more inhabitants than Scotland, this was only a local election? Does that not suggest that the concept of the region is not yet securely embedded in Government minds?
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords. I am indebted to the noble Earl, who is obviously thinking along similar lines to myself. I said at an earlier stage that sometimes Government language is a little confusing. Some of the phrases that I quoted, which were aimed at explaining what the Government were at, left me in a confused state of mind. I would not wish to suggest that the noble Earl is ever confused, but if it could ever be said of him that he suffers from a confusion of mind, I can only say that he has my full sympathy, because I am suffering from exactly the same disability. I am much obliged to him for his intervention.
I have looked for an explanation of this Bill in all sorts of strange places, including on the Liberal Democrat Benches—although I did not look for one from the noble Earl. Lord Russell. I picked up a quotation from the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, who I am glad to see has returned to his seat. He said: "On these Benches"—a phrase that Liberals tend to use to emphasise their separateness from the rest of us—
"regional government is about democratising that which is in the regions already and further devolving from central government".—[Official Report, 13/3/03; col. 1444.]
I have read those words several times but they shed no light at all on the confusion in my mind. In fact, I felt even more at a loss to understand what the noble Lord really had in mind. If he wishes to intervene, I would be more than grateful.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to the government office. We have one in Yorkshire, in Leeds. Democratising that which is there means that those powers that are dealt with by the government office in Leeds would be further devolved to the regional assembly, which would be based somewhere in Yorkshire. Furthermore, as was indicated in the answer to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, the Government are now saying that further matters will be devolved. That provides some reassurance to those on these Benches, that the process will not stop with government offices, such as the one in Leeds. I also hope that as time goes on, some matters that are currently dealt with by quangos will be dealt with by the region.
We on these Benches are clear about the duty and responsibility of local government and what is appropriate when decisions are appropriately made on a regional basis. That is why, with some misgivings, we are now supporting this Bill.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, it would be churlish on my part if I did not thank the noble Lord for the lucidity of his explanation. It is entirely due to my own deficiencies, but it will take some time before I can digest the meaning that I am sure is hidden in his words.
Before I sit down, I should like to be a little eccentric and refer to the amendment that I have tabled. It is quite a modest affair. When a new organisation is established, surely it is not asking too much to ask what it will do, how much money it will have and how it will get that money. That is the substance of the amendment that I tabled, in the—probably—vain hope that it will help the Government to elucidate their plans. It is not so long since they were in opposition, and they must still retain some shreds of sympathy for those of us who sit on the Opposition Benches and wonder what they are at. The Government are in the proud position of having an opportunity to explain.
I would like to know what powers the regional assemblies will have, what duties they will be under and what funds will support them. That last point is not unimportant. I very much hope that the Minister, who I have always found to be helpful in my exchanges with him, will be able to illuminate us. I thank him most warmly beforehand for what I am sure he will try to do. I beg to move.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, my noble friend has highlighted the complete inadequacy of the provision in Clause 2. Noble Lords will remember that, before the question on the ballot paper, there is to be a statement intended to tell the voter precisely what powers the elected assemblies will have.
Clause 2(2) states:
"the elected assembly would be responsible for a range of activities currently carried out mainly by central government bodies, including regional economic development".
I shall not be alone in arguing that that statement is hopelessly inadequate and. in many respects, thoroughly misleading. For instance, no one would think from that bland statement that there will be no
34
more money for the regions which opt for an elected assembly, and yet we have referred more than once during our deliberations to page 45 of the White Paper, where it is stated quite bluntly at Chapter 5.4 that there will be no inconsistency of treatment between those regions where there is an elected assembly and those regions where there is not. In other words, there will be no more money if you vote for an elected assembly. Why that is not in the bland statement in Clause 2(2) I do not know. I therefore support the spirit of my noble friend's amendment.
We shall address the question of what should be in Clause 2(2) in later amendments, but we should not lose sight of what my noble friend said. As it stands, the Bill is quiet inadequate and does not begin to tell the prospective voter what on earth these assemblies will be about.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, began his speech with an apology. It certainly caused me no inconvenience that he spoke at the wrong time to the wrong debate. I thought it amusing. As the noble Lord said, it is such a rare occurrence for a Member of Your Lordships' House to move quickly that I found it a good moment.
I am sorry that the noble Lord does not understand the Government's policy. He said that he has done a great deal of research but it is obvious that the one document he clearly has not read—although his noble friend Lord Waddington has—is the White Paper which, at this early stage in the process, answers in detail many of the questions the noble Lord has raised. I do not believe that at the Report stage we should go over again many of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, raised in Committee.
It is the Government's intention that there should be clarity and transparency in this process. I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is nodding in agreement and smiling.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, there is no hidden agenda. We are at an early stage in the process. We want everyone—including, most importantly, the voters—to understand the regional assemblies, their powers and their structures. That is why—and my noble friend Lord Rooker and I have made this point on a number of occasions—we propose to publish detailed information about the new assemblies prior to every referendum, if there is to be one. We have made this commitment on a number of occasions and we will stand by it. I repeat, we will give the electorate full information about the powers and functions of, and everything else related to, the regional assemblies.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I did not intervene in the debate because, as the Minister quite rightly said, I did not want to go over old ground that has been covered in Committee. I am sure that the House wishes to get on. But I should like an answer to

35
one question. The Minister and his noble friend Lord Rooker have said several times that regional government, regional authorities, regional assemblies will not mean more powers being taken from local government. If that is so, why do the Government want precepting powers in the Bill? If local governance is not going to be pushed upwards to the regional authorities, it is quite wrong that rate payers should be saddled with paying the costs for services which are rightly national or regional. I hope the Minister will be able to answer that question. I am sure that the House will be interested.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am attempting to explain the Government's position and commitment to communication in relation to the regional assemblies. By "communication" I mean explaining to people what the regional assemblies are for and how we propose to deal with them. I shall deal later with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the Minister will not forget it though, will he?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, how can I forget it?
The powers, functions and funding arrangements will be outlined in a Bill that your Lordships will have every opportunity to debate at enormous length. The Bill will be introduced into Parliament once at least one region has voted in favour of a regional assembly. This will ensure that parliamentary time is not wasted and follows the precedent set with the establishment of the Greater London Authority, the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales.
Importantly, we said in Committee that we would do our best to publish a draft Bill to establish elected regional assemblies before the first referendum or referendums. That important commitment still stands. We shall publish a draft Bill containing the information needed before a referendum. We shall discuss the more specific amendments relating to this issue when we come to them.
I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, that there is no hidden agenda. We are not bringing forward ideas that we are not prepared to stand by in public. We are at the early stage of the process. The document Your Region, Your Choice contains a great deal of information. Members of the House have said, "Fine, but it does not contain enough information". We agree. That is why it is important not only to publish a draft Bill—we shall do our best to do so—but to publish enormously detailed notes for voters and the general public so that they have an understanding of what is happening. That will go a long way towards answering the legitimate questions that have been asked.
As to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, about the funding of the assemblies, as well as the programme expenditure for which they are responsible, regional assemblies will receive a general
36
grant from central government to meet most of their direct running costs. However, we believe that the people in any region with an elected assembly should make some contribution towards its running costs, whether or not an assembly raises additional money in the region for programme expenditure.
The level of general grant will be set to take account of this contribution. We also believe that an assembly should be able to raise some extra money within the region if it believes that that is desirable—for example, to increase funding for economic development—and likely to be supported by the region's voters.
We shall expect council tax payers in any region with an elected assembly to contribute the equivalent of around 5 pence per week for a Band D council tax payer. A regional assembly may have plans, will need additional moneys to realise those plans and will get that from the precept on council tax payers.
I hope that I have answered the points that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, raised. Most importantly, though, I very much hope that—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene but we do not have the opportunity to come back at any later stage. This is Report stage. That is why noble Lords should be allowed to ask final questions. With regard to the answer the noble Lord gave concerning precepting, it does therefore seem that regional assemblies will be able to take money from local authorities and from local council tax payers for matters with which they may not agree: in other words, depriving local authorities of money which they might otherwise wish to spend on their local services. I am not satisfied to find that regional assemblies, without having direct representation, will be able to raise taxes locally, because that is what it amounts to.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. I do not wish to address the House on procedure but my understanding is that at Report stage if a noble Lord wishes to elucidate an answer, he or she has every right to intervene further. It could be argued that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is doing just that.
I repeat a sentence I read out a moment ago. The level of general grant will be set to take account of this contribution. We also believe that an assembly should be able to raise some extra money within the region if it believes that that is desirable—for example, to increase funding for economic development—and likely to be supported by the region's voters.
As I said, I hope that I have satisfied the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. He asked many detailed questions further to carrying out his research. In my view those will be answered by the further in-depth information that will be published by the Government not only in terms of explanatory booklets but also, we hope, in terms of a draft Bill which, as I said, we very much hope to be able to publish before the first referendum.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I know the noble Lord for his intelligence and for his courtesy. I believe

37
that had there been good answers to the questions that I raised, he would certainly have given them. There are two possible explanations: one is that the Government do not as yet know them themselves; the second is that they have not told the noble Lord, in which case he is in a very unpleasant and difficult position. Of course he has my utmost sympathy because I have found myself not always on the best of terms with my Front Bench, extraordinary as it may seem.
There are two points to which I should like to refer very briefly. First, I welcome the noble Lord's assurance that the Government have no hidden agenda and that there are no surprises to come. That is most interesting. The second matter, which rather puzzled me, was that the noble Lord said that we were at the early stages of a process. Processes can lead anywhere. People who initiate processes are the last to be able always to indicate or prophesy their fulfilment or their conclusions. So I am not entirely comforted by that; my worries are still very much there.
I should have liked—I hope that my noble friend is listening to every word that I am going to say now—to have sought the opinion of the House on this particular amendment which has the merit of clarity and of being easily understood. That is rare on occasion in your Lordships' House. But on the other hand, just as I was beginning to steel myself to thinking that we ought to have a Division, I met the terrifying glance of my noble friend Lady Hanham on the Front Bench. I read from that that if I wished to escape alive from your Lordships' House this afternoon I had better not ask for a Division. Therefore, with great regret, I ask permission to withdraw the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 7, at end insert—
"( ) Before making an order under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must exercise his powers as defined in section 25 of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 (c. 45) (power to alter regions) to review the boundaries of the regions as specified in Schedule 1 of that Act."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, a very fierce Baroness Hanham gets to her feet.
In Committee I introduced an amendment which would effectively have forced the Secretary of State to ignore the boundaries as defined in the Regional Development Agencies Act and to ask the Boundary Committee to start from scratch, inviting submissions from local authorities and any other relevant interested parties about the creation of regions which were compatible in size and which reflected the needs and identities of local communities.
It would be fair to say that my amendment met with a mixed response. I received considerable support from some who felt that the 1998 regional boundaries, which had, after all, been created for administrative not constitutional purposes, were less than satisfactory. They were adamant that the boundaries were nonsensical and that these regions had no obvious unity or cohesion for election purposes. I was faced with allegations from the Government that it
38
was merely a wrecking amendment designed to be an impediment to any progress on the establishment of regional assemblies as any such comprehensive review would take at least a year.
I spent a little time rereading that debate and I have listened to both the support and the criticisms. In response I have tabled Amendment No. 3, which is intended to be something of a compromise. The Minister said that he had not ruled out any future change in boundaries of regions. Not surprisingly, I and many other noble Lords thought that it would be far preferable to review the boundaries at the beginning before making substantial changes in terms of local government reorganisation and restructuring and incurring large costs by setting up the administrative machinery of regional assemblies.
Amendment No. 3 follows that commonsense approach of reviewing boundaries at the start rather than making changes later. As the current boundaries reflect those defined in the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998, our amendment refers to Section 25 of that Act which states that:
"The Secretary of State may by order make alterations in the extent of the regions in Schedule 1".
It goes on to explain that he cannot alter the number of regions. He should, however,
"take such steps as he considers sufficient to secure that members of the public who may be interested in the proposed order are informed of it and of the period within which they may make representations to him about it".
He must also consult the RDAs, the local authorities that will be affected and such other persons as he thinks fit. Any order made under this section must he laid in draft before both Houses and approved by affirmative resolution.
The Secretary of State therefore already has the power to alter regions under that section of the RDA Act 1998. I believe that the section is eminently sensible and well drafted. It does not, of course, go so far as my previous amendment, but it would ensure that the anomalies could be ironed out. Where areas such as Cornwall or Cumbria had particular concerns, the Boundary Committee would have to take them into account.
The steps to be taken are straightforward. The process need not be that over-expensive or time-consuming. The power rests not with another body, but with the Secretary of State himself. If the Government were committed to listening to what the people wanted, they would agree to the amendment. It concedes some flexibility. The boundaries are not set in stone, and nor should they be. The Secretary of State must at least have a look at the possibility of altering the regions before he kicks off the whole process of regional assemblies. Indeed, he might even be persuaded that the number of regions was wrong and should be increased. If so, he could take action to do that.
Boundaries by their very nature are contentious. Those on the periphery will always feel more affinity with the town just across the border than with the

39
central city of the region, which may be two hours drive away. Paragraph 6.4 of the White Paper states that,
"the Government believes that a prolonged debate over the composition of individual regions is likely to generate a good deal of fervour, but with no obvious prospect that boundaries that are more widely acceptable or practicable would emerge at the end".
However, as I said before and as we discussed in Committee, the regions are incorrect. They are completely unbalanced in terms of population and geography, for example. We have had long discussions on the absurdity of each boundary and what it included.
It is frankly irresponsible to avoid consideration of a review of boundaries in the expectation that no preferable boundary arrangement is likely to be discovered. The Government have a positive duty to undertake a review. The power to do so already exists in a previous Act of Parliament. They have consistently said that regional assemblies are about choice and will not simply be imposed. To fail to consult on boundaries would incur great resentment and make people feel that they had been forced into a region for which they had no affinity. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: My Lords—
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, and I were being so polite to each other that we failed to let the Minister see that there were some comments to be made.
The noble Baroness talked in terms of the Secretary of State reviewing the regions. I hope that the Minister can help us on how many years—I suspect that it would be years—would be required to review the boundaries of the regions, which I read as meaning all the boundaries of all the regions. It would be a matter for the Boundary Committee of England, not for the Secretary of State to design when he was having a leisurely bath one morning.
I hope that the exceptional circumstances to which the White Paper refers, in paragraph 6.5 on the possible alteration of regional assembly boundaries, and to which the Minister referred in Committee can be interpreted quite widely by the Government. It is perfectly clear that there are areas in which boundary considerations outweigh almost everything else. It is also clear that there are some regions where there is a great deal more interest in regional government. I do not expect the Minister to be geographically specific but I can say that, in my assessment at any rate, those areas are ones in which boundary considerations are not as great as in others.
I learned only recently that a full Bill, to which the noble Lord, Lord Evans, has just referred, would have to deal with the issue of boundaries. It is most important that the matter is not wholly off the agenda once we have dealt with this preparations Bill. What concerns us is that the exercise would be very prolonged. I accept that Amendment No. 3 is different, but I was concerned by the amendment moved by the noble Baroness in Committee on
40
creating such an extended programme as to take regional government off the agenda, in effect. I fear the same with this amendment.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, it cannot be said too often that the present regions were never designed as electoral units. They were never created with elections in mind. They were purely areas drawn on a map to show what would be the area of responsibility of particular Government Offices of the Regions. That has to be borne in mind the whole time.
It is therefore hardly surprising that, when the Government come along with the bizarre idea of having elected regional assemblies, they should find that the regions drawn on the map for purely administrative purposes do not make sense when one considers having elections. Time and again, we have pointed out to the Government the absurdity of some of the regional boundaries when it comes to elections, such as having Banbury in the south-east region, Watford in the eastern region and Cheltenham in the south-west region.
I do not suggest that the Government should necessarily use the mechanism at hand under the 1998 Act to change all the regional boundaries, but they cannot deny that machinery is already at hand to get rid of the more obvious anomalies. I cannot for the life of me see why, when the Government acknowledge that considerable time is bound to elapse before any of the referendums can take place, they do not address some of the most obvious anomalies.
There is always the Cornwall question. Do the Government really want to embark on the exercise knowing perfectly well that it is anathema to the people of Cornwall to be embraced in one south-western region and ruled from Bristol? One has only to go down there to know how unpopular such a notion is. We need a plain statement from the Government as to why they think that such administrative boundaries are apposite for elections, why they are not prepared to iron out some of the most obvious anomalies, and why they are prepared to go ahead without getting rid of the most obvious anomaly of all, which is Cornwall being included in the south-western region of which it feels in no way a part.
The mechanism is there. I cannot see why a great deal of time need be spent dealing with some of the most obvious anomalies using Section 25. I will not be fobbed off by the Minister saying, "Well, I am asking for everything to be put into the melting pot and a new map drawn". I am saying that the Government have no excuse for ducking the need to get rid of the most obvious anomalies. They should get on with it right away by using Section 25 of the 1998 Act.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I want to speak along those lines in support of the amendment. We tabled it because it is simple. Totally contrary to what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, it is not designed to take some time. It addresses some of the most silly situations currently in the boundaries. We accept, of course, that the Minister has said several times that

41
different parts of the country might not have referendums in the near future so the problem does not matter.
We had a similar debate on the Bill about the regional development agencies. Several of us made the points then, certainly in relation to the East and South East where the boundaries are most difficult. I repeat what I have said before, which is that Essex and Hertfordshire, much as we love Suffolk, Norfolk and Cambridgeshire, have much more in common with the South East and London. Everything would be much better for the RDAs in terms of economic development and planning processes if action were taken now. The Minister himself has been putting forward development proposals for the South East which will always include Essex. It would be much better if we were included with those counties. So in addition to sorting out the boundaries for the referendums, Amendment No. 3 could help in relation to the RDAs.
Many of us were involved from the outset and saw how the then Conservative government created the government offices. There were government offices all over the place in the Eastern region—in Bedfordshire, in Cambridge and some in Suffolk—but they were centralised in Cambridge. It made sense to do that. At one stage, for many purposes, Buckinghamshire was included in the Eastern region. It was then moved into the South East. It would be better for everyone if this issue, which concerns not only this Bill, were addressed now. If we are to have referendums, they should be based on sensible regions. As we have said, regions in other countries were created for historical reasons—they may at one stage have been countries themselves or served some other particular purpose. We do not have such a history in England.
We should make some sense of the proposals. That is an easy request for the Minister. He would make many of us happier if he said today that he will examine the boundaries, both in terms of the Bill and in order to make sense of the arrangements. It is an easy one and I hope that he will give us some satisfaction.
5 p.m.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, this is a good example of a case in which the Government have the choice of rushing legislation or getting it right. They clearly want to rush it. We have been told that it would be impossible to delay the proposals for even two or three weeks. I have been given that type of bureaucratic hogwash by officials and politicians for the past 35 years but I do not believe any of it.
In Committee various amendments on boundaries were proposed. In the morning, we discussed at great length a Conservative amendment which was not satisfactory because it contained all sorts of impractical detail. In the afternoon, we discussed a Liberal Democrat amendment which I moved on behalf of these Benches. I thought that we had come to some agreement that the essence of the amendment that I had moved would be acceptable also to the
42
Conservatives. Although the wording is different, I cannot discern a difference in meaning between the Conservatives' Amendment No. 3 and the amendment that I moved in Committee. So I am not quite sure why we are not supporting the Conservatives' Amendment No. 3.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I tend to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that there is no real reason why this legislation should be rushed. There is absolutely no reason why we should have the first referendum during the life of this Parliament. We do not even know what the life of this Parliament will be—it could end next year. So there is no rush about it.
The present regional boundaries were set up in 1995 to cope with the decision which I believe was made at Maastricht that there should be direct relationships between the regions and the Commission over the disbursement of the social and economic development funds. If the Government really want to develop regionalisation, it seems absurd not to have looked at the boundaries that were created in 1995 for a specific purpose. It would satisfy people across the country, and indeed satisfy Members of this House, to hear the Government say that they will look at the present regional boundaries to ensure that they are the very best boundaries to suit their purposes. I think that people would feel a lot happier and be much more trusting of the legislation if the Government did that.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we spent a lot of time discussing this issue in Committee. One of the points discussed, with which I think the Minister had some sympathy, was the boundaries of the metropolitan areas. At that stage those boundaries were inviolate and could not be examined, although the council and district boundaries could be examined. In his reply, will the Minister tell us what further consideration he has given to the matter and what are his current thoughts?
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I shall be very brief. I can remember when the Cabinet committee was discussing the introduction of government offices in English regions. I remember thinking to myself that the move potentially served the purposes of the Labour Party and that no good would come of it. However, even I never dreamed that the Government would throw the whole of English local government in the air just to see what sort of kaleidoscope reached the ground.
On the first amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, answered a question that I put to him about lessons which might be learnt from the disappearance of local government by giving me an answer that bore no relation to the question I had asked. However, we are back with a lesson on this occasion, too, in the context of anomalies. It was a matter of pride among English cartographers that they always did their own mapping and did not copy earlier maps. The great John Speed mapped Wiltshire within a dozen miles of where I live. A village called Burcombe was on either side of what is now the A30. John Speed called the part

43
to the south Burcombe. Because he did not know the name of the north side, he simply wrote on the map, "Query". It so happens that if you look at any Wiltshire map made from then onwards, the word "Query- still appears to the north of the road, even though English cartographers said that they never copied earlier maps made by other people.
I follow my noble friends who have spoken about anomalies. It would be a great pity if, like John Speed's "Query", anomalies remained on our regional maps for ever.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, it is some time since my noble friend Lady Hamwee spoke. One of the issues that she hopes the Minister will address is what will happen under the Bill. As we on these Benches understand it—and the point has been reiterated today—there will be a draft Bill before referendums are put in place. Although we understand that the boundaries issue will be addressed in that Bill, our deliberations would be greatly assisted if that could be made quite clear. The boundary issue is more important in some parts of the country than in others. People in my own area in north-east England are quite clear that they live in the North East, and they want a referendum as soon as they can have one.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the debate has lasted longer than I expected. If anyone else wishes to speak they should do so. I certainly do not want to stop it.
To all who asked about our thinking since Committee stage, at the risk of repeating myself and boring the House—because this is the same debate as we had in Committee—I point out that, as we and the White Paper have made clear, a revisitation of the boundary issue in the undetermined future is not ruled out. However, that is not part of this Bill. I want to make it absolutely clear that we currently have no plans for changing the regional boundaries or the number of regions.
Noble Lords seem to think that such a change is simply a five-minute job on the hack of an envelope and will not delay anything. They also seem to think that just one regional boundary can be changed and the others can be left alone. If the boundary is changed for one region, it will mean a change for another; and there is a knock-on effect.
I do not want to upset the Front Bench opposite. Incidentally, I was about to say that the vigorous, sustained political attack from the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, means early promotion to the Front Bench for him. It will certainly remove the blot on his copybook that occurred earlier this afternoon.
My basic point is that any walking down this road means that the situation would be exactly the same as in earlier debates: no referendums next year, no referendums this side of a general election. It kills the Bill. That is the consequence of even looking at the boundaries. If this Bill receives Royal Assent and the soundings indicate a region or regions where there is a desire to hold a referendum, one of the first actions of
44
the Secretary of State will be to ask the Boundary Committee to review local government structures within the region. If it does not know what the region is, it cannot do that. That means no referendum next autumn.
That is part of the plot. The plot is to stop the referendums. I understand the issue. The Conservative Opposition is against the Bill in principle. I am not criticising the amendment. This is a natural point to raise. The regions do vary in size in terms of both population and land area; they vary in the way in which they are governed and in their structures. England is not the same all over and it is right that they should vary.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene, but I am becoming a trifle confused. I have not read anything in the Bill which says that it will cease to be valid if its provisions are slightly delayed. There is nothing in the Bill resembling a sunset clause. The Minister is imposing his own from the Front Bench in saying that this is government policy. As I read the Bill, a year or two, or five, could perfectly well be taken to review the boundaries if that were so wished. Unless Parliament repeals the Bill, it will remain active.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am not making this up as I go along. I set out the policy clearly in Committee, as best I could given the present detail, working back from obtaining, if desired, a referendum next autumn. If that timetable is not met, there will be no referendum. There will be no prospect of regional government in July 2006 at the earliest. There will probably be no prospect of a referendum the year after. Then, there will be all the fuss about a possible general election after four years. There will be all those difficulties. This simply kills the idea stone dead. Noble Lords can shake their heads and disagree all they like. That is the policy. The policy is: if there is a desire for regional elected assemblies and a desire to have a referendum to bring them about, the best available opportunity that we have worked out, going through all due process, is to aim for referendums by next autumn. It will take us that long to do it. The noble Lord wants to intervene again. That is fine, but I have not started addressing the amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the Minister has confirmed what I have said: it is not what is on the face of the Bill that matters in this instance; it is what the Government are determined to have.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is government policy. I make no apology for that. It helps the House in coming to an informed decision, where there is a timetable involved, to know what the policy is. In answering what can be a good, sensible, mature case—namely, to examine the boundaries—I have to explain why we do not agree with the amendment. The reasons are different. They are not reasons of principle—because we have said that we do not rule out looking at the boundaries in future. They are reasons of

45
practicality—to try to achieve the objective that, if the people of this country indicate that they want regional government, they should have an opportunity to vote in a referendum to bring it about. That is another answer to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, that there will be no consideration. It is only a couple of weeks since the debates in Committee on the metropolitan boundaries.
There have been a large number of references to Section 25 of the Regional Development Agencies Act. It is as though the Secretary of State could just go out, willy-nilly, and redraw boundaries himself. First, he cannot add to the boundaries. In moving the amendment, the noble Baroness said that he could not increase the number, but went on to talk about changing the numbers, as did another noble Lord. If there is nothing fixed about the boundaries, why is anything fixed in regard to nine regions? If you open up the can of worms, there has to be flexibility in asking whether we have the right number of regions? That is not provided for in the regional development—
Lord Dixon: My Lords, will my noble friend give way? Will he also acknowledge the fact that a consultation process has been carried out on the boundaries? If people want to change them now, we shall have to go through that process again.
Lord Rooker: Yes, my Lords, that would naturally follow—which also rules it out. But, as I say, we have not ruled out in the longer term the possibility of adopting boundaries for regional assemblies that do not follow the existing regional boundaries.
A key aim of elected regional assemblies is to bring under democratic control and scrutiny the work of existing regional bodies. A significant number of these—not all—are based on the existing regions: the Government Offices, the regional development agencies and other parts of government operate to these boundaries. Redrawing them now would create tremendous upheaval. It would indeed stop the process in its tracks, which is the intention behind this otherwise sensible and mature amendment. It would certainly delay the first referendums. It might necessitate holding public inquiries. It is not something that Ministers can do at a stroke.
It is interesting to note the long-distance considerations in previous Cabinet discussions when the boundaries were set up at the time of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke. It was highly optimistic on the part of those involved to assume that at some point in the future there would be a Labour government. I can assure noble Lords that we in opposition did not think that. In those days things were looking pretty bad.
So there is a real problem. The existing boundaries are a reasonable size. They vary in population, as the country varies, and in geography and demographic weight. So what? We do not want everywhere to be the same. I understand that people feel very strongly about this, but in terms of how many years it would take to review all the regional boundaries—at the risk of frightening everyone and having it said that I am using extreme language—we have no experience in terms of
46
how the review would be carried out, but we have to look at the timetable for the review of the parliamentary boundaries. In our view, a major review takes several years. This cannot be done in a few months. That is contrary to the Government's policy—for which I make no apology—of being able to let people choose whether or not they want the opportunity to have elected regional government. Therefore, having had the same debate twice, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I was interested in the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, who I understand is considered something of a black sheep at the moment. He rightly drew attention to an amendment in his name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in Committee suggesting, in relation to page 1. line 7, that a referendum should be held after the Boundary Committee for England had reviewed the number and boundaries of the regions specified in Schedule 1 to the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 and reported its recommendations to the Secretary of State. That is practically identical to what I am proposing today. Yet, somewhere along the line in the grubby backdoor discussions that have taken place over the past couple of days, the Liberal Democrats have lost even their enthusiasm for putting forward amendments to review the regional boundaries.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, perhaps I can elucidate. The amendment was moved in order that it could be spoken to. We did not vote on it at that stage. It was withdrawn. The noble Baroness seems to suggest that it might not be possible, even while talking among one's own colleagues and talking with people on other Benches, to review what is the right way forward.
As I said, I have become clear that this is not an exercise to review the boundaries of the regions—which I read as not being possible to pick and choose, nor something the Secretary of State could do in his bath one morning when he had nothing else to think about. I want to make it clear that this is not because there are grubby deals going on in murky, smoke-filled corridors, and otherwise. One can actually think about what one is proposing as the debate continues. After all, that is one reason for having more than one stage.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, as I pointed out in Committee, the noble Baroness was not even speaking with the same voice as her colleagues in another place. Perhaps they have also changed their minds. I assume they have.
The noble Lord repeatedly says that we want to delay the Bill. In fact, we are not much in favour of it, but it will be a Bill and it needs to make sense. When considering regions, one of the areas that needs to make sense is the regional boundaries. That is why I have pushed the issue not only in Committee but also at this stage.
In reality. the Government will never be able to look at the boundaries again. Once a regional assembly is in place, that will set the boundaries for evermore. They

47
will not be able to review them. The Minister's idea that perhaps at some stage, somewhere down the line, a boundaries review might take place seems, in reality, just Cloud-cuckoo-land. As we have pointed out, any reform of boundaries or local government will be appreciated. Regional government is not local government; it is defined as something else. But any time that issue is considered at a later stage, there will be even more difficulty and more problems than if it was looked at at this stage.
I understand the view of the Minister; I hear what the Liberal Democrats say; but I should like to test the opinion of the House.
5.22 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 111; Not-Contents, 160.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Ampthill, L.

Hooper, B.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Howe, E.

Astor, V.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Bell, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Blaker, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Blatch, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

Jopling, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Kimball, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Burnham, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Buscombe, B.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Byford,.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Caithness, E.

Lindsay, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Luke, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Colwyn, L.

MacLaurin of Knebworth, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Mancroft, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Marlesford, L.

Craigavon, V.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Crathorne, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Denham, L.

Monson, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Elles, B.

Moynihan, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Feldman, L.

Noakes, B.

Flather, B.

Norton of Louth, L.

Fookes, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Fowler, L.

Onslow, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Freeman, L.

Palmer, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Glentoran, L.

Peel, E.

Goschen, V.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Greenway, L.

Powell of Bayswater, L.

Hanham, B.

Prior, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Pym, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Quinton, L.

Henley, L.

Rawlings, B.

Higgins, L.

Reay, L.

48

Rees, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Renton, L.

Stewartby, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Swinfen, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Tebbit, L.

Seccombe, B.[Teller]

Trumpington, B.

Selborne, E.

Vivian, L.

Selsdon, L.

Waddington, L.

Sharples, B.

Weatherill, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Wilcox, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Addington, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Ahmed, L.

Harrison, L.

Alli, L.

Haskel, L.

Amos, B.

Hayman, B.

Andrews, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Barker, B.

Hooson, L.

Barnett, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hoyle, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Berkeley, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Billingham, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Blackstone, B.

Jones, L.

Boothroyd, B.

Judd, L.

Borrie, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Brett, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Brookman, L.

Lipsey, L.

Burlison, L.

Lockwood, B.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Carlileof Berriew, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Carter, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Chandos, V.

Christopher, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

McNally, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Maddock, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Crawley, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Methuen, L.

David, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Mishcon, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Mitchell, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Morgan, L.

Desai, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Dixon, L.

Newby, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Nicol, B.

Eatwell, L.

Northover, B.

Elder, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Orme, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Paul, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Pendry, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Fearn, L

Peston, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Gale, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Gavron, L.

Portsmouth, Bp.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Golding, B.

Radice, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Goodhart, L.

Razzall, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Rea, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Redesdale, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gregson, L.

Rennard, L.

Grocott, L.[Teller]

Richard, L.

Hamwee, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

49

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Rooker, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Roper, L.

Thornton, B.

Russell, E.

Tope, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Tordoff, L.

Sandberg, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Walmsley, B.

Sheldon, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Simon, V.

Whitaker, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Whitty, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Wilkins, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Strabolgi. L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seat)

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Taverne, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.33 p.m.
Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 7, at end insert—
"( ) No order under subsection (1) shall be made until a draft Bill setting out the powers, responsibilities and constitutional arrangements of elected regional assemblies has been published by the Secretary of State and laid before both Houses of Parliament for scrutiny."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment returns to a core theme of our debates on the Bill. We have discussed this matter at Second Reading and in Committee. Many comments have been made by the Minister and others on this theme. Voters should have such information and knowledge before a referendum.
The Government published the White Paper, Your Region, Your Choice: Revitalising the English Regions, about which we have heard much and which we have all read in considerable detail. Over the past few days we have asked for more information about the powers and responsibilities of any regional assembly, along the lines of the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Peyton.
The amendment is tabled to try to gain a commitment from the Government that they will publish a draft Bill. We would like to have seen legislation in place and our original amendments were along those lines. During Committee—one has to be realistic—we were accused several times, as we have been in the past few days, of moving amendments to wreck the Bill. We all acknowledge that the Government will achieve their Bill and that at some stage we shall have a referendum—maybe at the end of next year if all the information is ready by then. The Government want to hold a referendum in one or more regions. Therefore it is vital that people know what the assemblies will do. There is much uncertainty about the situation.
The amendment seeks to put on the face of the Bill that there should be a draft Bill stating the powers and responsibilities of regional government. That is along the lines on which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee,
50
has spoken of and I hope she will support it now. I believe the feeling of the House is that the Government should say where we are going.
There is little knowledge of this subject. In a MORI poll in the South East of England—I do not believe much in polls—80 per cent had no idea about regional government. When asked what they thought a regional government would do, 90 per cent put education first. I do not believe that that is one of the powers that will be dealt with by regional assemblies.
In tabling this amendment I hope that the Government will assure the House that they will bring forward a draft Bill before any referendum takes place and that such a provision will be put on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord spoke to Amendment No. 57 which is grouped with this amendment. It is a more extreme amendment that would stop the Act coming into force before a draft Bill was in place. That is not a position to which reference has been made. I am sure that there are constitutional niceties about that on which other noble Lords, better qualified than I, can comment. If Parliament wills this Bill to become law, it is a little odd for it to be conditional on the publication of a government draft Bill.
On the main point, as I made clear, we are keen to see a draft Bill that will spell out, in greater detail than is implied in the assurances given by Ministers, the information that will be published at the time of a referendum. That has been a part of our discussions with the Government.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, for the record I should say that we shall not move Amendment No. 57. The noble Baroness can concentrate on the main amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, that is helpful. Amendment No. 4, a matter of considerable concern to us, was a subject of the package that has been described. We have had assurances, including from the Dispatch Box this afternoon, that the Government will do their best to publish a Bill with a view to it being subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny. I have said before, but perhaps I had better repeat it, that I understand that the Government, by definition, cannot foresee the unforeseeable, which may make it impossible—if I can put it as high as that—to be able to pursue that. I have faith in the Government. They have every intention, as matters stand at the moment and as they are foreseen, of producing a draft Bill and we shall get stuck into that.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I put down two Written Questions on the powers and responsibilities, one to the Minister's department which he kindly answered. He referred me to the White Paper, but I am not much clearer about what powers will be transferred although it is clear that a few functions and a few advisory roles will be transferred. On 17th March I also put down a Written Question to DEFR A to

51
which I have received no reply. Can the Minister tell me why the Government do not reply to Written Questions when there are important legislative matters before the House to which their replies are relevant? It makes it that much harder to contribute to the debate.
I can only presume that none of DEFRA's powers will be transferred to the regional assemblies, only a few advisory functions. I therefore support what my noble friend said in moving Amendment No. 4. Unless one knows what the powers, functions and responsibilities are, the electorate voting in the referendums will certainly be no wiser than we are now.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Earl's final point gives the game away—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have not spoken yet.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, nobody else was standing up. My problem, since coming to this House, is that I cannot get used to a Front Bench where three Members speak. It does not happen in another place, so I apologise.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we were all being very polite, looking across at our colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches to see whether anyone there wished to speak. I make only one point—across the House to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. My understanding was that the Liberal Democrats, both at Second Reading and in Committee were very concerned that, if people were going to vote in a referendum, they should at least understand the powers, functions and responsibilities of the new assemblies. If that information is not in the Bill, there is no guarantee at all.
The Government said that they have made their best endeavours. But there is a contrast between the very genuine, very open and extremely honest way of responding from the Dispatch Box of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and the utterances of his ministerial colleagues in another place, which are enough to make us suspicious that we might not see a draft Bill before a referendum is held. Therefore, to serve the public, there should be a requirement. It is not impossible to do it. There is time to produce a Bill, especially if the Government know exactly what the powers, functions and responsibilities will be, as they have claimed several times. If there is not much doubt about that, the Bill should not be delayed.
I should like to think that the Liberal Democrats would join us in insisting that the public are at least assured in the Bill that, before a referendum is called, a draft Bill will be available to them with all the information that they require. I therefore support my noble friend wholeheartedly.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am sorry that I jumped the gun; it was a genuine mistake. I have explained to my colleagues in another place how the system in this House works, and they never believe me. In response
52
to the final words of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, we are confident that when people vote in a referendum they will be aware of the functions, powers and plans for the elected regional assembly. It is true that even a draft Bill is not an Act at that point, but a clear statement will be available to the electorate. I do not know how long it will be—certainly not as long as the White Paper. It will set out the issues central to the debate that takes place and what people want to know about the new body before choosing or not choosing to have an elected regional assembly.
I am not hiding behind the fact that we do not need the Bill to do that. A clear statement of how the Government intend to take forward the changes would be fine. I fully accept that Ministers' words are not legislation. Words spoken in Parliament can now be taken into account in court cases in a way that previously they could not be. But we are being genuine. As we said in Committee, and as Nick Raynsford said, we will do our best to publish a draft Bill to establish the regional assemblies. We would really like to be able to do that and to have the draft Bill scrutinised—obviously there is a key role for parliamentary scrutiny. It would be fine if we could make the draft Bill available for that. But we would not want to allow problems in doing that to delay the first referendum or referendums. By the first referendum, our statement on which the Bill will be based will be available to the electorate.
I have not been asked a specific question on the following point, but it comes to mind immediately. If we make a statement to the electorate on their area and on what the regional assembly's functions will be, it will still be up to Parliament to pass the Bill. Parliament would have to do that knowing that there had been a referendum. There would be a Bill only if there was a "Yes" vote. Therefore, one would expect that Parliament would work on the basis that the referendum was based on a certain set of parameters. That is the basis on which we would go forward.
We wish to do our best, but I cannot forecast what will happen between now and when the drafting starts. Sometimes parliamentary draftsmen have an infinite capacity to come up with a quick amendment overnight. But it is more difficult to produce a Bill over a weekend, a week or a month. It is a valuable commodity. We must make sure that the draftsmen can prioritise their work within the legislative programme. It is simply not possible to be as precise as noble Lords and noble Baronesses would like.
I apologise on behalf of the Government for the fact that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has not received a reply to his Written Question. Frankly, there is no excuse for there not having been an Answer in the past few days—I am certain of that. I shall insist that a reply is available to the noble Earl before today's proceedings finish; otherwise, I shall not finish. There is a difficulty. Questions relating to legislation must have a degree of priority. The noble Earl should have had the Answer by now.
I cannot be more precise. Nick Raynsford sent the letter to his colleague in another place. Our commitment stands. I cannot guarantee anything

53
except that, before a referendum takes place, a statement about the powers and the functions of the assembly will be available to the electorate. I cannot provide details on that now, because I can only rely on the White Paper and there is obviously much more work to be done. The electorate will not go to the polling stations not knowing what they are voting for.
5.45
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that commitment. Even if he and I must just sit here waiting for the Answer, we will wait.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, this is a crucial part of the whole debate and the whole Bill. As I said when moving the amendment, we are concerned at being told that we will have a referendum at the end of next year and that it does not really matter what the boundaries are, what the regional assembly will do, or what it will cost. Nothing seems to matter, except having the referendum at the end of next year.
We all think—on my side of the House, certainly—that, if we are going to have a referendum, the public must have the relevant information and have secure knowledge of what a regional assembly might do. Governments can change their view. I have often said that, even when the Conservatives were in power, policy could be changed just by changing the Minister. Who is to know whether the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, will be the Minister at the time of a referendum next year? Who knows whether the Deputy Prime Minister will be running this part of the show?
We do not doubt the noble Lord's commitment, and we accept what he says about what he thinks that he will able to do. But the public should know what the regional assemblies will do. We have had two Bills relating to local government in the past five years. That has worked reasonably well. As the Minister said, they can be scrutinised. However, I suspect that someone somewhere is beginning to write the Bill even now.
We should insist on the amendment. The public must be aware of the functions and responsibilities of the assemblies and the way they will be run. We should test the opinion of the House.
5.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 113; Not-Contents, 151.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Astor, V.

Brookeborough, V.

Astor of Hever, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Bell, L.

Burnham, L.

Blaker, L.

Buscombe, B.

Blatch, B.

Byford, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Caithness, E.

54

Campbell of Alloway, L.

MacLaurin of Knebworth, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mancroft, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Marlesford, L.

Colwyn, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Monro of Langholm, L.

Craigavon, V.

Monson, L.

Crathorne, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Moynihan, L.

Denham, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Elles, B.

Noakes, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Feldman, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Flather, B,

Onslow, E.

Fookes, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Fowler, L.

Palmer, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Freeman, L.

Parkinson, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Peel, E.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Glentoran, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Goschen, V.

Powell of Bayswater, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Prior, L.

Green way, L.

Pym, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Quinton, L.

Hanham, B.

Rawlings, B.

Hanningfield, L.

Reay, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Rees, L.

Henley, L.

Renton, L.

Higgins, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Hooper, B.

St John of Fawsley, L

Howe, E.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Selborne, E.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Selsdon, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Sharples, B.

Jellicoe, E.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Jopling, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Kimball, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Stewartby, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Swinfen, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Lindsay, E.

Tebbit, L.

Lucas, L.

Vivian, L.

Luke, L.

Waddington, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Weatherill, L.

Wilcox, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Carter, L.

Addington, L.

Chan, L.

Ahmed, L.

Chandos, V.

Alli,.

Christopher, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Amos, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Andrews, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Barker, B.

Crawley, B.

Barnett, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

David, B.

Berkeley, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Billingham, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Blackstone, B.

Desai, L.

Boothroyd, B.

Dixon, L.

Borrie, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Brett, L.

Elder, L.

Brookman, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Burlison, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

55

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Newby, L.

Gale, B.

Nicol, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Northover, B.

Golding, B.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Goodhart, L.

Paul, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Pendry, L.

Gould of Pottenewton, B.

Peston, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Pitkeathley, B.

Hamwee, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Radice, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Harrison, L.

Razzall, L.

Haskel, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Hayman, B.

Rennard, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Richard, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Rooker, L.

Hooson, L.

Roper, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Russell, E.

Howie of Troon, L.

Sandberg, L.

Hoyle, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Sewel, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Sheldon, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Jones, L.

Simon, V.

Judd, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Lipsey, L.

Taverne, L.

Lockwood, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Thornton, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Tope, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Tordoff, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Walmsley, B.

McNally, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Maddock, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Whitaker, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Whitty, L.

Methuen, L.

Wilkins, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Mishcon, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Mitchell, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Morgan, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.2 p.m.
Baroness Blotch Baroness Blotch moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1. line 10, leave out "two" and insert "three"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 6 and 8. We are now going to talk about the soundings. We have had a number of statements from Ministers about the soundings. We know that in a very short time now we shall at least hear the result of the soundings. Whether we shall hear it area by area, or only from the area that the Secretary of State selects for having a referendum, we do not know—and there is a great deal that we do not know. We also do not know what the Secretary of State will regard as a level of interest. One
56
could have a level of interest as low as 1 per cent, which in a region that has eight million voters could be considered rather a lot of people, but would still only be 1 per cent. In an area that has only 2½million people, the 1 per cent would be fewer in number. Whether that would constitute a level of interest, I do not know. There is no definition of a level of interest.
The Secretary of State must reasonably expect that a referendum in a region would yield a "Yes" vote before he calls a referendum. That is the purpose of the amendment. He ought to have at least a feeling that, on the basis of the evidence collected, the likelihood would be that if a referendum were called it would receive support. The Minister may argue against that, but the Secretary of State could not say that there is a level of interest as defined by him for a referendum to be called—and incur all the expenditure that goes with it—without any understanding as to whether there would be a reasonable outcome.
Nobody is asking the Secretary of State to predict the outcome. Nobody is asking him to back only a sure-run thing. However, there really ought to be, on the basis of the evidence, at least a fighting chance that an election could be won. The Government might argue that the whole point of a referendum is to test public opinion. In that case, why bother about a level of interest? Why not test public opinion in all eight areas? We know that they cannot all be done at once, because the Government say that that is not possible—it would overburden the Boundary Committee and all those people who have to be involved with reorganisation of local government. Therefore, it is only likely to be one, two or at the most three. If that is the case, will the Government tell us not only the level of interest in the particular region or regions that are going to be selected, but what the level of interest is in all of the regions at the same time? They have all now been sounded. It would be helpful if the Minister could say whether there has been any increase in the number of responses from 4,000, which we were told of at the Committee stage. If one is talking about 4,000 responses from the whole of the country, then one really has to question what constitutes a level of interest in any region.
Calling a referendum triggers an extremely costly process—we have heard that almost to the point of tedium. That is not a personal criticism of the Minister, but he does have to keep repeating it, because we have to keep pressing the point. We have heard time and time again that the process is going to take a long time—that there could not be a referendum until next autumn. Whether it will be a particular date in the autumn, I do not know. It could be in September, October or November. It will not be at Christmas, because we have just been told that that would not be a good time. That means that this Bill could be passed in May, June or July, and still allow a referendum to take place in the autumn. We also know that the earliest possibility of a regional assembly being set up is 2006.
So we know that it is a long drawn-out process, and will be very expensive. We know that the costs at this stage cannot be precise, because they will depend upon

57
the level of upheaval in local authorities. We certainly know today from the Government, with Liberal Democrat support, that there will be a second option of local government reorganisation. We know that it goes hand in hand with regional assemblies, since the Liberal Democrats have supported the Government, and is now a fait accompli. Therefore, we know that there will be reorganisation. That will involve either abolition of county councils and keeping all the districts, or abolition of county councils and a serious merging of a number of districts, or abolition of the districts and turning the counties into unitary authorities.
We know that there will be major upheaval in those areas that vote for a regional assembly and that it is a long and costly process. We also know that there will be much anxiety in those areas among people for their jobs and their futures. There will be a great deal of campaigning on both sides. It will not be simply on party political lines. It will be town and country; it will be council versus council; and it will be councillor versus councillor.
The Bill should provide an assurance that the Secretary of State will not call for a regional assembly referendum in an area where the evidence does not justify the enormous expenditure that will be incurred by the Boundary Committee, the desk exercise of drawing up the required options—and we now know that there will be at least two, possibly three or more—for local government reorganisation, and the referendum itself. That is important. We do not know in what format we are going to be told. We do not know whether there will simply be a statement to both Houses of Parliament. We do not know if there will be a ritzy glitzy presentation somewhere in the country, where Ministers will meet with the public and have a staged announcement. We have heard a rumour—and I confess that is all it is—that there is to be a major announcement in the North East in a very short time. Whatever it is—and I make no judgment—it would be helpful to know what format the notification will be. Will it he by statement? Will it be by something more formal to both Houses of Parliament? Will it be announced to Parliament before anybody else? Will it affect all eight regions of the country? Will we know region by region what the level of interest is? I believe that the level of interest should be such that there is more than a probability that it is for a referendum for a regional assembly. I beg to move.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, this is a deeply flawed Bill, but, in my view, no part is more flawed than that which gives the Secretary of State power to order a referendum if he has considered the level of interest in the holding of one. What level of interest is he going to consider sufficient? The Bill does not say. We have never been told.
We are told that the Secretary of State will consider the result of the sounding exercise in a particular region. However, what is the good of that if we are not told what kind of outcome in the sounding exercise he will consider sufficient to justify a referendum? Again we are not told that. And what is the good of a
58
sounding exercise if only a handful of people and organisations have ever heard of it? I have not met a single person in the North West who has heard of the sounding exercise there.
To put it mildly, there is a real risk of the Secretary of State being misled by the result of a sounding exercise, attaching importance to the loud voices of a few fanatics and ignoring the lack of interest of the vast majority. He may, in the North West, for instance, heed what emanates from the regional convention. However, I remind him of the excellent comments made by Chris Moncrieff, formerly of the Press Association, who told us that far from there being a strong popular body in the North West calling itself the North West Convention, there are a handful of people operating from a dilapidated garage at the back of a pub. That must be the case, because I have never heard of anyone who has any business with the North West Convention. We know only that for some remarkable reason it is chaired by a Church of England bishop. No one has heard a word of it or a word from it.
I spoke in an earlier debate of how all parties on the Lancashire County Council oppose the holding of a referendum. A few hours ago, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, who moved first from the Front Bench to the Back Benches and then from the Chamber—I am not surprised in view of what he said today—talked eloquently of how the Liberal Democrats in the North West will be in disarray, having to his mind been sold down the river by their own Front Bench. Yet we run the risk of the council tax payers in the North West being put to the considerable expense of local government reviews and a referendum when the outcome—a "No" vote may be obvious. And that despite the fact that in the sounding exercise there appeared to be a number of enthusiasts rooting for a referendum.
What matters is whether people want an elected assembly. It is always artificial and ridiculous to talk about the level of interest in a referendum. What matters is whether people want an elected assembly, not whether they want a referendum. It seems to me that the only sensible way of dealing with this is by requiring the Secretary of State to satisfy himself that it is more probable than not that in any referendum there would be a majority in favour.
It is the kind of question that others have to ask themselves, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, now sitting on the Front Bench, will advise her noble friend. Is it right to authorise a prosecution in this case? Is it more likely than not that a jury will convict? Why on earth should not the Secretary of State in this case be required to ask himself a simple question: is the game worth the candle? Is it more probable than not that if there is a referendum, money will not have been wasted on a local government review and a majority of the people in the region will vote for an elected assembly?
If he is not so satisfied, he is at great risk of wasting public money. Certainly, it is ridiculous that he must only inquire of himself whether there is an unspecified

59
level of interest in the holding of a referendum. That is not the real question in any event, as the Minister, who has been most sensible throughout all our deliberations, knows perfectly well. What matters is whether the people want an elected assembly. If the Secretary of State is not satisfied in his own mind that it is more probable than not that they will vote for the elected assembly, he has no right to waste public money on local government reviews and on the holding of a referendum.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, there is a real danger that the soundings exercise, which does not seem to have gone far, has hit only organisations. The Secretary of State sent out the exercise to a few organisations and we are not sure which ones. However, the organisations will not be voting in favour of a referendum; it will be the local electorate. There appears to be a great paucity of information on what the local electorate feel.
The important aspect is whether a majority of the electorate is in favour, but we also need to know the outcome of the soundings throughout the system. That includes the regional chambers and probably the local authorities. It certainly includes the business community because I know that on the whole it is largely against proceeding, as are the voluntary organisations.
While their views should not be those which decide the issue—that should be the electorate—we need to know how the soundings exercise is divided up among those organisations and the electors. It is important that the exercise, which has been shrouded in timidity and secrecy, is brought to this House and that we know on what basis the Secretary of State intends to make his decision.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, will the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, explain to me how in practical terms one would consult with the electorate in a region without having a referendum? Surely, that is what the referendum is designed to do. While I have sympathy with the theory behind the noble Baroness's problems, I fail to see any practical way in which one could discover the electorate's wishes without having the very referendum we have set out to provide.
Furthermore, will the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, accept that it is difficult to imagine why on earth the Government would proceed with a referendum in a particular area if they thought they were likely to lose it?
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, we understood that the soundings exercise was intended to test the views of the people in a region. The way in which those views are tested seems to be a matter of the Government's policy. Equally, before the Secretary of State makes a decision, it must be possible to identify whether he has consulted electors; whether organisations have consulted electors or just a plethora of others who
60
turned up on the day for the ride; or whether he merely consulted business and voluntary organisations which may or may not reflect the wishes of the electorate.
If the policy and these proposals stem from the soundings exercises, the sounding exercises must be robust; the description as to where they have taken place must be robust; and the answers must be robust. This House, together with another place, must be able to see them.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: My Lords, there are ways in which public opinion can be tested. In the north-east of England, which I know rather well, we have a principal newspaper, the Journal, which ran a campaign in favour of a referendum and in favour of a regional authority. The newspaper has done a good deal of work on this, and I have mentioned before in the course of our debates the results of that work.
Some 45 per cent were against the proposal for a regional assembly, while 35 per cent were for it. A breakdown of the inquiry revealed interestingly that in Tyne and Wear, a densely populated area situated at the bottom end of the region and governed by a unitary authority, 39 per cent declared that they were in favour, while 41 per cent were against. But in Northumberland, a vast and lovely county that is not nearly as densely populated as Tyne and Wear, 27 per cent were in favour of a regional authority while 53 per cent were against it. That speaks volumes for what would happen if eventually a referendum was held to decide on whether we should have a regional assembly.
Ways can be found of measuring public opinion, some of which have been tried in the north-east of England.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, at col. 1542 of Hansard for 13th March last, during the proceedings in Committee, I raised the matter of having received a number of complaints about the way in which the sounding exercises had been carried out. In response, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, invited those who wished to lodge complaints to send them to him. I know that he has now received several complaints, copies of which have been sent to me as well as to other noble Lords.
It appears that the whole thing has been deeply unsatisfactory. In my own view, the sounding exercise has been a complete farce. I wrote to the Minister and I know that he has received my letter. In it I said that the constitutional conventions—which pretended to be semi-official—even if they have done the job properly, have certainly misled people, in particular given that in many cases they have been chaired by influential figures such as bishops, as the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, informed the House a few moments ago. There is no question but that this sounding exercise has not achieved and could not possibly have achieved what was intended because it simply has not been conducted properly. People up and down the country have not been given the opportunity to put forward their views as regards whether they want to be involved in a referendum—which was what the sounding exercise was all about.

61
I shall repeat what I said to the Minister in my letter: the sounding exercise has become so discredited that, although I am afraid it would delay matters, we ought to hold another exercise, one that is carried out properly and ensures that everyone in England who might be affected by the proposals knows that the exercise is taking place and is given an opportunity to participate in it. Furthermore, opportunity should be given for people to discuss what it is all about. We should not have a system under which certain self-appointed people have taken on the task of trying to represent the views of an area to the Minister. In fact they have consulted on only a very narrow basis, thus preventing many others from embarking on the consultation at all.
I wish to make one further point, although perhaps it does not directly concern the amendment before us. The Minister and I had a dispute about the EU map of the administrative areas in England. It appears that we are in possession of different maps issued by the same organisation, the European Commission. My map does not show that there is such a place called "England", but the Minister insists that England is included on his Commission map. Of course it may be that the Commission has now moved on and caught up with the fact that there is a country known as England, and has corrected its maps accordingly. Perhaps the Minister would not mind commenting on that.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I intend to raise a somewhat tangential point, but I suspect that, having listened to this debate, the Minister might find himself in agreement with me on it. I rise to say only that we would not be having this debate had we had at some point in the past a Bill setting out a formal procedure for holding referendums. That suggestion has been carefully avoided every time it has been raised.
The fact is that, under the terms of this Bill, half of a small minority plus one can bring about a profound constitutional change in this country. The Minister can do his best to assess the view held in a particular region using consultation, opinion polls and so forth, amounting in effect to a campaign. But, as we saw in Wales before it secured its assembly, despite doing all that, it does not make a great deal of difference as to whether the electorate will turn out to vote. As a separate issue, we ought to put into legislation a form of procedure governing the way in which referendums are held and further governing the number of votes required to bring about any form of major change.
I know that an amendment has been tabled which we shall reach in due course, but this matter is extremely relevant to the debate on the amendment before us. I say that because we would not be considering the concerns that have been expressed on the matter if such a formalised procedure, one agreed by everyone in the first instance, had been set up.
Lord Dixon: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness who spoke from the Liberal Benches. How on earth do you test public opinion other than by holding a referendum? If you want to test public opinion then you have to hold a referendum about holding a referendum.
62
I have been informed that the people consulted in the North East were—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Does he not agree that, during our debates at the previous stage, he went to great pains to intervene in my remarks to tell me that people have been sounded out in his area? He went on to give the results of that sounding exercise. Thus the idea that people cannot be sounded out simply is not true. The noble Lord himself gave evidence that that was the case.
Lord Dixon: My Lords, I shall go to great pains for the noble Baroness once again and repeat what I said in Committee. I sought to make the point that if you want to test public opinion, the only way that that can be done is by holding a referendum.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, surely the noble Lord understands that that is not what the Bill says. He will agree with me that it would have been perfectly possible to have brought forward a Bill in which no provision was made for the Secretary of State to take account of a sounding exercise. However, the Bill states that he must do so. Will the noble Lord please address himself to that and not to a fanciful Bill that does not exist.
Lord Dixon: My Lords, it would cost twice as much to hold two referendums.
I said in Committee that, in the North East, I had been informed that the people who responded were the members of the North East Assembly, local authorities, local MPs and MEPs, private, public and voluntary bodies, political parties, arts bodies, universities and colleges, black and ethnic minority communities, faiths, charities and trade unions, the health sector and transport bodies. Most declared that they were in favour.
The noble Lord, Lord Elliott, referred to the Newcastle Journal. He may have been referring to the newspaper's own opinion poll, but I do not know where the figures came from. However, I have the figures that were released by Durham County Council, one of the two-tier authorities that everyone is trying to protect in case it is forced to accept a unitary authority.
The council released the results of its sounding exercise, which produced 7,000 responses. Support for holding a referendum was 66 per cent in favour; only 24 per cent against. Everyone is trying to save the two-tier authorities from regional assemblies and one-tier local government, but the interesting thing is that support for establishing a regional assembly was 66 per cent; and only 24 per cent were against. As many people as possible have been consulted.
Some noble Lords said that they had not been consulted. I was never consulted as a Member of the House, but I was consulted as a member of a political party, because I attend my party meetings. At one party meeting that I attended, a soundings document

63
had been circulated for political parties to respond to, and we gave a response. So there is a great deal of support in the North East for a regional assembly.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Waddington reminded the House, Clause 1(4), which the amendment would amend, states:
"The first condition is that the Secretary of State has considered the level of interest in the region in the holding of such a referendum".
That is not an objective test; it is a subjective test. On the intervention made by the Liberal Democrats, I remark that, as I understand it, the Crown Prosecution Service proceeds to a prosecution only if it considers that there is a better than 50:50 chance of success. I of course acknowledge that it will not know how the case will turn out until it has been tested, but it judges that on the basis of its assessment.
In the run-up to the 1964 general election, there was a Labour Member of Parliament called, I believe, Collins. He constantly asked Home Office questions about prisons and constantly pressed Home Office initiatives. On one such occasion, he argued for the abolition of the roll-call in prisons. After that appeared in the press, one prisoner wrote to the press to say how absurd that was and to ask what would be done instead. The prisoner postulated, hypothetically, the governor and a senior prison officer, walking around the prison grounds and the governor saying in conversation, "I say, Jack, there seem to be fewer prisoners around this week than there were last week".
On the same basis, I postulate the Deputy Prime Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, travelling through a region such as Yorkshire or the West Midlands and the Deputy Prime Minister saying after a while, "I say, Jeff, I tell you something: there seems to be quite a lot of interest in holding a referendum in this region". As I understand it, that would qualify as consideration—the Deputy Prime Minister would have considered the level of interest and, on that subjective basis, fulfilled the condition in the Bill. However, that does not sound like an an objective test.
Incidentally, Mr Collins' story ended happily: he became Parliamentary Secretary at the Home Office after the 1964 general election. But under the Bill, it seems increasingly likely that the subtle soundings might have been better conducted a little later in the parliamentary process than they were.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, in answer to one question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, I do not have a precise figure, but we have now received more than 5,000 responses, so the figure has slightly improved since Committee, although I do not know the exact figure. We are still receiving results, as we have made clear during the Bill's passage.
Having perused the Marshalled List, judging by later amendments, we may have this debate about four times—certainly more than once. I do not know that I
64
can say anything different to what I said in Committee: the Secretary of State cannot operate on a hunch; he must come to Parliament to make a Statement about his judgment on the soundings.
A later amendment provides for publishing the results of the soundings. People were told that unless they demanded confidentiality for some reason, the results would be publicly available. We shall publish a summary and, of course, we shall do so for the whole country. The whole point is that the Secretary of State must make a judgment. Please do not hold this example against me, but let us say that he judges that the soundings show that there is interest in holding a referendum in at least one region. In order to say that, he must be able to say that there is not such a level of interest in the other eight regions—or, rather, seven, because London does not count for that purpose. So he will not make a judgment only in the area in which he judges that the soundings show that there is interest in holding a referendum. I choose my words carefully, because that is what is involved—interest in holding a referendum, which may not be the same as interest in having an elected regional assembly. That goes to the heart of Amendment No. 6, which would amend the condition so that the Secretary of State must prejudge the result of the referendum before he forms a judgment on the soundings.
I repeat that Ministers have not seen any results of the soundings and have no figures at present, but when making a judgment on the soundings shortly after the Bill receives Royal Assent, the Secretary of State cannot be expected to work out whether the referendum would be successful. First, that is not his job; secondly, the public, who will make the final decision on a referendum, will not have the available information because we shall not have had the boundary review, which is, as I said, nine months or a year down the road. So he cannot then prejudge whether there would be a successful, or "Yes", vote in a referendum. Amendment No. 6 is impractical in relation to the process. Given the timing of the Boundary Committee's recommendations, for a start, that does not make sense.
It has been asserted that a regional assembly referendum is advisory, to give an expression of view of those in a region about a regional assembly. The purpose of the referendum is to determine whether people want an elected regional assembly.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said that we need rules. I was in another department when the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 was passed, so I must be careful to name its title correctly—although naturally I voted for it. Along with another place, the House passed that Act, which lays down many ground rules.
As we have made clear when discussing the Bill, although certain duties are left to the Secretary of State, the Electoral Commission, which was set up under that Act, is required to make judgments on questions, the legibility of the argument, the preamble, and so on. So it is not a question of doing it as we want or making it up as we go along. There are ground rules

65
for referendums on the statute book. It is true that the Bill represents a unique departure—we have not done anything such as this for local government—but I count that as a plus, not as a minus.
Amendment No. 6 is the main amendment in the group. The others are consequential. The way that the groupings have been arranged mean that our next debate, on Amendments Nos. 7 and 42, will cover some of the same ground. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, constantly referred to the letter that he wrote to me; he never once mentioned that he had received a reply. But he has—I hope.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Rooker: Yes, my Lords, that is right. I was sweating a hit because there is no date on the letter; I keep being told not to date my letters because they can take a while to leave the office. The third paragraph of my reply states:
"When assessing the response of any organisation to our soundings exercise, we are looking at how representative the response is, and the reliability and robustness of any surveys or opinion polls that they have conducted. We made it clear that the response of organisations would be strengthened if it was clear that they had consulted widely".
I do not know why the chairs of some of these organisations have not graced us with their presence in these debates. I have not held any discussions with anybody; I have obviously seen the letters which have been sent in, and they will receive a reply. If the allegations undermine the reliability and robustness of what organisations are sending in, they are making a rod for their own back. That will not count very well, and it does not matter who is chairing the organisations. If people have been denied opportunities, or the reliability and robustness of the surveys have been fixed, as it were, we need to know how they have been conducted and that there has been wide consultation. I see nothing wrong in that.
I cannot comment on the opinion polls—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am most obliged to the Minister for giving way. I have received his letter, as a matter of fact; it is dated 7th April, so I have not had time to assimilate exactly what he said. Perhaps at a later stage I will come back after I have assimilated what he said to see whether there is some light in it.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, there is so much light in the letter—it has only five paragraphs. I am tempted to put it on the record, but I will not. I am sorry it was late. However, it is obviously relevant to the Bill and to the debate to get replies to noble Lords. That is why I am distressed at what the noble Earl said about his delayed answer from DEFRA, which is being dealt with. From that point of view, it is important. My noble friend can come back when he has had time to assimilate the gems in the other paragraphs, the ones I am not quoting.
66
Frankly, asking the Secretary of State to prejudge the result of the referendum when he makes a judgment on the soundings is wholly impractical, if only—and this is a substantial reason—because the work of the Boundary Committee is such that he could not form a judgment because he would not know what options it was suggesting for the consequential changes in local government. Therefore, I hope the amendment will not be pressed to the vote, but I somehow fear it will be.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Minister is absolutely right—this is unique, and for that reason we are looking for ways in which to safeguard the public interest. My noble friend Lord Waddington was right when he said that as many people as he has asked had not heard of the soundings exercise. That applies in many parts of the country. My standard question is, "Who knows about regional government and have you had any contact whatsoever with any organisation sounding out your views on a regional assembly?" I have yet to have a positive answer.
The Minister said that the Government would measure the robustness of some of the responses. At some meetings—we have had evidence of this during the course of our debates—unless people wishing to attend the meeting professed an interest in having a regional assembly, they were not admitted. If that is the case, and there is not to be an investigation into such allegations, how is the Secretary of State to know that this happened?
I should like to refer to the Constitution Committee's report which we had on the first clay in Committee. It expressed a concern affecting a principal part of the constitution, in which it took a fairly high interest. One of its concerns was the lack of criteria that would have to be met to trigger a referendum in a particular region. The Bill will give the Secretary of State the power to trigger a referendum. He will do so on the basis of a level of interest. The level of interest is not defined; we have had no clarification or enlightenment from the Minister in his reply to us, so we simply do not know on what basis he will trigger a referendum.
The Constitution Committee was also concerned about the public participation in consultation. The map referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, could be prophetic. It could be a picture of the country when the Bill has materialised and fulfilled the Government's ambitions of having regional assemblies and single-tier local government below them. If that were the case, Scotland, Wales and Ireland would have country national government but England would not. England would be fragmented into nine parts and would, I believe, lose its integrity as a country.
The Minister has not told us exactly what the soundings are, what they are meant to be, the level of interest or the measurement. As my noble friend Lord Brooke said, it will be a subjective judgment on the part of the Secretary of State.

67
Having been a Minister and sat where the noble Lord is sitting, I am staggered that he is in the middle of passing through Parliament a Bill of this magnitude, of very high constitutional importance, and he says that the department—either the officials or his ministerial colleagues—have not even allowed him to have any information about the responses.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, that is a very unfair and, if I might say so, underhand way of putting the way I responded. The Bill is going through Parliament; we have made it quite clear that only after Royal Assent will a judgment be made. It would be quite wrong, while the Bill is going through Parliament and while the soundings are being assessed and still being received, if Ministers started nitpicking over issues before the assessments had been made. When they are made, they will be put before Ministers, and that will be the right time. It would quite wrong, while we are in the middle of the Bill's proceedings, to start sifting through individual assessments. One would not be able to read the lot, anyway, so we would have to look at summaries and then maybe dip into them after the assessment analysis has been completed. It is not a question of not being shown. I get shown what I ask for, and in this case, we have agreed it would be quite wrong for Ministers to have that level of detail at present.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my point was that the Minister was saying he does not even have any knowledge of them. If that is the case, I really am staggered. I am certainly not saying that the noble Lord should prejudge. In fact, we are alarmed that the consultation process was so short. It finished on 3rd March when the Bill had hardly started its proceedings in this House. Therefore, the consultation could have continued for a little while yet and the judgment could have been made when the Bill received Royal Assent, if that is when Ministers will be making judgments. It would not take very many hours to sift through 5,000 responses.
The Minister is not able to say what the level of interest would be. He has not said whether we will know it region by region. He has said that the level of interest in one area could be determined and a referendum called, but it is possible and, I should have thought, even probable, that the level of interest in one or more areas of the country could be comparable. In that case, if it is more than the two or three areas that the noble Lord feels are important when it comes to calling a referendum, another judgment will have to be made, about which we know nothing. We do not know what criteria will be applied. Answers to pertinent questions will not be available until after the Bill receives Royal Assent. I call that very undemocratic. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
6.49 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
*Their Lordships divided: Contents, 109; Not-Contents, 143.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Bell, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Blaker, L.

Liverpool, E.

Blatch, B.

Lucas, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Luke, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Burnham, L.

Mancroft, L.

Buscombe, B.

Marlesford, L.

Byford, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Caithness, E.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Monson, L.

Colwyn, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Montrose, D.

Cox, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Moynihan, L.

Crathorne, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Noakes, B.

Denham, L.

Northbourne, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Elles, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Onslow, E.

Elton, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Feldman, L.

Palmer, L.

Flather, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Fookes, B.

Parkinson, L.

Fowler, L.

Peel, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Freeman, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Pym, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Quinton, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Rawlings, B.

Glentoran, L.

Reay, L.

Goschen, V.

Rees. L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Renton, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach. L.

St John of Fawsley. L.

Hanham, B.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Hanningfield, L.

Selborne, E.

Hayhoe, L.

Selsdon, L.

Higgins, L.

Sharples, B.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Home, E.

Shrewsbury, E.

Hooper, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Howe, E.

Stewartby, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Tebbit, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Vivian, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Waddington. L.

Jopling, L.

Weatherill, L.

Kimball, L.

Wilcox, B. [Teller]

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Addington, L.

Berkeley, L.

Ahmed, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Amos, B.

Billingham, B.

Andrews, B.

Blackstone, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Borrie, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Brennan, L.

Barker, B.

Brett, L.

Barnett, L.

Brookman, L.

69

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Burlison, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Carter, L.

Chan. L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Christopher, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L

McNally, L.

clement-Jones, L.

Maddock, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L,

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Methuen, L.

Crawley, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Mitchell, L.

Dahrendorf. L.

Morgan, L.

David, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Newby, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Nicol, B.

Desai, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Dixon. L.

Patel, L.

Donoughue, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Elder, L.

Pendry, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Peston, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Evans of Watford, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Radice, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Gale. B.

Razzall, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gilbert. L.

Rennard, L.

Golding. B.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Richard, L.

Goodhart, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Rooker, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Roper, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Russell, E.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Sandberg, L.

Hamwee, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Sewel, L.

Harris of Haringey. L.

Sharman, L.

Harris of Richmond. B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Haskel, L.

Sheldon, L.

Hayman, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Simon, V.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Hollick, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Hooson, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Taverne, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Thornton, B.

Hoyle, L.

Tope, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Jones, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Judd. L.

Walmsley, B.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Whitaker, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Whitty, L.

Lipsey, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Lockwood, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

[*The 'Tellers for the Not-Contents reported 143 votes. The Clerks recorded 142 names.]
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
7 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 12, at end insert—
"( ) The second condition is that the Secretary of State has concluded on the basis of evidence available to him that there is substantial support from the business community, regional chambers, local authorities, cultural and voluntary sector and local electors within the region for the holding of such a referendum and such evidence has been laid before both Houses of Parliament".
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 7, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 42. The amendments seek to make explicit on the face of the Bill precisely who must be consulted by the Secretary of State before he calls a referendum. The list includes business, the culture and voluntary sectors, regional chambers and local authorities. We believe the amendments bring clarity to the otherwise vague requirement for the Secretary of State to consider the level of interest in a region.
We have learnt from experience—and certainly from what has been said in our—debates that it would be unsatisfactory to leave the soundings exercise entirely to a subjective judgment of the Secretary of State. Before a major constitutional question is put to the electorate of a region in a referendum, it is right that Parliament should scrutinise the consultations carried out by the Secretary of State. If I have understood the Minister correctly, we shall get an opportunity to do so, but we have not yet heard of the format under which that will take place.
The amendments ensure greater transparency. In Committee, the Minister agreed about the importance of openness and promised that a summary of reasons for the Secretary of State's decision would be published. Will there be an opportunity to scrutinise the basis for the taking of that decision and can the Minister give any further assurances on Report? I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, all my assurances will be kept. I have no new assurances to give and I do not need to qualify the assurances I have given already. I hope that that will be helpful.
The bodies specified in Amendment No. 7 which were in a position to comment on the level of interest in a region have been able to put forward their views as part of the soundings exercise. I am informed that many such bodies are among the 5,000 or so which have responded.
In Committee, I said that the Secretary of State would explain to Parliament his decision on which region or regions should undergo a local government review, with a view to holding a referendum, after the Bill receives Royal Assent. We intend to publish a summary of the views received during the soundings exercise.
Amendment No. 42, which the noble Baroness did not say much about, is similar to a group of amendments debated in Committee. Its effect would be to exclude—this is perhaps nitpicking, but we are talking about legislation—the consideration of views, information and evidence from other groups,

71
including non-council tax payers, trade unions, the Local Government Association and the Isles of Scilly local authority.
Since last year we have actively sought the views of individuals and organisations. We do not believe that the amendment is needed. Many of the bodies listed in Amendment No. 7 have been covered and have had ample opportunity to submit their views. I hope that they have all done so and that no one will be missing when we look at the final list.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Quoting from his letter, in his earlier reply to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, the Minister explained how the responses would be judged. It is interesting that the consultees were not told how their responses would be judged. For instance, if a voluntary sector body had been told that the quality of its response would be judged on how it had communicated and taken soundings from other people in its organisation, we might have seen a great deal more activity.
A body that I know of was approached but could not afford to take the necessary kind of soundings. Its reply will be considered as simply a statement from a particular voluntary organisation and will be judged as not having taken more soundings. However, the Secretary of State could subjectively—we do not know—simply say that because the body represents X, its reply must be the view of X's members; its membership is Y and therefore that must be the view of that many people. We do not know the answers to these questions or how the replies will be judged.
What we have been told about this issue is unsatisfactory. I take on board what the Minister said about Amendment No. 42. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 6, leave out second "that" and insert "the"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 9 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 10. The amendments are required to tidy up the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, to Clause 1(6) which was agreed to in Committee. The Government do not seek to overturn the amendment. We are happy to retain the revised Clause 1(6) within the Bill provided that we can make these two small changes to Clause 1. The amendments are designed to remove slight inconsistencies and to give full effect to the noble Baroness's amendment.
Amendment No. 9 seeks to make a small improvement to the drafting; Amendment No. 10 addresses an inconsistency between subsection (8) and
72
the new subsection (6) in Clause 1. I can go into further detail if required but I hope that there will not be need to do so. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall not ask the Minister to go into further detail. I am grateful to him for accepting the amendment and for the letter he sent me in advance.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Elton): My Lords, if Amendment No. 10 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 11 standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham.
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, leave out lines 10 and 11 and insert "If the Secretary of State has cause to think that the level of interest has changed materially as mentioned in subsection (6), that subsection does not apply but he must not make an order under subsection (1) unless for the purposes of subsection (4) he considers—"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 12:
After Clause I, insert the following new clause—
"LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFERENDUMS
(1) This section applies if the Secretary of State makes an order under section I to cause a referendum to be held in a region about the establishment of an elected assembly for that region.
(2) The Secretary of State must by order cause a referendum to be held in each county area in the region about the government's proposals for the structure of local government in that area.
(3) A county area is an area in the region in relation to which both a county council and one or more district councils have functions.
(4) But if the government's proposals for a county area include an option providing for a local authority whose area includes any part of the area of more than one county area, the county area for the purposes of this section is the combined area of each of those county areas.
(5) The government's proposals for the structure of local government—

(a) are such of the recommendations of the Boundary Committee for England made in pursuance of a direction under Part 2 of this Act as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate subject to such modifications (if any) as he proposes to make in pursuance of section 15(3);

(b) must include at least two options for structural change (within the meaning of Part 2 of the Local Government Act 1992) in relation to each county area in the region.

(6) The date of a referendum held in pursuance of an order under subsection (2) must be—

(a) specified in the order;

(b) the same date as the date specified in the order under section 1.

(7) An order under subsection (2) must not be made before the end of the period of 6 weeks starting with the day on which the Secretary of State receives the recommendations of the Boundary Committee in pursuance of a direction under Part 2 of this Act.

73
(8) The Secretary of State by order—

(a) may vary an order under subsection (2);

(b) must revoke such an order if he revokes the order under section 1.

(9) A Minister of the Crown may by order make such provision as he thinks appropriate in connection with a referendum held in pursuance of an order under subsection (2).
(10) An order under subsection (9) may—

(a) make provision for the creation of offences;

(b) apply or incorporate with or without modifications or exceptions any provision of any enactment (whenever passed or made and including this Act) relating to elections or referendums;

(c) modify any provision of Chapter 2 of Part 7 of the 2000 Act as it applies to a referendum held in pursuance of an order under section 1."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Baroness spoke fully to this amendment with Amendment No. 1. Since then, after reading it carefully, as a member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee I should like to ask the noble Baroness about the four order-making powers in the amendment, with which I am sure she is familiar.
Subsection (2) relates to the order that the Secretary of State may give to trigger a referendum. Under subsection (8), he may, by order, vary or revoke the order. Under subsection (9) he may make such provision as he thinks appropriate in connection with a referendum. Of particular importance among the features of that order is that, under subsection (10), he may make provision for the creation of offences.
I am sure that the noble Baroness is familiar with her amendment and I should like to ask her what status these orders will have. Will they need parliamentary approval? If so, will that be by negative or affirmative resolution? I should like the noble Baroness to comment particularly on the order under subsection (9) because that makes provision for the creation of offences.
The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has not had time to consider the amendment because it has only recently been tabled. That is why I am asking these questions.
Baroness HamweeMy Lords, Clause 27(1) states:
"A power in this Act to make an order or regulations must be exercised by statutory instrument".
Clause 27(2) provides for that to be by affirmative resolution and states that,
"a statutory instrument must not be made unless a draft … has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House".
That applies to the orders which are referred to in my amendment as well as to those which are already in the Bill.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness very much for that information.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
7.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 12) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 129; Not-Contents, 79.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Addington, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Ahmed, L.

Hollick, L.

Amos, B.

Hooson, L.

Andrews, B.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Barker, B.

Hoyle, L.

Barnett, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Berkeley, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Billingham, B.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Blackstone, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Borrie, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Lipsey, L.

Brookman, L.

Lockwood, B.

Burlison, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Carter, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

McNally, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Maddock, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Crawley, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Mitchell, L.

David, B.

Morgan, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Newby, L.

Desai, L.

Nicol, B.

Dixon, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Donoughue, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Elder, L.

Pendry, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Portsmouth, Bp.

Evans of Watford, L.

Radice, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Razzall, L.

Gale, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Rennard, L.

Gilbert, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Golding, B.

Richard, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Goodhart, L.

Rooker, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Roper, L. [Teller]

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Russell, E.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Sandberg, L.

Grocott, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hamwee, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Sewel, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Sharman, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Hayman, B.

Sheldon, L.

75

Shutt of Greetland, L. [Teller]

Turner of Camden, B.

Simon, V.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Walmsley, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Taverne, L.

Whitaker, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Whitty, L.

Thornton. B.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Tope, L.

Tordoff, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Blaker, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Blatch, B.

Liverpool, E.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Luke, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mancroft, L.

Buscombe, B.

Marlesford, L.

Byford, B.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Caithness, E.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Montrose, D.

Colwyn, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Moynihan, L.

Cox, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Newton of Brain tree, L.

Craigavon, V.

Noakes, B.

Crathorne, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Dean of Harp tree, L.

Onslow, E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Elles, B.

Palmer, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Elton, L.

Patel, L.

Flather, B.

Peel, E.

Fowler, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Rawlings, B.

Freeman, L.

Reay, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Rees, L.

Renton, L.

Glentoran, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Goschen, V.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Selborne, E.

Hanham, B.

Selsdon, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Sharples, B.

Higgins, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Shrewsbury. E.

Home, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hooper, B.

Stewartby, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Swinfen, L.

Jopling, L.

Vivian, L.

Kimball, L.

Waddington, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Wilcox, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
7.24 p.m.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion, I suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 8.24 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Co-operatives and Community Benefit Societies Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

East Africa
Lord Freeman Lord Freeman rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether progress to date with the efficient use of resources in East Africa arising from debt relief and increased direct overseas aid is satisfactory.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I thank the Minister for coming to the House to answer the Question. All of us are very conscious of two facts. The first is that the enormous humanitarian crisis unfolding in Iraq must be concentrating not only her mind, but the minds of those in her department. The second is that her energy and experience in East and West Africa is well known and much respected. I look forward to her contribution to the brief debate. I couple that tribute to the Minister and her department with praising the work of the civil servants in London and in East Africa, specifically Kampala. That work is often unsung, but I want to place on record my appreciation, and I hope that of other noble Lords, for their work.
I declare an interest as chairman of the Busoga Trust, a Christian charity operating in Uganda with the express purpose of digging and maintaining water wells in the districts of Kamuli, Luwero and Busoga in southern Uganda. Over 20 years, some 1,000 wells and water sources have been dug. I pay tribute to all those involved, both in Africa and in the United Kingdom. It may be a modest achievement in comparison with the overall problems in Uganda, but it is nevertheless in my judgment a marvellous contribution to the alleviation of poverty there. I also pay tribute to colleagues in WaterAid and CAFOD with whom I have recently been in touch.
This brief debate should be addressed to East Africa and aid efficiency. It is important to note that the policy of Her Majesty's Government on direct support to non-governmental organisations active anywhere in the world changed in 2000. In East Africa, that specifically meant that the Government's assistance went to the governments there, in terms of direct aid and support of the budget. That is therefore indirect allocation to specific projects on which the governments of Uganda and other countries in East Africa have decided. I am not criticising that change in policy, but I want to point out that some causes for concern have arisen as a result of it.
The purpose of the debate is to see how the United Kingdom is helping East African governments to help themselves. I hope that my contribution will be regarded as constructive and positive, and not in any way suggesting interference from these shores. It is certainly not supposed to be paternalistic. We must respect the drive to democracy in East Africa, and encourage it. For example, there have been very encouraging signs recently from Kenya.
In the time available to me, I want to focus on rural water supplies, because they are so important for the alleviation of poverty. Clean water sources help to reduce infant mortality and bring a dramatic improvement to the quality of life of those who live in

77
rural Africa. Uganda is not a proxy for the whole of East Africa, but in the interests of brevity I want to draw some conclusions from what is going on there.
We are all delighted that Her Majesty's Government have declared 2003 as the international year of fresh water. The importance of fresh water supplies for the alleviation of poverty and the improvement of health, particularly in rural areas, cannot be repeated often enough. In 2000, the World Health Organisation recognised that about 2.4 billion people around the world lacked access to basic sanitation. In Africa, roughly one-third of the population does not have access to clean water or sanitation facilities. I know from my own personal experience the sight of one dirty well and the filth, squalor and inhumane effects caused by drinking and even collecting that water as compared with a fresh water source.
The United Nations target is to reduce that lack of access to clean water by one half by 2015. The question is whether that is feasible. We hope that it is, but the United Nations report at Kyoto, in March, indicated doubts about whether the target can be met even by 2030. I ask the Minister to enlighten us as to whether Her Majesty's Government believe that we should stick to the target of halving that lack of access to clean water and better sanitation standards by 2015 and whether the target is still attainable.
I turn briefly to Uganda. The Government of Uganda have a very strong political commitment to the reduction of poverty. One notes with particular support the Ugandan Government's "Poverty Eradication Action Plan in 2000". However, Uganda is highly dependent on aid, with more than 50 per cent of national expenditure drawn from donations, both governmental and private, from around the world. I pay tribute to the Ugandan Water Minister who, last August, in my conversations with him, said that we must do better than the millennium target of trying to halve lack of access to clean water and sanitation by 2015. We must try to do better, and we must examine how we can do so.
The most recent statistics from Uganda show that access to clean water in rural areas stands at about 50 per cent and access to good sanitation at about 75 per cent. DfID's country aid stands at £83 million—the latest figure that I have—with the amount allocated to water at £3 million, for a water spend of about 3 per cent.
In its January 2003 global report which referred—although not exclusively—to Uganda, the National Audit Office looked at how money is being spent around the world. On page 12, it stated:
"The water sector is … characterised by ineffective utilisation and non-sustainability of services. In the rural area"—
of Uganda—
"over 30 per cent of rural systems are non-functional, the water handling and storage is often unhygienic, resulting in water from a safe source being contaminated by the time it is consumed. Poor care and maintenance of facilities have rendered many protected water sources, especially boreholes to be abandoned".
The Ugandan Government commissioned a report, published just a few months ago, in December 2002, looking at how effective the rural water programme
78
was in Uganda. It was only a couple of years ago that the local districts in Uganda started receiving funds directly from the government to spend on trying to improve water sources. A report to the government by independent experts based in Uganda found, first, poor collaboration and co-ordination of the district offices with the non-governmental organisations including overseas charities. Secondly, they found that the procurement process is weakened by political influence which has greatly affected the quality of water and the cost-effective implementation of water plans. Thirdly, they found some financial mismanagement which I am sorry to say has included some corruption and bribery in the awarding of contracts, which is not uncommon around the world. The experts came to the conclusion that, overall, the government were getting very poor value for money in the water programme.
In May 2002, Mr Lars Christian Moller produced another independent report on Uganda entitled. Is the Water Sector Delivering. He concluded that funding for water in the previous two years had increased by 300 per cent but that production—the supply of fresh water wells—had decreased by 35 per cent, hence increasing the poor value for money. I calculate that of the wells dug in Uganda which are contracted by the local districts with either private sector suppliers or non-governmental organisations and overseas charities, the government may be paying for about 60 per cent of the provision of the well and the Busoga Trust is paying the other 40 per cent. In other words—and I am not complaining about this—we are subsidising the production of those wells. The five-year plan which has been in operation in Uganda since September 2002 estimates that it will be possible to increase the coverage of clean water supply in rural areas from about 50 to 54 per cent, in 2002, to only 58 per cent by 2006, because there is not enough money in the system.
So what are the solutions? I think that there are three. First, more money must be made available to the Ugandan Government. That has to come either from an increase in resources in Uganda or, preferably, a change in the proportion of UK aid that is allocated to the water sector. Secondly, I think that the Ugandan Government themselves should provide some direct funding to the non-governmental organisations specifically to help to improve hygiene, engineering advice and the proper maintenance of the water wells. Finally, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will continue—I know that they have tried, but I think that they must continue—to encourage the Government of Uganda to audit the water development programme more thoroughly and more comprehensively.
We are all on the same side in this. We need a more rapid alleviation of world poverty. That must happen in rural Uganda. I hope that your Lordships will wish the United Kingdom and Ugandan Governments Godspeed in this mission.
7.37 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, for drawing

79
attention to an area of the world and an aspect of the international economy which it would be easy to neglect as our attention is directed to dramatic events elsewhere. I am glad to be able to express my support for his concerns on what is in effect my first day back after three months' study leave. I, too, pay tribute to the Minister for her commitment to world development ideology and action and for the respect in which she is held for that in all parts of your Lordships' Chamber. I shall not detain your Lordships long. I cannot match the statistics quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, but in order to combat the view that is sometimes held that bishops are, generally speaking, generally speaking, I shall do my best to focus on four areas.
First, in his "State of the Union" speech in January, President Bush expressed the view that Al'Qaeda had attacked US interests in East Africa and may have supporters there. The rights and wrongs of US international economic policy apart, and perhaps asking an obvious question and for an obvious reassurance, is the Minister able to reassure the House that the Government's debt relief policy will not be "adjusted" downwards in order to protect such interests? Can she say, to the contrary, that in the light of the increased instability in Africa, the Government are preparing to act even more strategically in their overseas aid policies?
The second area is debt relief. Here we enter questions of policy and the fine dividing line between what supposedly "works" and what supposedly "doesn't work". Christian Aid's view has long been that debt relief should not depend on arbitrary fiscal sustainability criteria, which I might add often seem to resemble in macrocosm what SRB indicators often represent locally in microcosm—that is, "You can't get such and such an amount until you have achieved such and such a series of targets". We are not often dealing with countries and economies that can talk that language and get anywhere.
In this connection, the Government are to be congratulated on shifting policy HIPC style (the acronym stands for "heavily indebted poor countries") towards a situation where they are not just paying off past debts—without which local national economies would be crippled in the long term—-but moving East African countries towards a position where they can invest in social and educational development.
Paul Ladd, of Christian Aid, has presented me with some impressive figures which indicate that Uganda, among other countries, was an early beneficiary from debt relief and enhanced aid, and has therefore managed to abolish user fees for primary education, which has resulted in sustained annual growth rates of over 5 per cent. Would the Minister care to tell us how government policy in this area can be extended along those lines in other areas mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Freeman—for example, in relation to water supply?
Thirdly, there is the question of progress in debt relief. I am not the world's most brilliant mathematician, as my colleagues will assure noble
80
Lords—or perhaps alarm them by saying—but as I understand them, the figures tell us something different. Ethiopia, whose decision point was November 2001, will not, according to World Bank projections, manage to sustain its debt after the supposed completion point by the third quarter of 2004. Will the Minister comment on Christian Aid's contention that,
"Even some of the countries that are seen as 'successes' of the scheme are still spending more on servicing their debt than on education or healthcare"?
I ask that question in a context of profound admiration for what the Government are doing.
Finally, I think that many people would want to welcome the proposals outlined in January by the right honourable gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer for an international finance facility which would double the amount of development aid provided by the richest countries to the poorest.
It is commendable that we are seen to be grappling with what seems to me to be the main issue of international, not economy, but justice. If I may put it in theological terms, this is about human beings as stewards rather than exploiters of creation. By "creation" I do not mean merely what is there. produced by nature, but what we help to create: in our stewardship, in terms of increased knowledge, in pushing at the boundaries of knowledge, and in our technology. Does the Minister agree that, laudable as such an initiative is, it can run the risk of appealing to self-interest on the part of the givers rather than being seen as something that is right in its own way?
I confess that, the more I ponder these issues, the less comfortable I become. I suppose it is partly the result of returning to your Lordships' Chamber in Lent a bit thinner than I was before Christmas and realising that to be a comic microcosmic example of the macrocosmic issue—the need for a fundamental change in the global economy, if, that is, we are to have a just, sustainable and participatory society which has a long-term future.
7.44 p.m.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, I, too, wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, for introducing this important debate. There are so many areas of the world that must surely demand our attention. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth said, it would be too easy to forget them as the news media focus so intently on Iraq. But when we ask whether aid for Iraq is being taken from the DfID budget, we ask the question with all these needs in mind.
The noble Lord, Lord Freeman, focused on several important issues. The point has been raised as to whether the Government are correct to deal so exclusively with governments, often ignoring those NGOs with long track records of getting aid to where it is needed. To lose their expertise not only places at risk those who would benefit from it now; it also poses a risk down the line as the NGOs become less effective as they lose funds. I look forward to the Minister's reply on those points.

81
The noble Lord, Lord Freeman, focused in particular on water. There is hardly a more important element. It is vital to survival. Water contamination has always been the cause of high levels of mortality. After all, it was only when sanitary reform was implemented in Britain and a clean water supply established that there was a decline in early mortality and a marked increase in life expectancy. The right reverend Prelate made the key point of how important it is to reduce debt lest poor countries are simply paying off their debt.
I want to examine some of the issues facing the countries of East Africa and the areas where we might help whether in terms of debt relief or direct aid. I turn first to Tanzania. Half the population of Tanzania lives below the poverty line. Education indicators are worsening and health indicators are poor. Primary school enrolment fell from 98 per cent in 1981 to 75 per cent in 1996. Because of poverty, parents take their children out of school.
The AIDS epidemic has taken its toll. It is the leading cause of death among young people. Life expectancy is 51 years and is falling. Will the Minister comment on any progress that is being made? Is there any sign of the situation being turned round? Will she comment also on measures taken by the Government to tackle corruption, to improve productive opportunities, especially for the poor, and to improve educational status?
The Tanzanian Government's weak organisational capacity is a serious constraint on their ability to promote poverty eradication. There is also a lack of accountability and widespread corruption. Are there any hopeful signs in terms of the Tanzanian Government taking effective anti-corruption measures? Is this a country where it would be better to go through NGOs than through the government?
The judiciary in Tanzania is inefficient and corrupt. The police are poorly managed and under-resourced. Half of Tanzania's households have inadequate access to safe water, and the burden of collecting water falls mainly on women and girls. Will the Minister comment on what is happening to improve access to safe water, to improve sanitation and promote hygiene, and to combat the diseases that cause so much infant mortality?
I now turn to Uganda. The BBC country profile notes:
"Since the late 1980s Uganda has rebounded from the abyss of civil war and economic catastrophe to become a model of relative peace, stability and even some prosperity".
Democratic reforms have been introduced, the country's human rights record has improved and western backed reforms have been introduced. However, Uganda still does not have multi-party politics. Poverty levels are dropping. Here the experience of HIV/AIDS is extremely instructive. Uganda was one of the first countries to be devastated by HIV/AIDS and it was the first sub-Saharan African country to reverse its own epidemic. The government fought against the disease with a relentless campaign of education, which surely should be the model for
82
elsewhere. There is now widespread knowledge of how the disease is spread among Ugandan people. A strong political commitment was shown. Will the Minister comment on how these lessons might he carried across into other East African countries?
Nevertheless, the disease continues to take its toll. At the end of 2001 there were almost 1 millions AIDS orphans in Uganda. It will be many decades before the social and economic effects of AIDS are effectively reversed. I note also that access to safe water is as low as 34 per cent, which is obviously a very worrying figure.
However, adult literacy increased from 38 per cent in 1995 to 63 per cent in 2002. Oxfam notes that,
"things have dramatically changed in Uganda. Since the introduction of universal primary education in 1997 the number of children in primary education has more than doubled"
But conflict and crime continue to make progress very difficult. The main rebel group is the Lord's Resistance Army, based mainly in Sudan and operating in the north of Uganda. They have been involved in a brutal campaign of atrocities, including the abduction of children who, if not massacred, are then forced to fight for the LRA. Will the Minister give some information on whether the pledges by both the Ugandan and Sudanese governments to safeguard civilians and repatriate refugees are having any real effect?
In the context of aid to Uganda and in the light of our debate on Thursday, we should not ignore its involvement in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. There were reports yesterday that another 1,000 people were massacred in Ituri province. Although Uganda has denied any involvement, its hands have been far from clean in this respect in the past. The strongest possible signals need to go out to the Ugandan Government that the UK will not stand by and tolerate their involvement in the crimes in the DRC.
In Kenya, at the moment the picture looks particularly promising. For the first time since independence in 1963, Kenya has chosen a new president. That was at the end of December 2002 when the opposition won a convincing majority. The elections, applauded as the cleanest and most peaceful in Kenya's history, were followed by a smooth and unprecedented transfer of power.
The programme that the Kenyan Government promised, and then sought to implement, of universal primary education surely needs very strong support. I note that we are co-funding a scheme to provide text books and materials for all Kenyan primary schools. But teachers will also be required. Is the Minister able to comment on how the introduction of universal primary education is going in Kenya?
Healthcare in Kenya is very worrying. Kenya, again, suffers from a high and growing rate of HIV/AIDS as well as high child and maternal mortality. The health infrastructure is deteriorating. About 15 per cent of the population suffers from AIDS and, again, there are almost 1 million AIDS orphans. Many people there have all sorts of misconceptions about the

83
disease, including the assumption that a person who seems well cannot pass it on. I note that DfID is supporting a project to improve access to quality reproductive health services, including family planning. I should like to know how that has progressed.
Kenya has been making very welcome moves to clean up its government. Thus, on 25th February it announced a special commission into the theft of £400 million of public funds in the country's biggest-ever corruption scandal. Other landmarks include the resignation of Kenya's most senior judge, following his suspension pending investigation on charges of corruption, intimidation and instituting torture. There is investigation, too, into land grabbing.
But Kenya has made it plain that it will need new aid if it is to deliver all that it and the international community want. Many of its people are truly living on the edge. UNHCR reckons that currently up to half a million Kenyans are facing severe food shortages and require urgent intervention in the north-west of the country.
The noble Lord, Lord Freeman, said that there are themes common to the concerns in all these countries. The provision of clean water is absolutely basic. Without that there will be no progress in increasing life expectancy. But we also need to see a reduction in corruption, the improvement in democratic government and the strengthening of local economies. For real progress to take place, major improvements in education and healthcare will be needed.
As has been said, this Government have done a great deal to assist the East African countries. I welcome that. I welcome the progress that the countries themselves have made. I trust that the present conflict in the Middle East does nothing to deflect from the needs of Africa.
7.55 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Freeman for initiating so eloquently this special debate on aid to East Africa and add my respect for the Minister for all the work that she does.
Perhaps I may begin by turning to the situation in Ethiopia. In December, the UN launched a joint appeal with the Ethiopian Government to call for humanitarian assistance in 2003. This was in response to reports that the recent rains had ended and that there was a growing need for food.
According to recent figures provided by DfID, 5.9 million people in Ethiopia were in need of food provided under the UN's World Food Programme in January 2002. By December of that year, the figure had doubled with 11.3 million people being identified and a further 3 million people at risk. This rapid increase is an example of how quickly widespread drought can impact on a highly vulnerable population.
My noble friend Lord Freeman, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, all referred to the important role that the British Government have
84
played in providing humanitarian support. In Ethiopia alone, £17.3 million has been provided bilaterally for humanitarian assistance during 2002 and an additional £15 million has been pledged for the early part of 2003.
We on this side of the House hope that the contribution that Britain is making to support the humanitarian crisis in East Africa will encourage others to act. However, my noble friend Lord Freeman is correct to focus the attention of the House on the efficient deployment of any aid that we provide. Therefore it is vital that with any humanitarian crisis, the situation is constantly monitored as it unfolds so that any assistance given is not only timely but is also the most appropriate to the country's needs.
What systems have the Government put in place to ensure that food is distributed efficiently in order to reach those most in need at the time they need it? I hope that the Government will continue to keep the humanitarian situation in Ethiopia under review and involve international and non-governmental organisations in this monitoring. In the case of Ethiopia, what measures have the Government taken to maintain in-country dialogue on the humanitarian situation between the Ethiopian Government, other donors and non-governmental organisations?
As I have outlined, the provision of food is vital to the short-term relief of the humanitarian crisis in the region. However, while it is important that we respond to the short-term humanitarian crisis, it is important, too, that we examine opportunities to provide longer-term solutions to the situation without forgetting to find ways of reducing the risk of future humanitarian disasters.
It is with regard to that that I turn to the situation in Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania, where the need for humanitarian assistance also exists. At this stage it would be remiss of me if I did not mention one of the finest organisations in this field. My noble friend Lord Freeman mentioned the importance of aid efficiency in East Africa. The Aga Khan Development Network, known as the AKDN, is one of the major contributors and does the most outstanding work in that area.
The AKDN comprises private development agencies to improve living conditions and opportunities in East Africa and other specific regions of the developing world. It has individual mandates that range from health, education, and the built environment to rural development, infrastructure and the promotion of private sector enterprise. It works in close partnership with governments, DfID, NGOs, private sector institutions, communities and individuals, maintaining always the strictest neutrality and remaining independent of all political allegiances. Its education services provide schooling of quality to over 10,000 students in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda, from the pre-primary through to the secondary level. The Aga Khan University Institute for Educational Development is supporting those efforts. The Aga Khan University has also established campuses in those three countries.

85
Kenya has extremely high levels of poverty with over half of the population living below the poverty line. The situation is worsened by the spread of HIV/AIDS, as we have heard, which continues to pose a major threat to the development of the country. However, as we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, we can take some comfort from recent political developments with their election results providing an important opportunity to achieve reform in Kenya.
With regard to aid accompanied by reform and education, I ask your Lordships' indulgence as I mention education yet again and especially the importance of education for women. I feel that the lack of education is one of the major roots of nearly all these problems. Education offers one of the best hopes for lifting many in the region out of poverty. We on this side of the House back the Government in their support of the new Kenyan administration to drive forward policies on poverty reduction, including their commitment to provide free primary education and to combat the spread of HIV/AIDS.
We also recognise, however, that humanitarian assistance and good governance alone may not be sufficient to tackle some of the deeper-rooted causes of poverty in the region. The heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC) initiative, as mentioned by the right reverend Prelate, has been described by the inspired president of the World Bank, Mr James Wolfensohn. He said:
"This is a breakthrough … It deals with debt in a comprehensive way to give countries the possibility of existing from unsustainable debt. It is very good news for the poor of the
HIPC is aimed at bringing about a reduction in the debts of some of the poorest countries. Noble Lords on all sides have recognised the damaging effects of unsustainable debt on efforts to reduce poverty in these countries and therefore the importance of providing access to the HIPC scheme for heavily indebted countries.
In January, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, stated that many countries that have been through the scheme are still in a position of unsustainable debt. I ask the Minister whether it is still the case that 15 countries have not even reached their decision point. In other words, a third of heavily indebted poor countries have received no debt relief under the initiative. I further ask whether the Minister agrees that there must be a radical revision of the terms of the initiative, so that more countries can qualify for debt relief in 2003.
Finally, I turn to the political situation in the region as a whole. Corruption has long played a role in diverting resources away from those most in need of aid. In the past we have often heard reports of large quantities of donated food being siphoned off by corrupt administrations and either stockpiled or sold off. I ask the Minister what measures we have in place to ensure that any aid that we send to the region reaches those for whom it was intended? Equally, so much of the humanitarian crisis in East Africa over the past decade has been exacerbated by conflict in the
86
region which has considerably reduced access to water, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Freeman, the ability to grow crops and increased competition for already scarce resources.
In 1984 a state of civil war existed in Ethiopia that significantly impeded the ability of the international community to direct available resources to relief. I hope therefore that noble Lords will support the view that the best way to tackle famine across Africa is by the international community looking forward and working with African countries to end the cycle of corruption, economic stagnation, war and all the problems with water that condemn so many Africans to poverty and famine.
8.6 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, for opening this important debate and I pay tribute to the noble Lord's work with the Busoga Trust. I thank him for his positive comments about the work of DfID in East Africa. I also thank the noble Lord and the right reverend Prelate for their kind comments about my work.
This debate has underlined the enormous challenges faced by the 90 million people in the three countries of East Africa: Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda. I shall also talk about Ethiopia, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings. They are all desperately poor countries. In Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda we have an average per capita income of between 270 and 350 dollars a year. The challenge in each is to achieve sustained economic growth and to deliver the benefits of that to the poor, reducing the numbers living in abject poverty and providing basic education, good healthcare and decent livelihoods for all.
Debt relief and increased donor support provided by the international community have had a significant effect. All noble Lords mentioned the heavily indebted poor countries initiative. The Government continue to play a leading role in delivering debt relief for the world's poorest countries. So far 26 of the 37 eligible countries have qualified for debt relief under HIPC, the aim of which is to ensure that debt is cut to sustainable levels in the world's poorest countries. Six of those countries have reached completion point and received full debt relief. The remaining 20—I think the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, said there were 15—are receiving interim relief ahead of a debt write-off expected in the coming few years.
The United Kingdom continues to push for increased debt relief, where necessary, through so-called topping-up at completion point because we are concerned at countries coming out of HIPC with unsustainable levels of debt. Topping-up is provided on the basis of individual assessment of the country's need. We continue to be vigilant in ensuring that the international financial system offers the right blend of debt relief and concessional loans or grants for countries that have shown commitment to sound economic policies and poverty reduction strategies. I can assure the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of

87
Portsmouth that we will remain committed to the debt relief agenda and to long-term sustainable development in Africa.
The right reverend Prelate mentioned the debt relief situation in Ethiopia. We are working very hard with the World Bank and the IMF to address problems of Ethiopian debt, as the problems are due to shock beyond Ethiopia's control. That has happened in a number of countries, where they are unable to assess how much they will get in terms of commodity prices. We are very conscious of the debt sustainability problem in Ethiopia.
The noble Lord, Lord Freeman, talked in particular about water, as did other noble Lords. We are committed to the millennium development goals, one of which is to halve the proportion of people living in extreme poverty by 2015. Another seeks to halve the proportion of people without access to safe water by 2015. We have worked very hard to win international agreement to the sanitation target at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg last year.
It is true that it will be very difficult to attain all the goals related to water and sanitation, particularly in Africa and particularly the target on the supply of safe drinking water. There is no internationally agreed target on sanitation. That, of course, is regrettable, but we pushed very hard for it, because the challenges in sanitation are even greater than for water. We are working to build an effective response, through the international system, to support developing countries in achieving the MDGs. Our goal in the water sector is to enable poor people to lead healthier and more productive lives by helping to increase and to sustain their access to safe drinking water and appropriate sanitation.
We currently support a number of multilateral initiatives, including the Global Water Partnership, the World Bank Water and Sanitation Programme and the Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council. We also support bilateral programmes in many countries in the developing world, including Uganda, Nigeria and South Africa, but also countries in Asia. The recent 3rd World Water Forum in Kyoto has been useful in maintaining momentum towards implementation of the Johannesburg commitment. There has been a strong reaffirmation by all countries of the commitment to water for poverty reduction.
On the specifics of water supply in Uganda, rural water coverage increased from 40 per cent in 1990 to 46 per cent in 2000. The figures for global water coverage in the same period were 44 per cent to 50 per cent. In Tanzania total water coverage was 48 per cent in 1990 and 54 per cent in 2000. We look at water policies in Tanzania in the context of our overall support for the poverty reduction strategy process. Water is regarded as one of the fundamental areas for improvement there. We discuss that regularly with the Government in an attempt to influence policies and to bring about improvements.
88
The noble Lord, Lord Freeman, asked about value for money in Uganda. Our policy thrust is to improve accountability for all public expenditure. We are encouraging a strong role for the directorate of water development in Uganda. A big thrust is to improve auditing and to measure performance. We are confident that improvements are beginning to be demonstrated that will flow to all in terms of water management.
The noble Lord, Lord Freeman, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Rawlings, mentioned corruption. Corruption is a severe problem and a constraint on development in most developing countries. Experience demonstrates that corruption thrives whenever there are weak systems and that much past corruption has originated from bribes offered by companies from OECD countries.
We are collaborating with governments and other donors in the region to strengthen systems, particularly in the public sector, in order to reduce opportunities and incentives for corruption and to increase effective sanctions. In Uganda, for example, a joint Foreign Office/DfID anti-corruption strategy has been agreed with the Government there, and it forms the basis of a common reform agenda. We are supporting the reform of central procurement and public expenditure management procedures. There are also financial tracking and value for money studies to monitor implementation and expenditure at district level. The move to budget support has, by reducing project management responsibilities, enabled DfID to become more engaged in the wider issues that form the root of inefficiency in expenditure.
I must turn to the countries that were mentioned. In 1998 and 2000, Uganda was the first country to benefit from the heavily indebted poor country initiative. The result has been annual savings of about 90 million dollars on repayments. All debt relief is directed towards poverty-related programmes in the Government's poverty eradication action plan. Those programmes have doubled, as a share of total discretionary government expenditure since 1997, rising from 18 per cent to 36 per cent. As was mentioned, Uganda is also a major recipient of aid. We provided approximately £55 million in untied grants in 2003, mainly in the form of direct budget support to the Government.
The trend of reform so far is positive, and the results are clear. Uganda has maintained a high rate of growth—6.3 per cent in 2001–02—against a background of falling commodity prices. The proportion of the population living in poverty has fallen dramatically, from 56 per cent in 1992 to 35 per cent in 2000. Social indicators have improved, with primary school enrolment almost trebling between 1996 and 2000, and the incidence of HIV/AIDS has fallen from 20 per cent in 1992 to 6.1 per cent in 2001.
The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, asked how we could carry the lessons of Uganda into our work in other countries. What we have learnt from Uganda has informed our strategy in other countries, and we continue to examine success stories in other countries

89
that we can build on. There has been an increase in health funding at district level, leading to an expansion in out-patient attendance, which is up 40 per cent between July 2001 and June 2002, and immunisation coverage, which is up from 48 per cent to 63 per cent by June 2002.
Those figures demonstrate development gains from which we should all take encouragement. At the same time, Uganda faces significant challenges over the next few years. Conflict and insecurity in the north, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, continue to hamper poverty reduction. Tensions in the region have risen in recent months. Defence expenditure has exceeded the limits agreed with donors, and that is one of the reasons why our assistance to Uganda last year was less than had been planned. Looking ahead, major political reforms will be needed to introduce a multi-party system, before the 2006 presidential and parliamentary elections. Tackling those challenges will be key to maintaining Uganda's impressive record of development success.
The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, mentioned Tanzania, the poorest of the east African countries. It has received debt relief and increased donor support, based on the Government's strong commitment to poverty reduction. Last financial year, the United Kingdom provided approximately £65 million in untied grants, mainly in the form of direct budget support, through a joint funding mechanism with 10 other donors.
Given that this is just the third year of the strategy, it is too early to identify the extent to which moving our resources into budget support in Tanzania has helped. However, we are beginning to see some results. There has been an increase in economic growth; the net primary school enrolment ratio has risen from 59 per cent in 1990 to 85 per cent in 2002; and there is also evidence that maternal mortality is reducing significantly. The supply of safe drinking water has improved in rural and urban areas. The Tanzanian Government face major challenges, including building their capacity, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and that of local authorities to deliver the poverty reduction strategy. It is important that they do not to slip back into debt.
The position in Kenya has, until recently, been different. Kenya has had the advantage of lower levels of debt and has not needed debt relief, but, for many years, it has been a difficult environment in which to work effectively. The failure of the previous government to implement promised reforms gave the international financial institutions and ourselves no choice but to suspend budget support. We had, however, a £30 million programme, focused on four areas: a multi-donor civic education programme; work to improve the management of public services; fighting HIV/AIDS; and a private sector programme helping to reduce the burden of red tape, which also helped to tackle corruption.
As soon as the new government took office, they announced the implementation of universal and free primary education. More than 1 million children have
90
either returned to school or gone to school for the first time. Two weeks ago DfID provided an extra £10 million for textbooks and essential materials.
I turn to Ethiopia. The humanitarian situation mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, is serious, with 11.3 million people identified as needing food aid, and a further three million requiring close monitoring. We have made a substantial response so far £37.6 million since the beginning of 2002—and we have been urging others to contribute to the appeal. We attach the highest priority to constant monitoring of the situation, which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings. The Ethiopian Government have improved their own monitoring since the famine of 1984–85. That is why we have prevented a shortage turning into a crisis and we have had regular meetings with NGOs and others in Addis Ababa to discuss the humanitarian situation.
With respect to aid effectiveness, there is convincing evidence that the gains realised through partnership, fostered through the provision of general budget support, lead to development that reaches a far larger scale, and is more sustainable, than individual projects with their associated large transaction costs. I assure the House that having moved to budgetary support, it does not mean that we will not continue to work with NGOs on our longer-term development agenda. We are asking tough questions about NGO funding, but that is because we want to ensure the best means of achieving poverty reduction.
The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, asked me about the massacre in Ituri. This is absolutely appalling, especially given the signing last week of the peace process in Sun City about the DRC. I have issued a statement on this today, and the noble Baroness will be aware that my right honourable friend Clare Short has maintained a dialogue between the presidents of Uganda and Rwanda with respect to the tensions between their two countries in the DRC.
I have gone well over my time. I conclude by saying that tonight's debate has underlined that the challenges facing us are huge. Our continued support, and that of the international community, is vital to the millions of people in the region. We are committed to delivering this support, but leadership can be taken only by the governments of the region. That is now happening, and the combination of their commitment and our support is starting to deliver results. Those results show that debt relief and increased donor support are not wasted efforts. They can make a real difference to turning around the lives of poor people, and to giving them the prospects of a better future.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure for two minutes.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.23 to 8.25 p.m.]

Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 13, I should draw the attention of the House to a small mistake. The amendment should read:
"Page 2, line 20, after 'second region' insert"
the words printed on the Marshalled List.
Clause 2 [Referendum question]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 20, after "region" insert "with the reorganisation of local government into a single tier in those areas which currently have county and district councils"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 13, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 15. The importance of these amendments is to make it clear in the question on the ballot paper at the referendum that a vote for a regional assembly means single-tier local authorities.
Throughout the debate, we have believed that it is not enough simply to have an explanatory note. One is voting either for or against a regional assembly. However, when voting for a regional assembly, one is accepting that one is also voting for single-tier local government. It makes it more of an issue if the person casting the vote knows what he is voting for, rather than having an explanatory note—we know not everyone reads the small print—which states, "By the way, when you are voting 'Yes' for the question on the ballot paper, you are voting for a single-tier assembly".
We know from Divisions earlier today that there is likely to be a second question. It will therefore be interesting to debate how explicit that second question is. Those voting in areas where there are two tiers will be given two votes; the first for or against the assembly and the second as to which way they want to "die", as I said earlier. I accept that those in single-tier authorities, where the unitary authorities presently exist, should not be given an undue influence over rural areas. However, that fear is not removed because they will still have the overwhelming might to express their view and preference for or against a regional assembly. When the votes for a regional assembly in a unitary authority are coupled with the votes for an assembly in the rural areas—even if that vote for an assembly is a minority vote in the rural areas—the urban areas will still win out. That concerns us. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I understand the reasoning behind the noble Baroness's amendment. I believe that she is right; the words in question should be located where she suggests rather than as proposed in the Bill. However, the wording is not as clear to the average voter as it might be. I cannot think offhand how it can be made clear, except that there would be a marginal improvement if "both" were to be inserted before "county" in the second line.
It is important that those who have a vote should understand exactly what is entailed. My suggestion could always be incorporated at Third Reading and if
92
the noble Baroness were to press the amendment, I would support it. However, she might care to reflect on that.
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Blatch for speaking to the amendment on my behalf. We have discussed at length the form of the question. As my noble friend said, this matter needs to be rationalised into one question so that people understand completely what it is that they are being asked to vote for. They will be asked not only to vote for regional government or whether they want a regional assembly; they will be asked whether they want a regional assembly and the reorganisation of local government.
We tabled a different amendment on the last occasion in which we included the word "should", but the point remains the same; namely, that people should be very clear about what it is they are voting for. Therefore we believe that this amendment makes the matter much more rational.
I shall take up the points that have just been made. Perhaps we could consider those as well.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, we are not trying to hide the policy of introducing elected regional assemblies and single-tier local government. While I acknowledge the fears expressed by both noble Baronesses that people will not understand what is happening, given the debate and the information to be made available I am absolutely certain that they will.
The position has changed since these amendments were tabled. We have accepted Amendment No. 12 moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which means that there will be a second, separate question. So voters in a two-tier authority area will be well aware of the implications of voting for an elected assembly when they come to vote in a regional referendum. Furthermore, the Government have tabled Amendment No. 16, which we shall discuss in a later grouping. That amendment amends the preamble to the first question so that all voters will know that those in two-tier areas are being asked a separate question about their preferred option for a single tier of government in their area.
The preamble to the referendum question also alerts voters to the fact that, should an assembly be established, local government would be reorganised into a single tier in those areas that currently have both a county and a district council. I believe, therefore, that the amendment is unnecessary.
For the sake of completeness of the record I shall finish the point with regard to Amendment No. 15. The amendment would delete the second bullet point of the preamble to the referendum question. which informs the voter about the reorganisation of local government into a single tier in those areas that currently have both a county council and a district council, should an assembly be established.
As I have said, we have already accepted an amendment which means that now there will be a second question on local government reorganisation. I

93
have repeated many times that we are firm on the proposal that one tier of local government will be removed. That is an integral part of the package. No attempt is being made to hide the policy. I do not know how many times we shall have to make it clear on the ballot paper that there is to be only one tier of local government. Now that the second question has been agreed, it will be made abundantly clear to all concerned.
The amendments are not necessary because they would simply repeat what will be set out in the first place.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I should like to mention a point that has not been raised so far during the debate. Most of the people I know who live in two-tier areas will not want a unitary authority; they will want to keep two tiers. They will not want to choose from any of the three options and so they will vote "No" to them all. We could organise—indeed, I think we will do so—a write-in demanding to keep the status quo. What would happen if a write-in on ballot papers declaring the wish to retain the status quo exceeds the votes cast for any of the options? I do not think that people in two-tier areas such as Northumberland, Cheshire and Lancashire will vote for any of the options for unitary authorities. As we heard earlier, voters in those areas will want to retain the status quo. What will be the Government's view on such a result?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, that is a very hypothetical question to which I do not have the answer. To be frank, I just do not think that the electorate would operate in that way. If people do not want any of the proposed changes to the structure of local government, which would be directly connected to the choice as to whether they want a regional assembly—that is the most important point and will be uppermost in their minds—they will vote "No" to the referendum question.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, one issue arising from the second, preferential question, is that people may want to say no to that; they may not want a preference; they may say no to both preferences, or however many preferences there are; but say yes to a regional assembly. Will the regional assembly question be considered totally and utterly separately from the other questions? The idea that everyone will know that to vote yes to the assembly and no to the options will get them a regional assembly with their non-option—the option that they do not choose is—wrong.
Does the Minister really believe that voters in an area where there is a two-tier authority will know that those in an area with a single-tier authority will have a different ballot paper? That is just not the case. In the closest town to where I live in Cambridgeshire, there is sometimes an election for town councillors when the other parts of the district do not have one. People are completely unaware of that. They do not know about other people's ballot papers; they are simply given information about their ballot paper—pamphlets through the door and information from the political
94
parties about what they are expected to do at their polling station. They will be unaware of the other complexities of the proposed vote.
Now that the Liberal Democrats have supported the Government in saying that there will be a referendum and reorganisation of local government allied to it, it is important for the Minister either now or at Third Reading to make clear what will happen if people vote differently: either for a regional assembly but no to those preferences or, as my noble friend suggested, for a regional assembly but writing on the ballot paper that they do not want their local government to be reorganised but prefer the status quo. Will that be a spoiled ballot paper?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I realise that Members of the House do not get a vote in general elections, but they get a vote elsewhere. So the noble Baroness will be familiar with a ballot paper. Generally speaking, words written on a ballot paper mean that the ballot paper is not even counted.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, they sometimes are. I gave an example of that—it occurred in Reading, I believe—during earlier consideration of the Bill. The members of the political parties get together with the returning officer. If they come to the view that they know what the person filling in the ballot paper meant and that is agreed between the parties, the vote is accepted. In the case of my example, that ended up in court, the courts found against the result of the ballot and it had to be rerun. So I am sorry, but sometimes when ballot papers have strange markings on them they can be considered by the parties involved.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, that involved a ballot between people. I have been a counting agent as well as a Member of Parliament, so I know exactly what the process is. The returning officer will have a chart. One always thinks that one has covered every eventuality of what people could do to a ballot paper. There is a list, but someone always thinks of something new to do. People writing in—effectively discounting their vote, although I am not giving a legal view—are effectively abstaining on the second question. They will know the consequences of that, because it will be made abundantly clear to them that there is a choice of whether to use the second question: if people do not want to use it, that is their choice.
Baroness Blatch: Then, my Lords, I come to my last question. If they vote yes to a regional assembly but no to each of the preferences on the ballot paper, is that considered to be a vote for or against the regional assembly?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, for the individual concerned, there is one answer, but the total number of votes cast—the "Yes" votes and "No" votes to the first and second question—will determine the answer. There will be a majority. There is hardly likely to be a dead heat. I am not saying that that it is impossible; but

95
I certainly hope that it does not happen—especially now, having said that. The majority view will prevail. We have made that clear.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that was not my question. My question is this: if they vote for a regional assembly but against each of the options, that is a non-choice. They cannot have a regional assembly with no reorganisation of local government, but that is how they could democratically vote, having been given two separate questions. If they vote for a regional assembly but against all the options for reorganising local government, how will their vote be counted?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am sorry, I misunderstood the noble Baroness's question. She is talking about the total result of all the votes counted.
Baroness Blatch: No, my Lords, I mean the votes of an individual.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I have already answered that question.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord has not answered that question. Is it a spoiled vote or is it a vote for a regional assembly with no change to local government, because that is what the vote means?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, if people cast a yes vote for the first question in the referendum, it makes you wonder why they would vote no for all the options on the second question, voting for a regional assembly while knowing the consequences are for single-tier authorities. There are two separate referendums, so there are two votes. There is not a vote against the local government options. In other words, there is a vote for or against having a regional assembly. If the options are all dismissed, that would count as a no by an individual. There may be people, by the way, who vote yes for more than one local government option. What is the answer to that?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is the Minister's job, not mine. I have just been corrected by my noble friend Lady Hanham. As I understand it, there will be two separate referendums.
Baroness Maddock: Yes, there will be two referendums.
Baroness Blatch: Thank you very much.
That is a very clever way of saying to the people, "You have a choice between the Government's terms and the Liberal Democrats' terms, but you have no choice about whether you would or would not like to have a regional assembly, with or without a reorganisation of local government".
I now understand that there will be two separate referendums so votes will be counted separately on the assembly question and the other one. The more I think about it, the more of a confidence trick it is. I hope that
96
the Liberal Democrats will defend that in the regions. My goodness, the people there really need to know how the Liberal Democrats are preventing local people having a real choice of a regional assembly, with or without a wholesale change of their local government.
The Minister expects a great deal of the people. How does he think that doing it this way will make it easier or better for voters in an area? I noted his comments about my Amendment No. 15, and I will look at it again. I shall certainly take on board the point of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and will consider coming back on Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 28, insert—
" any regional assembly established will have no new powers and no new money, except for that which they raise by a precept from council tax payers in the region."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment seeks to put a new second bullet point in the preamble. It is straightforward, because it reflects the assurances which we have received time and time again from the Minister in Committee and previously at Second Reading. We have spent much time talking about the provision of information for voters and the need to make them fully aware of the functions and powers of regional assemblies and about the local government reorganisation which is part and parcel of the same package. This cannot all be left to the preamble, nor can it simply be posted in the polling station. We have heard about the information leaflets to be put through letter boxes to boost awareness in the campaigning weeks before a referendum. We support that as an essential element of the procedure of informing voters.
Amendment No. 14, however, is crucial for a number of reasons. It would state on the face on the Bill, in very few words, the text which must be inserted as a second point in the preamble and which reflects the fundamentals of the regional assemblies under consideration.
Leaflets through letterboxes more often than not get ignored. A draft Bill, which we discussed, if published before a referendum, although accessible to voters, may not be studied or noticed by them. We would like the preamble to state expressly that, as the Minister has told us many times, no new powers and no new money will be associated with regional assemblies. We did not know that for certain until we were assured of it a few weeks ago. Many of us were under the misapprehension that the assemblies might have new powers, although the misapprehensions were not very strong, because we kept on coming up against the same point that there would be no new powers. Voters may well think that they should vote "Yes" in a referendum, because it will mean that more funds will be diverted to their region.
I hesitate to mention the North East again, but there certainly is or has been a presumption there that the Barnett formula will be changed in the north of England's favour. It is very clear now that that is not what is being proposed. It would seem sensible, to say the least, if a referendum took place at any stage in that region, that people clearly understood—because it was laid out before them—that that was not an option. It is of the utmost importance that the reality should be made plain to every voter and set out clearly in the preamble.
Any additional funding will be possible only through precepting powers. Council tax payers would therefore bear the brunt, and they should know that before they vote "Yes" rather than hearing about it when they have made their choice. It might be helpful if the Bill pointed out that, where there are precepting powers, the 5p to which the Minister referred is not there for evermore. Voters in London were beguiled into believing that there was going to be a precept of 3p in the pound per week. They have been sadly disabused of that.
People believe that there is extra funding, and they should have it made clear that there is none. If it is not made clear, it may lead to resentment that they did not know what the facts were before they ticked the box. If people do not know the reality of what they are voting for, the validity of a vote in favour of a referendum is questionable. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: My Lords, although the amendment is excellent in principle and perhaps vital, I am again worried about the clarity and ambiguity of the wording for the voter. Nearly all of us understand the meaning of the word "precept", but it is realistic rather than patronising to suggest that barely half the electorate understand it. Would it not be an improvement and help the voter if the words "a precept" were deleted and "additional council tax" put in instead?
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am with the Conservatives with regard to clarity for the voter, but I am troubled by the precise wording of the amendment as a whole, not only the term "precept". I entirely agree with the noble Lord, but I would not have put the proportion who understand that term as high as half of council tax payers.
The phrase "no new powers" became a mantra at the last stage, but it was shorthand. The regional assemblies do not exist, other than as voluntary chambers associated with regional development agencies. There are no elected assemblies, so there is no such body that could have any powers.
Let us leave aside our arguments about how extensive the powers of the assemblies should be and simply consider what is said in the first bullet point, which relates to being,
"responsible for a range of activities".
There will have to be powers to carry out those activities, or even to respond to central government's points about those activities. It would be extremely
98
difficult to extend the powers of regional assemblies at a later stage, as we would like to see happen, if a referendum were undertaken on the basis that that could not happen, but one would have to read that into the proposals. I am concerned about precluding the possibility of tax raising or tax varying. I recognise that that issue may be even further in the distance, but I certainly would not like to rule it out.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the more we hear about the Lib/Lab version of what the Bill is about—we have not heard much which lifts the lid on a proper understanding of the Bill—the more it becomes a Trojan horse. If the Bill is passed in such a way that additional powers can be added, it really will become a Trojan horse.
The noble Baroness said that an assembly will be a completely new body and will need powers in order to carry out its functions. I have read and re-read the White Paper, Your Region, Your Choice. An assembly will have powers to talk about matters—it may become an advisory body, an arm of government, a talking shop—but if it is to have real authority it will need powers to take action and to decide and determine matters. I have asked the Minister hut, as open and as honest as he is, he has not yet given an example of a free-standing power to determine matters.
These powers cannot come from local government—we are told that no powers will be removed from local government—and we have not been told of a single real power which will be delegated down from national government. The assemblies may have "an influence on" or "a part to play in", but the words used in the document do not smack of powers. It would be helpful, if nothing else, if the amendment elicits from the Government and their bed partners, the Liberal Democrats, what is envisaged for the assemblies.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the amendment is defective in one or two ways. First, it states that,
"any regional assembly established will have no new powers".
However, if the Government believe in regional government, they should be giving many more powers to the regions. Those powers should not come from local government—I have made that clear on a number of occasions—but they could come from the quangos. It is disgraceful that in this country £50 billion of public money is being administered by people who are virtually unaccountable to the public at large and to people who pay their taxes.
If we are to have realistic regional government, which I do not believe in anyway, the powers of some of these quangos should be transferred down—preferably to local government but, if we are going to have regional government, to regional government.
The other issue that concerns me is that the amendment contains the words,
"except for that which they raise by a precept from council tax payers in the region".

99
I do not believe that they should have precepting powers. Time and time again I have said that precepting is the most irresponsible way of raising money. It raises money from council tax payers without being accountable to them. That cannot be right. When the precept comes in, the people who will take the blame will not be the elected members of the assembly but the elected members of the local council. That cannot be right.
In my area, Berkshire and Reading, the Thames Valley Police Authority was set up under the Police Act 1964, much against my will. I wish that we could have the watch committees back again. The measure was supposed to improve policing throughout the whole of Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire. However, we now have policemen in Reading having to ask the general public the way to wherever they are going.
The reason I mention the Thames Valley Police Authority is that it has just increased its precept by 41 per cent. The people who will carry the can are the local authorities. That cannot be right. Therefore, I believe that if these regional authorities are to be realistic, and if the Government are serious about them, they have to have their own money raising powers. They must be responsible to the electorate for spending that money. Any other way, frankly, just lets them off the hook, and that is not good enough.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I would not have spoken had it not been for the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. She seemed to say that she objected to the amendment as it would prevent the Government giving new powers to the regional assemblies. That is precisely what worries us. That is the justification for an amendment such as the one we are discussing. Are we really going to ask people to vote for regional assemblies when, at the drop of a hat, the Government could decide to delegate to them powers which at present are in the hands of local authorities? I certainly do not want to see that. If any justification for this amendment were needed, it is given by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who showed that she had in her mind the idea that in due course there should be given to the regional assemblies powers which at present are in the hands of local authorities. That is a horrible prospect.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I know that we are on Report, although not many of us have acknowledged that, but I must make it perfectly clear—I hope that I made it clear at an earlier stage—that we on these Benches do not envisage, and would not support, regional assemblies taking powers up from local government. We have said throughout that they should take powers down from central government and exercise powers which, as the noble Lord has just said, are in the hands of quangos at the moment.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the noble Baroness therefore agrees that she is unhappy with the amendment because new powers could be given to the
100
regional assemblies which are not envisaged at the present time by the Minister. Is that right or is that wrong?
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I hope that that is right, frankly, because this is the most defective clause of the Bill so far. We certainly hope that any regional assembly that is established will have new powers. That is why we want to set them up. Otherwise, what is the point of setting them up? I cannot think of a more negative matter to be put on a referendum sheet for people to vote on than this blinking clause. Of course regional assemblies should have powers; that is why we want them.
As regards the regional assemblies having no new money, I know the Minister has said that no new money will be available but there is such a thing as economic growth. We hope that in 10, 20 or 30 years' time economic growth might have produced a few more bob. There may well be some way—or it may be important that there is a way—in which some of that economic growth can be used by that tier of government, if that is appropriate. Obviously, that should not be done if it is not appropriate.
I have reservations about precepting council tax payers as that muddies the distinction between local government and regional government. I would hope that the regional resource comprised money from a different source than the council tax payer. But if there is no other possibility, perhaps it is right that a regional authority—I shall give way to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in a minute—should be able to precept as that would enable it to say that a matter was so important that it must have the resources o deal with it when that resource has not been granted by central government.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord is voting with the Government on many of the main parts of the Bill, including the power to precept. It is not good enough for the Liberal Democrats to say that they do not actually like the idea of precepting on local taxpayers, as in fact they are giving the Government succour in voting for exactly that.
9 p.m.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, there is all the reason in the world to have provision to do something. Whether one uses it is another matter based on whether there is subsequent cause. As I understand it, the Scottish Parliament has precepting powers on the taxpayers of Scotland. In its four years so far, it has decided not to use them. It has decided in its wisdom that it has the resources under the Barnett formula and everything else to cope with the governance of Scotland, and has chosen not to put extra money on taxation in Scotland.
I hope that the same will be the case so far as regional government is concerned. Even if it is not, I can see the point of having a backstop. If people want to raise money for their region that they think will be so valuable there, they ought to be able to say, "We

101
have the power to do this. If we can't get something from central government, we shall have to use the backstop power".
Lord Rooker: My Lords, two or three weeks ago, open negotiations were going on in this Chamber between the two opposition parties. Quite clearly, that little love-in has come to an end.
I honestly have more faith in the electorate and what they know than some speakers tonight. It is true that not everyone takes an interest every day in the minutiae of tax and government. Perhaps after Wednesday they might take a bit more interest for a few days. That is not a leak—I do not know anything. People are interested in what they are interested in. When someone says, "Oh, it's too complicated. The people"—meaning those who are not as clever as us—"don't understand", I say, "Hang on—I can't fill in a football pools coupon or read a knitting pattern". There are millions out there who can, because they want to—because they are interested.
These days, thanks partly to the efforts of the Conservative government as a consequence of bringing in the poll tax, councils are forced to explain in a much more clear and identifiable way how the money is raised and where it is spent than they ever were in the past. Frankly, they get better at it every year in terms of what they send to the electorate. Most of it might not be read, but it is made available to the public—to the taxpayers. If they are interested, they will read it.
Most of the ignorance that I have found about such matters is from some of the clever-clog journalists in this place. I remember someone—I shall not name him, because that would be unfair—who wrote a long piece during the poll tax row about the fact that council tenants did not pay rates, and so did not understand it. That is a classic example of gross ignorance. Someone simply made an assumption that was, of course, utterly wrong. He thought that he knew better, and that those outside this place did not understand what was going on.
It is very nice to see an attempt to place my words in the Marshalled List. The last time I had an amendment stuck in a piece of legislation was 1977, and I am not looking to replay that. I am very flattered, because the point—no new powers, no new money—is finally being conceded in principle.
I freely admit that I have deliberately sought not to overplay the role of the regional assemblies. No one can accuse me of overplaying that. On the other hand, it would be quite unfair if it were thought that I were downplaying their role. It is not as though they will not have any powers. They will take powers from central government, its agencies and quangos, and will have responsibilities in some key areas, such as housing, jobs, planning and transport. Elected assemblies will bring decision-making under closer democratic control and offer the regions a distinct political voice. That is a very important aspect of the package.
It is true that, compared with regions without elected assemblies, assemblies will not receive any additional money other than what we have outlined—
102
that is, small help with the initial set-up and running costs and in relation to the precepting power. However, they will be responsible for significant budgets and have influence over the expenditure of a range of public bodies in the region. Additionally, the elected assembly will have flexibility in how to spend that money—enabling it to change priorities, to address the priorities that it thinks are greater and to bring democratic control over the allocation of that money. So while it is true that there will be "no new money, no new powers", it is untrue that there will be "no money, no powers". As I said, the assemblies will not be service delivery agencies.
The preamble which sets out the responsibilities of the assembly is more informative than Amendment No. 14. As I have repeatedly said, before any referendum, the Government will issue a statement setting out our proposals for elected regional assemblies. I am not able to give the details of the contents of that statement, but as I have repeatedly said, people will not go into the polling booth without knowing what they are voting for and, more to the point, the consequences of what they are voting for.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister will oblige the Liberal Democrats by incorporating in an amendment at Third Reading a clear statement that there will be no question of the delegation of powers to regional assemblies from local authorities. As the Liberal Democrats have said that that is their policy, perhaps—if the Minister would be kind enough to table an amendment to that effect—they will for once follow their opinions with their votes.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, this is where we part company with our colleagues. As I have also made clear, we have no plans to take statutory powers from local authorities and to give them to the regional assemblies. That is the Government's policy. That is the position. We do not need to include that in the Bill because it is something that we do not intend to do. We have made it clear that we are not taking powers from local authorities and giving them to the regional assemblies. We have already had debates about that and I am happy for the opportunity to make it even more abundantly clear.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, absolutely nothing in the Bill prevents that. Those powers could come from anywhere. The Minister said, "No new powers", but the Government have been equivocal about it. They said, "We said no new powers, but of course they will have powers to do X and Y". The Liberal Democrats have said that they want new powers. The noble Lord, Lord Shutt, wants to give them lots more new powers. As my noble friend Lord Waddington said, the Government seem to agree absolutely that no powers whatever will be taken from local government and given to the regional assemblies. The Liberal Democrats seem to agree with that. If that is so, point me to the part of the Bill that prevents the regional

103
assemblies assuming local authority powers. In fact, the noble Lord has already mentioned one such power—housing.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, none of the statutory housing powers held by local authorities will go to the regional assemblies. I have already made that clear. There is no authority to do it. It is government policy that that will not happen. The point is that the assembly cannot take the powers. The assembly will not have the statutory authority to take powers from local government. As has been made quite clear in the legal definitions affecting these bodies, local authorities' statutory powers belong to local government.
Basically those statutory powers cannot be removed from local government unless this House and another place agree to remove them. That is the point. The elected regional assemblies will have no power of their own to take powers from local government. I cannot spell it out any clearer than that. The Government have no policy to change that. Let there be no doubt about that, either in local government or in this House, between the various parties. The statutory powers of local government will remain with local government—and I hope that that note does not say the opposite.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am sorry to ask the Minister to give way again, but he must surely understand our concern about this matter. Certain powers have already been taken away from local government and given to the regions; namely, planning powers. Surely the Minister can understand how much happier we should be—the Bill contains various provisions allowing, for instance, for statements on the ballot paper as to what will happen if people vote "Yes"—if he could be a little more forthcoming and say that in some way or other the Government will state plainly that there will be no more transfer of powers from local authorities to the regions such as the Government have already carried out in the case of planning. We are surely entitled to that.
Lord Rooker: Yes, my Lords, but I have answered this point at least three times. The changes in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill before another place have nothing whatever to do with elected regional assemblies. Those changes will take place if this Bill disappears tomorrow and is not brought back. It is not a consequence of this Bill. This Bill relates to regional referendums; it is not about the powers of the regional assemblies. There will be another Bill for that.
Planning is a fair example to raise, but the context is totally wrong. The question has been raised of assemblies taking powers from local government. That cannot happen; they have no power to do so. It is not our intention that local government will lose statutory powers. It can lose statutory powers only as a result of an Act of Parliament. In a way, the planning Bill is a good example, but it is not dependent on this Bill. The
104
planning Bill stands on its own. If this Bill completes its passage and there is a "No" vote in a regional referendum—so that there is no new main Bill—the planning Bill changes will still take place. They have nothing whatever to do with this Bill.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, that will not wash. What the Minister is really saying is that, as a result of the transference of powers through the planning Bill, if this Bill completes its passage, the regional assemblies will actually have control of planning.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the point is that it has nothing to do with elected regional assemblies. One assumes that if one or two regions hold a referendum we shall be in a position, implicit in the Bill, where some regions may have an elected regional assembly and others will be without an assembly, so there will be differences in that respect; but planning powers will go to the assembly, elected or unelected. It has nothing to do with the Bill. If this Bill were not before Parliament the powers would still be transferred.
That is true in some respects; where there is an unelected element, in relation to some of the decisions that would normally come across Ministers' desks—many Members on the Benches opposite have been Ministers and know some of the minutiae that come before them—Ministers would still be accountable to Parliament, and rightly so. Ministers would still have to agree those decisions. But the planning Bill has nothing to do with this Bill. Under the planning Bill, the powers will change, in the modest way proposed in that Bill, whether or not there is an elected regional assembly. So it is not a fair example to use—and there is not another one.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, will the Minister give way? He makes much of the fact that there is a particular intention in the Government's mind. If he casts his mind back to our first day in Committee, he will recall an argument between myself and his noble friend Lord Evans of Temple Guiting about the word "directly" in the phrase "directly elected regional assemblies". I quoted the Prime Minister's introduction to the White Paper to him. I could have turned the page and quoted the Deputy Prime Minister's foreword. Both referred to "directly elected regional assemblies". In responding, his noble friend Lord Evans said:
"Things have moved on since the Prime Minister made his introduction".—[Official Report, 13/3/03; col. 1493]
If we cannot trust the Prime Minister's word in the introduction to the White Paper, why should we trust anything else in the White Paper as being cast in stone?
9.15 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, that is a red herring. As was made clear at the time, nowhere in our law does the term "directly elected" figure. That was the answer. The argument was whether members were directly

105
elected or additional members. It was nothing whatever to do with the point just made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, fortunately the Minister has recognised his own Rookerism, in that his words have been quoted back to him in full; that is,
"Any regional assembly … will have no new powers and no new money".
I remember the Minister saying that very firmly and very strongly on at least four occasions in Committee. Of course, he tried to explain it, but clearly he has not explained it so well that we can put the possibility out of our minds.
However, we cannot have it two ways. The White Paper says that there will be no new powers—we accept that that is precisely right—and no new money. I accept, as the Minister says, that regional assemblies may be able to generate money from within their budgets, but, as it stands, there is no new money. The status quo will remain. The Minister may now be wishing that the Bill had been in draft form before we started on this. It would have saved him an awful lot of time and hassle.
However, that did not happen, so we are still picking away at what people who are going to vote are likely to ask. Before they vote they will want to know what on earth these regional assemblies are going to do and where on earth the money will come from in order to do it. To have that on the face of the Bill would be realistic. Certainly, it would be the Rookerism that I expected to see there.
Indeed, we now have another Rookerism—that statutory powers of local government will stay with local government. Perhaps that can be put down, please, in as bold a type as we have got, that we,
"will have no new powers and no new money",
because that now needs not to change either. It has been very firmly stated that local government will carry on doing exactly what it is doing.
Presumably, that is local government as reorganised. It is not local government as it is now because that would not make sense. The functions and powers of local government will have to be reorganised. We do not know how that is being done and we have not had any information on that at all—although I think that the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would ensure that there was information about that as well. I think that we must hope that that is what will count.
It is abundantly clear from listening to their aspirations that the Liberal Democrats, in particular, do not accept that there will be no new powers from anywhere. That is what the Minister said, but the Liberal Democrats do not accept that. Not only have they caused us today to have a great raft of amendments which are now on the table but unsupported, but they also have a completely skewed idea of what regional assemblies will be about. All their arguments today seem to have been made under a completely false flag.
106
I think that these are some of—
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. Does she understand and accept that we take a degree of comfort from the Written Answer given to her noble friend Lord Caithness as far as additional powers are concerned?
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, you may indeed. But those powers will have to come from somewhere if, indeed, they come. However, that is not exactly what is said in these words. I still believe that those words are prophetic; that they should be there; and that they give an outline to the whole of the proposals that are before us on whether a referendum is held on regional assemblies. Whether a referendum is successful on regional assemblies will depend, to a large extent, on what people understand those regional assemblies are going to do. As we have said, the Minister is always straightforward. I am prepared to accept what he says—that there will be no new powers and no new money. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 2, leave out lines 31 and 32 and insert "Voters in those parts of the region are being asked a separate question about their preferred option for a single tier in their area."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, having accepted the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, providing for a second referendum question, there are certain changes that we need to make to the Bill. First, we need to provide that both questions appear on the face of the Bill and that the text of the questions and preambles reflects the new reality that, in some parts of a region, voters will be faced with two questions. Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 do that.
The questions are, of course, inter-linked. It is important that voters understand that and, in voting for or against a regional assembly, or for a particular form of unitary local government, that they know the implications of voting in the way they do.
Amendment No. 16 changes the preamble to the first question on regional assemblies. It makes it clear, in particular, to voters in areas that already have unitary local government, that voters in other parts of the region are being asked a separate question about local government structure. It also makes it clear to those in two-tier areas that there is a second question.
Amendment No. 17 provides for that second question. It cannot do so in detail, as the options on which people will be asked to vote cannot be known until after the Boundary Committee has completed a local government review of the region. But it does provide for the form of the question—quite simply, that voters should be asked which of a number of options they prefer. It also provides a preamble which makes it clear that voters' choice of unitary structure will matter only if there is a "Yes" vote on the first

107
question; and that if, following the referendum, no regional assembly is established, there will be no reorganisation of local government.
If those amendments are accepted by the House tonight, we shall write formally to the Electoral Commission about the questions and preambles. We shall listen carefully to their views and to the views expressed in the House tonight and, if necessary, we shall come forward with amendments at Third Reading to ensure that the questions for regional and local government referendums held under these provisions are clear and intelligible.
As I have already said, what we cannot do on the face of the Bill is to set out in detail the options with which voters will be faced in the second question. Amendment No. 17 therefore provides the Secretary of State with an order-making power, so that the detailed text of the options can be approved by Parliament before the referendum. It is highly likely, depending on the complexity of the reorganisation options, that we shall want—indeed, shall need—to make available to voters at the time that they vote a certain amount of supporting material so that they can make sense of the options they are voting on. That is not material on the conduct of the referendum, which will be provided for separately. Instead, we are talking about material relating to unitary options that we might need to make available to voters along with their postal ballots and at polling stations; for example, maps showing the various options.
So the orders that we lay before Parliament will contain the text which will appear on the ballot paper and will detail the supporting material that will be available. Before laying such orders, we shall consult the Electoral Commission about its views on the intelligibility of the options to be inserted in the question and on the supporting material. We shall let Parliament know the views of the commission at the same time as we lay the order. These amendments are essential to the second referendum question. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Minister has just said that the Electoral Commission will be given the question and the preambles in order to decide whether they are sufficiently clear for a voter to understand. He also said that the supporting material would be submitted. If the supporting material is in such an advanced state, would it be possible for noble Lords to see it before Third Reading, or before the Bill completes its passage through Parliament? If what we hear is right, that there is likely to be an announcement about the soundings and about the first, second or even third parts of the country that are likely to have a referendum on the basis of the evidence so far, that must mean that the supporting material is in a lit state to be seen. Can we see some copies of that?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am sorry; there is a misunderstanding. I am trying to speed up, but I had to stick to the wording on this point so there was no deviation.
108
There are two references to consulting the Electoral Commission at different times. The second reference about consulting the commission on supporting material would apply only before we laid the order. We would have more information at that point. We are not holding anything back from the House at present. The first contact with the commission—writing to it formally subject to the progress of the Bill—relates to the questions in the preamble. It is different from consulting the commission on the intelligibility of the options to be inserted. We cannot consult the commission on that until we are ready to lay the order, which is a considerable time away. The two references to talking to the Electoral Commission involve contact separated by around 12 months.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that clarifies the matter. It makes clear that there are two separate exercises. The noble Lord also said that people would be aware of the link between the two questions, but they are two separate referenda. They are not linked in that sense. There will not be two questions on a ballot paper or in a single exercise. In what way can people he expected to understand that their vote in the second referendum has a link with the vote in the first?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, through the information that they will receive. The exercises will be carried out at the same time. The confusion is probably my fault. The noble Baroness, when she asked the question originally, seemed to imply that the ballot paper would contain the two questions. She asked about voting "Yes" in the referendum and "No" to three options, say, as though that would be counted en bloc as being part of one ballot paper. If that happened, we would get a load of ballot papers containing one "Yes" and three "No" votes. That is not the issue. There would be separate counts for the first and second questions. The linkage breaks because the votes are counted separately. I thought that that was the obvious approach. Having listened to how the noble Baroness asked the question, it is conceivable that one could have a series of ballot papers containing the two issues en bloc. It will not be done in that way. The votes will be counted separately.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, without going into the merits of Amendment No. 17, surely the wording is plain wrong. The last paragraph of subsection (2B) states:
"There will be no reorganisation if an elected assembly is not established. Your part of the region currently has both county and district councils. You can help to decide how local authorities in your part of the region"—
The next words should not be
"will be reorganised into a single tier"
but
"should be reorganised into a single tier if there were to be an elected assembly".
Clearly, that must follow.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am sorry, but from what paragraph is the noble Lord quoting?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I quote from subsection (2B) of Amendment No. 17. We are talking about what should happen if there is a vote in favour of a regional assembly. It must be wrong to say in the last paragraph of subsection (2B):
"There will be no reorganisation if an elected assembly is not established. Your part of the region currently has both county and district councils".
if the amendment then continues:
"You can help to decide how local authorities in your part of the region will be reorganised into a single tier".
The provision reads as if the die is cast. The Government mean to say, "You can help to decide how local authorities in your part of the region should be reorganised into a single tier were there to be an elected assembly".
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall take advice on that. Although the sentence,
"There will be no reorganisation if an elected assembly is not established",
would stand on its own at the top of page 2, as printed on the Marshalled List it is part of a paragraph.
Clearly, it is important that people know that if there is a "No" vote in the referendum—what I shall call question 1—there will be no local government reorganisation. I made that absolutely clear. This is not a Trojan horse to get local government reorganisation.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, in that case, it should read "should".
Lord Rooker: My Lords, irrespective of what it should read, I shall take advice on the matter. It may be that that sentence should be placed elsewhere. It would probably be better if that sentence were at the end of subsection (2B), standing on its own, rather than mixed up between the first paragraph and the second. It forms part of a paragraph.
The sentence stands on its own, and we make that clear. We must go to the Electoral Commission to consider the intelligibility of the wording and have it checked. That is the point that I make. The wording will not be rammed through. The commission has had no opportunity to be consulted.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am happy for the noble Lord to take the amendment away and examine the grammar.
Lord Rooker: Yes, of course.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 2, line at end insert "(2A) The question to be asked in a referendum in pursuance of section (Local government referendums)(2) is:
110
"Which of the following options for single tier local government do you prefer?
insert text of options set out in the order requiring the referendum to be held."
"(2B) The following statement (in as nearly as may be the following form) must precede the question on the ballot paper used in any part of the region where a referendum is held in pursuance of an order under section (Local government referendums) (2):
"If an elected assembly is established for the (insert name of region) region, it is intended that local government will be reorganised into a single tier in those parts of the region that currently have both county and district councils.
There will be no reorganisation if an elected assembly is not established. Your part of the region currently has both county and district councils. You can help to decide how local authorities in your part of the region will be reorganised into a single tier."
(2C) An order under section (Local government referendums)(2) must set out—

(a) the text of the options to be inserted in the question specified in subsection (2A);

(b) such explanatory material relating to the options as will be made available for voters at the time they vote.

(2D) Before an order under section (Local government referendums) (2) is laid before Parliament in pursuance of section 27(2) the Secretary of State must consult the Electoral Commission—

(a) on the wording of the text required to be inserted in pursuance of subsection (2A);

(b) on the explanatory material.

(2E) At the time when the order is so laid the Secretary of State must lay before each House a report stating any views which the Commission have expressed in response to the consultation as to—

(a) the intelligibility of the text mentioned in subsection (2D);

(b) the explanatory material.

(2F) Explanatory material does not include instructions to voters as to the conduct of the referendum."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Entitlement to vote]:
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 2, line 36, at end insert—
"(1A) A person is entitled to vote in a referendum held in a county area of a region in pursuance of an order under section (Local government referendums) (2) if on the date of the referendum he is entitled to vote at the election of councillors for any electoral area in the county area."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 18, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 19 and 20. The amendments are essential to give full effect to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to which the House has already agreed. Amendments Nos. 18, 19 and 20 define the voting franchise for the second question, the question about which option for unitary local government is preferred, should an assembly be established.
Amendment No. 18 provides that only those entitled to vote in local government elections in the county area concerned will be able to vote on the second question. So, those living in the existing unitary areas will not be able to vote on the second question.
Amendment No. 20 provides that the phrase "county area", for the purpose of Clause 3 and the voting franchise, has the same meaning as set out in the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. In the main, a county area will be the existing area of a county council, which, of course, has both district councils and a county council. Subsection (4) recognises that some of the proposed options for single-tier authorities may mean reorganisation across county council boundaries. In such a case, for the purposes of this Bill, all county areas affected may be combined into a single county area. Voters in the combined area will vote in a common referendum on the local government structure of the combined county areas.
If the Government's proposals for local government reorganisation include an option that spans county boundaries, the county area is the combined area of each of those county areas. So, voters in the combined area will vote in a common referendum on the local government structure of the combined county areas.
Amendment No. 19 is consequential on Amendment No. 18, so that subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 3 apply to regional referendums and local government referendums. Subsection (2) enables provision to be made by the Secretary of State in regulations for disregarding alterations made after a specified date in a register of electors.
I know from previous debates that many of your Lordships agree that only those living in the areas that should be affected by local government reorganisation should be able to vote on the matter. I hope that your Lordships will see the need for the amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, as the amendments relate to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I am astonished that she has not risen to speak. As regards the question of whether those who live in the county and districts should be those entitled to vote in the election, I remain of the same view. We are in a difficult area, but, if we must carry on with this farce, I support the proposal that the only people who should be able to vote are council electors.
The concern that the county and district areas will be overwhelmed by the metropolitan areas relates to the first question, not the second. The question is whether a regional government could be forced on those in county and rural areas by the metropolitan areas, as a result of a vote on the referendum. The second question, drummed up by the Liberal Democrats, does not solve their problem, which they dealt with in Committee. It may respond to the Government's, but it does not respond to theirs. That is one of the reasons why I was very surprised to see the amendments that had been put forward. Those are my observations if we have to go ahead with this charade. I do not think I can add any more.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, perhaps I can help the noble Baroness. For people living in Berwick-upon-Tweed, as I do, if under the original system there
112
had been a vote in a regional referendum, then all the people in the unitaries would have voted, and they would not have cared two hoots what reorganisation of government we had had in our area. Now, the people in Berwick-on-Tweed may have two or three options upon which they can personally vote in their area. Nobody in Newcastle is telling them that that is the sort of reorganisation that they have to have in local government.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, for explaining that rather more clearly than I could have done.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendments Nos. 19 and 20:
Page 2, line 37, leave out "subsection (1) is" and insert "subsections (1) and (1A) are"
Page 3, line 3, at end insert—
"( ) County area must be construed in accordance with section (Local government referendums)."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 5 [Referendums: frequency]:
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 3, line 9, leave out "This section" and insert "Subsection (2)"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this group of amendments relate to the question of what happens in the event of a successful legal challenge to a local government referendum. Amendments Nos. 21 and 23 relate to Clause 5. Amendment 23 provides that if there were to be a successful challenge about the result of a local government referendum, then the Secretary of State would be able to order a repeat local government referendum to be held. However, a repeat regional referendum would not necessarily have to be held at the same time.
For example, it is possible to envisage a situation where the local government referendum in one county area is successfully challenged—but the overall results of the regional referendum is not in doubt because there is a majority in favour. However, the amendment would not allow a repeat regional referendum without local government referendums at the same time. That is because we believe that if there is a doubt about the outcome of what I will call referendum one, the key referendum, held across the whole region, there must also be doubt about the results of the local government referendums in parts of that region.
Subsections (3B), (3C), and (3F) of Amendment No. 23 ensure that the proposals set out in the Bill regarding local government referendums would apply to any such repeat referendums. Subsection (3D), however, only requires the Electoral Commission to comment on the intelligibility of the referendum question, or on the explanatory material provided for voters if they are different from the versions it commented on when the order for the original referendum was made. Subsection (3E) enables the order for a repeat local government referendum to be

113
varied or revoked if the Secretary of State thinks that it is not appropriate for the referendum to be held on the date specified in the order.
Amendment No. 21 is consequential on Amendment No. 23. Amendments Nos. 38 and 40 relate to Clause 10. Together they ensure that the existing Clause 10 provisions also apply to local government referendums. I urge noble Lords to support these important and necessary amendments. They are absolutely fundamental to the changes that have taken place in the Bill. Having moved Amendment No. 21, I will move the other amendments in their appropriate places.
I am trying to save time and not repeat myself. I also want to enable a better understanding of this group of amendments. The implication of what I have said is that issues can be challenged in court. In our debate on Clause 10, the ouster clause, a view was taken that that might not be possible—although I said that it was up to the courts. There is no doubt that this is a complex legal area. We do not believe that the courts will remove themselves from examining serious challenges, but it is true that Clause 10 looks like a blanket ban, as we discussed in Committee. We shall therefore come hack at Third Reading with an amendment relating not only to fraud, the subject of our debate in Committee, but to the type of legal challenges that can be made and the type of court which will have jurisdiction and/or a time limit for bringing proceedings.
Given the wider changes that the House has agreed today, it is important to make that point about Clause 10, although we have not yet reached it, on the basis of my comments on other amendments and on court challenges. At Third Reading, I shall put forward a government amendment to Clause 10. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I wish no disrespect to the Minister, but what he read and said in his extemporaneous comments is about as clear as mud. I spent a good deal of the weekend looking over this set of amendments and I intend to send it to the Plain English Campaign. I have never read such legal gobbledegook in my life.
I shall quote from just one paragraph. Subsection (3A) states:
"If an order is made under subsection (3B) any reference in this Act to a referendum held in pursuance of an order under section (Local government referendums) (2) or to the order must be construed as a reference to a referendum held in pursuance of an order under subsection (3B) or to the order under that subsection (as the case may be).
I do not know what that means. I read it, re-read it and applied it to the Bill. I am afraid that I did not understand it.
If the Minister is still telling me that the words on the page in Clause 10 state:
"No court shall entertain any proceedings",
I take it literally that no court shall entertain any proceedings for those purposes. Therefore, when the Minister tables these amendments and says that they invalidate our understanding of Clause 10 and that the
114
courts will be able to entertain proceedings of some or all complaints, I need a better explanation than the one he has just given.
The Minister spoke of challenges to the local government elections, but there may also be challenges to the assembly elections. It is not inconceivable that there is a challenge to the part of the referendum relating to soundings or the regional assembly elections. Given that we arc told by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, that there are two separate referendums in order to establish answers to the two different questions—albeit that they may take place on the same day—it is possible that either or both will be challenged. They may be challenged in a particular electoral area, or throughout the whole regional area, or co-operatively or separately, but that there may he a challenge is beyond doubt. To date, there have been challenges in local and national government and European elections.
I do not understand what is proposed in the Marshalled List, nor do I understand what the Minister said in his explanation. We are fortunate in having Explanatory Notes to the Bill, but we are unfortunate in having no explanatory notes of these amendments. As regards their knock-on effect to Clause 10, I really do not understand that.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene on that point. There appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding here. Clause 10, the ouster clause, which has appeared in all the other Bills, applies only to referendums. It has nothing to do with the elections of people. The noble Baroness referred to assembly elections, which concern people being elected. First, tinder election law, there is a normal process for any challenge to election proceedings. Secondly, a separate Bill will come to the House. Thus for the noble Baroness to join up her fair argument and dispute over the ouster clause with the assembly elections has got to be a non starter. The ouster clause is unique to referendums for the reasons I have already explained and the reasons set out by other Ministers when the other Bills were debated.
Results from referendums bring up certain consequences; namely, the setting up of new bodies, the introduction of legislation and so forth. So there is no connection whatever between Clause 10, the ouster clause, and what might happen in the elections to the assembly. This is unique to referendums.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it was the noble Lord who introduced the connection between the amendments and Clause 10, not I. I did not understand what the noble Lord was saying. I have read Clause 10 a number of times and it certainly does say that:
"No court shall entertain any proceedings for questioning the number of ballot papers … in a referendum".

115
However, when the noble Lord left his briefing notes behind and began to extemporise, he made a read-across to Clause 10. I wondered what on earth that meant.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am sorry, but I did not do that. I said that Amendments Nos. 38 and 40 relate to Clause 10. Together they ensure that the existing provisions in Clause 10 also apply to local government referendums. We have to ensure that the ouster clause covers the referendums; namely, the second question to be put covering the nature of the choice of the form of local government. That is the point I sought to make.
I was trying to be helpful. I indicated that, having looked at Clause 10 to ensure its clarity, we are looking to bring forward further clarification at Third Reading. As I have said, I was seeking to be helpful and to meet the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness. By the way, it will be much better when the Bill has been reprinted, incorporating the amendments.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am sure that a further amendment at Third Reading will be helpful. I must say that I should like to have the opportunity of buying tickets for the forthcoming sparring match between the Minister and the parliamentary draftsman, who no doubt will say that we cannot change wording that we have used before because it has established meanings and so forth. Nevertheless, it will be helpful to have further clarification.
As I understand the position, it is not possible to oust the court's jurisdiction entirely. At the previous stage we referred to fraud, bad faith, the requirements of natural justice and so forth. No doubt we shall come back to the matter, but I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will do what he can to clarify these points.
It is important that the wording in the Bill is as clear as possible. I did not have quite as much difficulty with Amendment No. 23 as appears to have been the case for the noble Baroness—perhaps I did not read it often enough—but that may simply reflect a lifetime of bad drafting on my part.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am glad that I am not the only one who found it difficult to understand these amendments. While the Minister clarified some of my concerns in the course of his remarks, obviously one must then read them in the written word, and I know that we shall return to the matter at Third Reading. I look forward also to seeing at that stage the further clarificatory amendments.
Can the Minister clarify a point for me with regard to new subsections (3B) and (3E) in Amendment No. 23? Under the terms of subsection (3B) the Secretary of State may make another order and set a date for a further referendum, while under the provisions of subsection (3E), he could wake up the next day and say, "I did not like that date very much. I shall change
116
it". First, under what circumstances can he change the date, and who does he have to account to for such a change? Secondly, would the Minister refresh my memory on the time-scale between making an order and the date of the referendum? What period are we looking at for the Deputy Prime Minister to change his mind under the terms of subsection (3B)?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall have to take advice on that. As I understand it, 10 to 12 weeks is the period of the referendum campaign—the campaign to the start of the poll—but I shall have to take advice on that.
There would have to be good reason for changing a date that had been specified in an order. That might be if there was a parliamentary by-election in an area and it was thought to be inappropriate to mix the two together, or that it was appropriate to arrange the two elections so that people did not have to go to the polls on two consecutive weeks. Such things may occur outwith the normal processes. A good reason would have to be given for such a change of date, but that flexibility for convenience exists in current legislation for other elections.
In connection with another Bill, we are changing the date for next year's local government elections so that they coincide with the European parliamentary elections—just for convenience, so that the public are not asked to vote twice in a month but can vote for both on the same day.
However, I think that the period between the order and the referendum was fairly lengthy—from memory, from debate in Committee, I think that it is about 10 weeks. While I am on my feet—I should like to go home soon—I should like confirmation that the noble Earl has received the Parliamentary Answer that I said that we would not adjourn without; I shall not adjourn the House until he receives it.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may respond to the Minister: no, I have not yet received the Answer, but he has my permission to adjourn the House if he so wishes, provided that I receive it first thing tomorrow morning.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Match Baroness Match moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 3, line 15, leave out "five" and insert "ten"
The noble Baroness said: My noble friend Lord Hanningfield was to move Amendment No. 22, but has gone away poorly this evening, so I stand in for him. We discussed the issue in Committee and feel strongly about it. We know that if a referendum takes place and is lost, but only marginally, it will be tempting for the Government to want to rerun the exercise. We also know the laborious nature of the exercise which, as the noble Lord has told us several times—and we take him at his word—will take a long time. The soundings exercise takes quite a time, followed by the Boundary Committee exercise, which takes even longer, and there is then the production of all the materials.
The Boundary Committee exercise cannot simply be rerun as it was the first time around; it will be an entirely separate exercise and so must all be done again. If a referendum can be held five years to the day after the first referendum, activity to enable the second referendum might need to begin about two years after the first one.
Earlier, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, spoke about the uncertainty and real anxiety felt by employees of local authorities—district and county councils—during such exercises especially when, as now, there will be two or three options. Every conceivable permutation of whether the counties or districts go, whether some districts are merged or some county councils are merged with districts, must be covered. Whatever may be the configuration for local government reorganisation, at least leading up to the first referendum, that will provide about two and a half years of uncertainty.
We already know that nerves are jangling in the North East at the thought that the Secretary of State may name it as the first area. We know, too, that people who are thinking of applying for posts there are wary of doing so until they know exactly what will happen. Once that call has been made and the referendum is set in train, there is a period of about two and a half years of serious tension while all the work is carried out. At the end of that period is a referendum, which may be lost, and that is the point of my amendment.
If, at the end of that time, the referendum is lost, whether by a small margin or a reasonably healthy majority, it is still possible for a future Secretary of State, or even the same one, to say that he would like to start the exercise again. To allow for a referendum to take place within five years of the first date, there would be a respite of no more than two to two and a half years before the whole thing started again. I really believe that is unhealthy and would like to think that even the Liberal Democrats would agree. An area could have gone through the nervous tension this exercise entails, only to vote "No", and could then find that it was being revisited. After all, the Government have specified five years for a reason—it allows for a revisitation within a very short time of the referendum being determined. I believe it would be almost immoral to do that to any region of our country. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I support the amendment. It is one of the most important on the Marshalled List. I do so not with any detailed knowledge of the sharp end of local government reorganisation. However, having listened in Committee to those who are actively involved in local government and have been through the process of reform, I have been convinced that, as my noble friend Lady Blatch has said, there is a long period of anxiety and concern when the local government focus is not on providing services for local people but on fighting one's corner to protect one's job, or other people's jobs, and not concentrating on the main issues.
118
We discussed this at length in Committee. There was some dispute as to whether it was the making of the order or the referendums. What is clear now is that it is five years between referendums. Therefore, one has only a short period of stability of, say, two to three years maximum, before a further referendum can be called by the laying of an order. I believe that to be too short a period. I am sad that the noble Baroness. Lady Scott, is not in her place on the Liberal Benches. She spoke about the concerns on this matter, as did my noble friend Lord Hanningfield. I hope that the Minister, who I thought had some sympathy with our point in Committee, would have given this further thought by now. We need to return to this on Third Reading if we do not deal with it now.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Blatch and my noble friend Lord Caithness, but with a further dimension. It was always said in terms of unspoken contracts in particular areas of employment that, until the 1970s, if you were a hanker, because you were absolutely confident you would keep your job until you retired, you were prepared to settle for a more modest salary than might have been the case in more risky employment. It sounds as though the proposition before us, to which my noble friends have spoken, carries a different consequence. I am not arguing that local government officers are better paid or less well paid than anyone else, but the one certain thing, as sure as God made little apples, is that if a high degree of uncertainty is introduced into their career pattern, it is likely that, in order for people to work in those jobs, the salaries demanded will rise.
10 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. There is no question that five years is much too short a time. What concerns me is that governments, whether of this country or of Denmark or the Republic of' Ireland, for example, never want to take no for an answer. If the people vote "No" and the government want them to vote "Yes", the government say, "We'll keep on having referendums until you do as we want". That is the problem with this provision in the Bill.
There is no provision for people, once they have said "Yes", to go back and say "No". There is provision only for people to say "Yes". Five years is far too short a period between referendums to enable people to understand what is happening. I also believe that people sometimes vote for things on the basis of what they are told, and on propaganda, which may not always be true. They trust other people, particularly governments—they tend to trust governments. When governments say, "Regional government is good for you", they tend to agree and vote "Yes". But when they have the experience and see how the regional authority is working and that more money is being taken from them, that the salaries of the new regional representatives are higher than they believed they would be and that there has been absolutely no benefit and perhaps much deficit from the new regional

119
authorities, they may want to go back. But there is no provision for that in the Bill, which is why I support the amendment.
I do not know whether the amendment will go through tonight. If it is not, perhaps it could be brought back at Third Reading.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, in my experience, the greatest stress for staff in local government in the past several years has come not so much from uncertainty about structural change, except for the executive scrutiny split—it has always concerned me that that has a knock-on effect on how officers feel about their powers—but principally from the loss of powers to local government over many years. Changes occur all the time.
I share the concerns expressed about the effect on staff. However, I do not suppose that the Government would want the grief of going for a second order if they believe that they will lose again. I am sure that the Minister could address that point more forcefully and clearly than I have done. Things may happen during a short period of time. One region may see that there are benefits in a nearby region. One has to bear that in mind. Also, if the possible boundary changes that we have discussed come on offer, that could make a considerable difference to how voters in a region regard the proposition.
I hope that the Minister can respond on those issues. The points that noble Lords have raised are genuine enough, although when we started today's debate I made the point that we approach questions from a different perspective from that of our colleagues on the Conservative Benches.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I want to address the employment aspect of the amendment. The loss of powers to local government, while significant, is a perennial worry that concerns everyone, whether a member or an officer, in local government. Whatever the realities of the situation, the fact is that local government's independence and authority have been constantly eroded for a very long time. That is a matter of immense regret. If one could see a reversal of that trend it would be a very good thing. We are dealing here with the possibility of change. If the change does not happen, let us say next year, the process can he revived again within five years.
My experience goes back to 1967 when a Royal Commission on the structure of local government was established. From that moment on, a dedicated team of the best intellectual brains in the local authority with which I was concerned—Essex County Council—worked to provide evidence to the Royal Commission to maintain the status quo. The process took 18 months or two years. The Royal Commission then produced its report, the consequences of which were recommendations for drastically radical change. My noble friend Lord Brooke may well remember that period. The proposals for change in 1972 were implemented in 1973. The whole process took five
120
years and, throughout that time, there was foment wherever there was two-tier county and district local government.
We are now proposing to introduce a state of permanent foment unless the electorate succumb at the first bite. It will not be good for the provision of services to the public if the best intellectual strengths of any local authority are not certain of what they are doing. Instead of devoting their efforts to improving the services that they are properly required to provide to the people of the area they serve, they will be looking over their shoulder and either trying to defend their position or to see how they can improve their position in the event of change. It does not matter which way round it is, this uncertainty will detract from the provision of services to the public that the authorities are established to provide. That is a significant aspect of the Bill.
With a five year rotation, as the Bill presently proposes, people will suffer most in those swathes of the country—the shire areas—where there are county and district councils. Their services will not improve in the way that they would improve if that distraction were not there. I cannot support the five-year proposal. A ten-year proposal is better, but I would prefer an even longer interval.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, my noble friend behind me has reminded me of another sequence of dates where uncertainty existed. We do not want to create uncertainty—I am sure that we will not do so—but I am reminded of what happened to the metropolitan counties. There were elections in 1972; they were introduced in shadow form in 1973 and came into force in 1974. The Tories then fought a general election in 1979 on a plan to abolish them. I cannot remember the exact date in the mid 1980s when they finally went, but there was a considerable degree of uncertainty after the 1979 election because the plan took some years to carry through.
That does not mean to say that two blacks make a white. We are not going to go down that road. We must be absolutely clear what we are talking about. The amendment refers to a region where there has been a "No" vote. We are not talking about regions which will not go ahead with an assembly, let us say, after the first soundings. I do not know what the gaps will be hut, obviously, if the first soundings produce a referendum or two and one of them is successful, a Bill will be brought in anyway. An assembly will not be up and running immediately. Other regions will not be able to see how it is working until it is up and running. We have said that we would not be able to deal with too many referendums at the same time.
We are talking here about a situation where soundings have been taken, a judgment has been reached that a degree of interest was shown in a referendum on local government but there was a no vote. Such a situation would be traumatic. I can envisage the headlines in the next day's papers now.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I have not started yet, but go on.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that was precisely my case. I made no case for the "Yes" vote. I said that my amendment referred only to a "No" vote. Therefore, this discussion is otiose.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, six speakers have addressed the matter. There were references to the other regions. I want to make clear that I am responding to the amendment to which the noble Baroness spoke.
I understand that exactly the same amendment has been dealt with in another place. I do not have any new arguments. However, we do not want uncertainty to arise. We would not wish to incur the excessive costs involved in holding many referendums, particularly in areas where there had previously been a no vote. Views may change over time as areas that voted "No" see what is happening in areas that voted "Yes". However, I do not know whether that will be the case.
Under the Bill once the five-year period has elapsed, a second referendum can take place where soundings have again been taken to test the level of interest in a subsequent referendum. The five-year period is a minimum period; it is not a requirement. The noble Baroness referred to a period of five years exactly to the day of the previous referendum. That is inconceivable.
A noble Lord—I forget who is was as I did not write down his name—mentioned uncertainty after a period of two to three years. A second referendum cannot take place within a five-year period where there has been a no vote. We are committed to taking soundings. For a second referendum to take place, the soundings would have to be more decisive than the soundings that triggered the first referendum.
Speaking from memory, I believe that the soundings started in December and continued until March, although they are still open while the Bill is proceeding through Parliament. It would be wholly unreasonable to start taking soundings after two or three years as a second referendum could not take place within the five-year period. One would need to be at the four and a half years point at a minimum—that is allowing six months for soundings—before one could hold a referendum bang at the end of the five-year period, or thereabouts. That might be held to be unreasonable in some circumstances. Nevertheless, it might happen. However, the soundings are the key to the matter. As I say, to trigger a second referendum they would have to be more decisive than the initial soundings. It would be terrible to get a yes vote according to soundings and another "No" vote in a subsequent referendum.
Let us say that one allows six months for soundings. In a period of four and a half years after the first referendum took place there cannot be any conceivable worries and doubts other than those that exist anyway as in that period there could be a change
122
of government, in which case everything could change. One cannot argue that there is never anxiety about jobs in the public sector. It is usually the top dogs who are most worried as they get the cream when reorganisations take place. However, I do not want to start a debate on that matter at quarter past ten at night.
During that four and a half year period there could be a change of government. A new government with different policies could take office. What is the difference between the doubt and uncertainty that people experience in that period and that which they experience anyway? That doubt is always there with regard to an organisation that is run by people who hold elective office. That is inevitable.
The idea that further soundings on a subsequent referendum could start after two to three years is nonsense. Pol Pot talked of constant revolution. We are not proposing revolution for a start and we are not proposing constant change. Therefore, if the soundings took six months as opposed to three months, nothing could happen for four and a half years. As I say, in four and a half years there could be a change of government with all the doubt, upset and worry or joy that that can bring, depending on whether one is on the winning side.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord makes light of the matter. Something like three-quarters of what he had to say was, "Oh, it's unlikely that this would happen. If there were a 'No' vote, would anyone come around? Would we go through it again? What pain there would be if we went through all of the work to end up with a 'No' vote". We have made those arguments all the way through our proceedings on the Bill.
It is only a matter of hours ago that the Government and the Liberal Democrats refused to accept a referendum taking place on the basis of evidence suggesting that there was the probability of a "Yes" vote. In other words, it would be responsible of the Secretary of State to take the view that, on the basis of the soundings, there was not just a level of interest, wholly undefined—it could be little or nothing—but a level of interest that suggested that if people went ahead with a referendum there was likely to be a "Yes" vote. The Government have set their face against that, so we are back to not knowing what a degree of interest—the noble Lord used those words—or a level of interest would be. We are still at odds over that.
The noble Lord will at least admit that activities in that fourth year would have to take place ahead of a referendum. He said that everything was unlikely to take place within five years. If so, what have the Government to worry about? What is the worry about an extension? Perhaps 10 years is simply too long between referendums, so seven years might he better. Four years in the life of a local government is not very long. It is almost a parliament, as the noble Lord said, and governments come and go, which makes things even more uncertain. If he is right that there will not be

123
an assembly up and running until 2006, there will be a general election before that, which will create its own uncertainties.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was partly sympathetic to what we said, but said that in her view the greatest worry to local authorities was about their powers. Using previous local government reorganisation examples, probably we should all learn the lesson that the tensions created are about jobs, and not only the top jobs. A very sophisticated network operates for the top jobs, but it is the people in the middle band of workers who have great difficulty.
We know that regional assemblies will be centred on headquarters hundreds of miles from some of the present local authority workmen and women, whether they work for district or county councils and depending on the shape of the reorganisation. We know in purely logistical terms that thousands of people will be affected, whether in the area with 8.5 million people or the area with only 2.5 million. The landmasses in some of the areas are very considerable, and the sheer logistics will make it impossible for people to find similar jobs.
One really has to think of the scale of the problem. As we have said, it is likely that counties are more vulnerable than district councils, although there could be some very large merging operations between district councils. We are talking about very large numbers of people. I will not use the area that I know best specifically, because the noble Lord will say that he does not want to talk about individual areas; I simply use it as an example. If six county councils were to go in eastern England, the job losses would be huge. The upheaval would be huge. The passing-down of the functions of the county council to the districts would be very considerable.
The noble Lord will not be able to answer this point, because it is too hypothetical and he will probably say that my imagination is rather too fertile. We know that planning is already going—that is a free-standing operation coming through in a separate Bill. It is not unthinkable that education will go too, to the learning and skills councils. It is an easy move, much easier than the complexity of giving it to the unitary authorities—the district councils. The county councils would therefore wither on the vine. One can foresee some of
124
the consequences of this legislation. The Bill will trigger enormous concerns in local authorities, particularly in county authorities.
I think that the gap is too small. Although I shall think again about whether 10 years is too long, I believe that five years is too short. I think that it would be almost immoral for activity to take place in that fourth year. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 3, line 20, at end insert—

"(3A) Subsection (3B) applies if in any proceedings any certificate given by a person appointed for the purpose as to the number of votes cast in favour of any option in a referendum held in pursuance of an order under section (Local government referendums) (2) is declared or held to be invalid.

(3B) The Secretary of State may by order cause a further referendum to be held as mentioned in that section and for that purpose the following provisions of section (Local government referendums) apply as they apply for the purpose of an order made under section (Local government referendums) (2)—

(a) subsections (3) to (5);

(b) subsection (6)(a);

(c) subsections (9) and (10).

(3C) If an order is made under subsection (3B) any reference in this Act to a referendum held in pursuance of an order under section (Local government referendums) (2) or to the order must be construed as a reference to a referendum held in pursuance of an order under subsection (3B) or to the order under that subsection (as the case may be).

(3D) But subsection (3C) applies to such a reference in section 2(2D) and (2E) only to the extent that the wording of the text mentioned in section 2(2D)(a) or the explanatory material differs from that considered by the Electoral Commission for the purposes of the referendum held in pursuance of the order under section (Local government referendums) (2).

(3E) The Secretary of State may by order vary or revoke an order made under subsection (3B) if he thinks that it is not appropriate for the referendum to be held on the date specified in the order.

(3F) Explanatory material must be construed in accordance with section 2."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes past ten o'clock

  Human Rights Obligations
  Human Rights Obligations
  Northern Ireland: Queen's Counsel
  Northern Ireland: Queen's Counsel
  Northern Ireland: Barristers
  Northern Ireland: Barristers
  Lord Chancellor's Pension
  Lord Chancellor's Pension
  North/South Implementation Bodies
  North/South Implementation Bodies
  Northern Ireland: Sexual Offences
  Northern Ireland: Sexual Offences
  Northern Ireland Implementation Bodies: Business Plans
  Northern Ireland Implementation Bodies: Business Plans
  Questions for Written Answer: Northern Ireland Office
  Questions for Written Answer: Northern Ireland Office
  Pensions: Local Authority Members
  Pensions: Local Authority Members
  Satellite Terminals: Planning Regulations
  Satellite Terminals: Planning Regulations
  Fire Authorities: Risk Management
  Fire Authorities: Risk Management
  Prison Service Budget: Young Offenders
  Prison Service Budget: Young Offenders
  Destitute Asylum Seekers: Support
  Destitute Asylum Seekers: Support
  Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002
  Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002
  Asylum Induction Centres
  Asylum Induction Centres
  Life Satisfaction
  Life Satisfaction
  Motorway Driving
  Motorway Driving
  Leeds to Glasgow Railway Service
  Leeds to Glasgow Railway Service
  EU: Forthcoming Business
  EU: Forthcoming Business
  Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary: Visit to United States
  Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary: Visit to United States
  Electronic Communications
  Electronic Communications
  Educational Recording Agency
  Educational Recording Agency
  Workplace Smoking
  Workplace Smoking
  Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations
  Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations
  Asthma
  Asthma
  Iraq: Humanitarian Relief
  Iraq: Humanitarian Relief