Sitting of 13 March 2003

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

    University Admissions
    Dr. Vincent Cable: Whether the access regulator will set targets for university admission for (a) pupils from state schools and (b) pupils from working class back grounds. [102699]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke): No.
    Dr. Cable:Does the Secretary of State not acknowledge that loose and careless talk by Ministers about targets, quotas and benchmarks has caused a large number of pupils, and their parents and schools, considerable anxiety about the integrity of the university admissions system? Will he confirm that the access regulator will not approve schemes based on postcodes, parental occupation, accents or schools, but will concentrate on the academic merit of individual applicants?
    Mr. Clarke: We will publish our proposals for the access regulator, which will go through the various points raised in detail, in the next two or three weeks. I can confirm that access will be based on merit—and I reconfirm that it is not careless talk from the Government that has caused this issue to be raised; it is a series of misstatements and wrong views, attributed particularly to Bristol university but also to other universities, that wrongly describe the current admissions practice of that university. Much of the discussion about this issue is wrongly informed and fundamentally incorrect.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: Will my right hon. Friend continue to stand up to this wicked little campaign by the Daily Mail and others in the popular press—and, indeed, by the Liberal Democrats? The facts surely are that the Bristol innovation is aimed at finding the true potential of students to benefit from
    410
    higher education. Schools that gloss pupils up to get three A-levels cannot expect that to be the only criterion on which potential is judged.
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is correct in every respect. Bristol university is an excellent university, as are many others. There is substantial over-application for places, so it has to decide the best way to choose whether to accept the people who come through. It has rightly decided to consider the merit of the applicants and their potential to benefit. A great deal of academic research indicates that in certain circumstances, the capacity to benefit from university education is greater in people who come by non-traditional routes. I was at a conference of universities and others in Newcastle on Tuesday, and other universities expressed their own commitment to precisely the approach that my hon. Friend has described.
    Chris Grayling: One of my oldest friends from university—I went to Cambridge—came from one of the roughest working class areas of Salford. How does the Secretary of State think his children should be categorised if the access regulator considers the background of an applicant?
    Mr. Clarke: Fundamentally, those children should be categorised on the basis of their merit, achievement and talent. That is how it should be done, and that is how it will be done. As I said to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), the detail of the assessments to be taken into account is the subject of a paper that we will publish in the next two or three weeks.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Nevertheless, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that the access regulator is trying to increase the number of students from lower-income backgrounds who go to university. Many universities, especially those that I represent, are anxious to know what performance measures will be used. Can my right hon. Friend give us an indication?
    Mr. Clarke: I am sorry that I cannot do so today, for the reason I gave earlier: I will publish a paper on this subject in the next two or three weeks. In paying tribute to my hon. Friend's work to increase access to the university that she represents, I can tell her that many colleges of Cambridge university, and other universities, are working hard to achieve what she describes. The ambition of our proposals is to ensure that the good work done by some colleges and universities is done by all.
    Mr. Michael Jack: If he will make a statement on his guidance to universities on their admissions criteria. [102700]
    Miss Anne McIntosh: If he will make a statement on the number of 18 year olds going on to higher education in each of the last three years. [102703]
    The Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education (Margaret Hodge): Admissions are the responsibility of individual universities. They should

    411
    select applicants by merit, based on their potential to succeed. We encourage universities to use a wide range of measures to assess that potential.
    Mr. Jack: I welcome the Minister's comments and the observations made by the Secretary of State a moment ago. Nevertheless, it is clear that however accurate or inaccurate reports about Bristol university have been, young people are deeply troubled and confused about exactly how their applications for admission to university will be determined under the Government's new approach to higher education. Even though it may be the universities' responsibility, would the Minister please think about issuing some clear guidance to young people about precisely how their applications will be determined? Otherwise, they will be in a state of complete confusion.
    Margaret Hodge: As the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, it is not up to the Government to determine the admission arrangements for individual universities. It would be inappropriate for us to issue guidance. I hope that he will join me in ensuring that the misunderstandings that have been spread, not least by some members of his party, can be put to rest. Applicants should know that their applications will be judged on their merit and their potential to succeed at university.
    Miss McIntosh: What proportion of university applicants and those applying to university for the first time this year are aged 18? What are the Government doing to increase the proportion of those over 30 who enter university, and also to increase the proportion of people entering both full and part-time education, to enable her Department to meet its targets?
    Margaret Hodge: I do not have the figures for the proportion of university entrants who are 18, but I will write to the hon. Lady.
    Are we encouraging older people, and those who want to study part time, to go to university? Yes, we are, and the application and acceptance figures for those groups are very encouraging. We believe that as we encourage more people to undertake foundation courses, part-time study will become a way for older applicants to raise their qualification levels and hence their work potential.
    Valerie Davey: Does the Minister not think it incongruous that Bristol university is being accused of bias against the independent sector, when 39 per cent. of its students come from independent schools?
    Margaret Hodge: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who represents the interests of all her constituents, and of Bristol university, admirably. I understand that 40 per cent. of entrants to Bristol university come from private schools, and in those circumstances it strikes me as difficult to accuse Bristol of positive discrimination against students from such schools.
    Helen Jones: Is my hon. Friend as concerned as I am about the fact that not only at Bristol but at some other universities the proportion of young people from public schools is far in excess of the proportion of the population that they represent? Will she arrange for the access regulator to examine the admissions system, to ensure that while there is no bias against students with such a background, there is no bias in favour of them either?
    Margaret Hodge: The aim of the Government's policy is to ensure that all young people with talent and potential have an opportunity to realise their potential at university, whatever their background. The Government have a role to play in raising standards in schools and raising aspirations. We want universities to play their part and reach into communities to help us raise those standards and aspirations, selecting students on the basis of merit and potential.
    Mr. David Rendel: I am delighted to hear the Minister say that aptitude and potential should be the basis on which university students are selected. That is what my party has been saying. But given that A-levels are clearly not a particularly good guide to the degree class that students will obtain, can the Minister give some idea of the criteria that should be used to measure aptitude and potential? She rightly says that they should not be set by the Government, but it would be useful to have at least an idea of what they are.
    Margaret Hodge: I have been saying for a longtime that talent, potential and merit should enable people to gain university places and to succeed. As we have said, attainment at A-level must be one criterion in the assessment of who can succeed and who has the potential to excel, but it must not be the only criterion. It is not for us to prescribe the criteria that universities should employ; but Bristol is doing what Oxford and Cambridge, Nottingham, Leeds, Manchester and a number of other universities are doing in the case of a range of school leavers, and that is welcome. We will certainly keep those criteria under review.
    Vernon Coaker: If we want to widen participation in higher education, we have a real chance of doing so if we improve standards in some of our schools. More young people from all backgrounds will then be able to go to university. Should we not encourage those schools, and also encourage universities to support them, as Nottingham Trent already does?
    Margaret Hodge: I entirely agree with those sensible comments. Nine out of 10 young people with two or more A-levels currently enter university. If we want to change the composition of those who enjoy the benefits of a university education, we must work extremely hard to raise standards, achievements and aspirations in all our schools.
    Mr. Damian Green: It is extraordinary that the Minister and the Secretary of State do not recognise how widespread the anger about the Government's policy on university admissions is. Even Trevor Phillips,

    413
    the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality—someone as new Labour as it is humanly possible to be—has said:
    "The … consequence of a crude admissions policy will be simply to shut out large numbers of"
    black and Asian families
    "for their commitment to education."
    Does she agree with Trevor Phillips that under her Government, there is exactly that unfairness in some universities?
    Margaret Hodge: Both the Secretary of State and I have received enormous support for our attempts to ensure that everyone who has the potential to succeed at university gets the opportunity to do so, whatever their background. It is a fact that far too many people from minority ethnic communities do not have that opportunity to develop their full potential. That is why our policies in schools, our policies to raise aspirations and our desire to have fair and open admission policies in universities will ensure equal opportunity for all.
    Mr. Green: The hon. Lady talks about the welcome the policy has received, but last week she had to be slapped down by the Secretary of State when she let the cat out of the bag and said, with characteristic honesty, that the Government did intend to introduce targets for university admission from different social groups. Will she make up for that by announcing today that she is dropping the financial pressure that she puts on universities to meet the Government targets, and instead use that money better to encourage aspiration and excellence in secondary schools, which is the fair way to ensure that the right applicants get to university, whatever their social background?
    Margaret Hodge: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I completely agree on both the aims and the mechanisms that we are adopting to ensure that there is fair access for every individual in our community to develop their full potential, so that it is potential and merit, not class and background, that determine who gets a place at university. If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned to ensure equality of opportunity, he should be questioning the tax cuts that his party wishes to institute, which will lead to a lowering of standards and opportunity for all in our schools.

    Science Research Funding
    Hugh Bayley: If he will make a statement on his policy on science research funding in universities. [102701]
    The Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education (Margaret Hodge): The Government are committed to supporting and encouraging the highest quality research to ensure that we continue to compete internationally. We have recently announced the most generous research settlement for many years, with expenditure on science and research increasing by £1.25 billion a year by 2005–06 compared with 2002–03—an increase of around 30 per cent. in real terms.
    Hugh Bayley: I congratulate the Government on their generosity to the university of York in capital funding.
    414
    The university has responded, with biological scientists there winning more research funding per capita than any other university in the country, and gaining the highest scoring in research evaluation exercises—but York loses out on revenue funding because it is a relatively small university. Will the Minister look at that problem to ensure that universities are rewarded according to the quality of their research output, not just the quantity?
    Margaret Hodge: Like my hon. Friend, I congratulate the university of York on the high quality of its research and on its success in the recent research assessment exercise—but I do not recognise his figures. The figures that I have suggest that the university's research grant has gone up by £2,136,000 to £16,680,000 for 2003–04. I will,however, re—examine the moneys that have been received by the university from the Higher Education Funding Council to assure myself that the allocation is fair and just. I completely take the point that quality, not size of unit, has to be a factor in determining the allocation of research funding.
    Alistair Burt: Is the Minister not alarmed that universities appear to be equally concerned about the policy for science, as set out in the White Paper, and issues concerning access? How does she propose to resolve the practical problems surrounding recruitment to research if the base is to become smaller and more intensive, and the practical problems of collaboration in science, which badly affect university teams that may be currently small, but are excellent?
    Margaret Hodge: The allocation of research funding for HEFCE this year is the beginning of a move towards ensuring that we can support properly the most excellent and world-competitive research that is essential to the development of products and services. We are talking to HEFCE about how we put into place financial levers and incentives to encourage collaboration, not just across departments—to get interdisciplinary research working—but across universities so that where there is a small but excellent research capacity, it can be encouraged to work with other equally excellent research capacities in other universities.
    Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: A study reported in The Guardian today suggests that low pay among academics is a major cause of weakness in our science research base. Will the funding allocated by the Government directly address the problems of low pay?
    Margaret Hodge: We have given the most generous settlement to higher education in my living memory, with a real-terms increase of 6 per cent. in funding each year for the next three years. One of the reasons for the generosity of the settlement is that we recognize the issue of the pay of academics. If we are to recruit and retain the best academics in British universities, we must address pay, and we have put the resources in place to enable universities to start to do that.

    Local Government Settlement
    Bob Spink: What assessment he has made of the impact on school budgets of the local government settlement2003–04. [102702]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills(Mr. Stephen Twigg): The great majority of local education authorities have set budgets that will pass on to schools the substantial increase in funding that we made available in the 2003–04 settlement. Essex is among those who have said that they will not be passing on the full increase to their schools.
    Bob Spink: That is an outrageously complacent response, even from this Minister. Does not he know that the settlement leaves Essex schools with a funding gap of £7.5 million? How should schools accommodate that disastrous shortfall? For instance, should they employ more classroom assistants instead of teachers?
    Mr. Twigg: The hon. Gentleman should calm down. The Secretary of State has said that we expect Essex to passport the full amount in future years, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join the Gcvernment in urging Essex county council to do precisely that. I recognise that there are difficulties in some authorities and some schools, and we are receiving representations from them, including from some in Essex. But I should point out that since 1997 there has been a 37 per cent. increase in the money going to schools in Essex, and a trebling in the direct grants that go to schools in Essex through the school standards grant.
    Mr. David Kidney: Would my hon. Friend be interested in the outcome of a meeting of the F40 authorities in Stafford last week? It is fair to say that LEAs are still digesting the effect of the new formula on their finances, and are wrestling with a number of factors that have nothing to do with a change in the system—for example, falling pupil numbers, the new national insurance contributions and the extra contribution to the teachers superannuation scheme. However, of those 40 authorities, four left the campaign before the end and 11 have left the bottom 40 positions because of the change in the formula. The authorities have, responsibly, arranged a conference for the autumn, on 11 October, to take a dispassionate look at where we go next. I hope that a member of the Government will be able to support the conference at that time.
    Mr. Twigg: I am happy to agree to do that: I, or one of my colleagues, will attend that event. Inominate—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State, of course, does the nominating. He also allocates the questions, and I am delighted to be answering this one.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) clearly illustrates my point, which is that the local government settlement has had a different impact in different parts of the country. I reiterate that we recognise that the combination of factors that he describes creates difficulties for some authorities, and
    416
    particularly for certain schools. The responsible approach is for us to monitor that situation, and to keep in touch with local authorities in all parts of the country.
    Richard Ottaway: Does the Minister recall that when his Department last intervened in Croydon's education budget, that intervention was described by the Labour-controlled council as presumptuous, damaging and unnecessary? Does he agree that it is becoming apparent, however, that that intervention was not presumptuous, but very necessary? He will have seen reports in The Independent that Croydon's schools are threatened with a four—day week, and he will be aware of the crumbling schools and the cuts in respect of special educational needs. I urge him not to back off in a cowardly way, as he did last time, but to intervene, and to do so quickly.
    Mr. Twigg: We have indeed intervened in Croydon. I am delighted to say that as a consequence of my right hon. Friend's intervention, the amount of money going into schools in Croydon is significantly more than was originally proposed by the local authority. We want to ensure that the money that we say should be allocated to schools in Croydon actually reaches them, so that they can continue their excellent work to improve education standards.
    David Taylor: Parents, teachers and governors in Leicestershire are reasonable people. They were not expecting miracles from the new funding system—just a fairer share of the increased resources that our Government have given to education. Yet their authority is 150th out of the 150 local education authorities. Does the Minister believe that Leicestershire's position is merited by its mix of people and by the results that it is obtaining? Is it fair that schools in Greater Leicester but outside the city boundary, which receive 4,000 city children, are funded for those children at the county rate, rather than at the much higher city rate that they would otherwise have enjoyed?
    Mr. Twigg: I am tempted to say that I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards will give a little later to a question specifically about Leicestershire. However, I am aware of the issues in Leicestershire, and I have met head teachers there as part of a series of conferences for primary head teachers this term. Through the new formula, we have sought to ensure that pupils in identical circumstances in any part of the country are treated identically. That is what we have tried to bring about through the settlement, although it is clear that some authorities have gained more from it than others.
    Mrs. Eleanor Laing: The Minister will be aware that many local authorities are dealing with their budget problems by closing special schools. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon. Members may say no, but special schools are being closed all over the country, and more and more such proposals are being made every day. Do the Government not see that this way of dealing with budgets and education policy is potentially damaging to some of the most vulnerable children—the ones who need more care, not less? I am sure that the

    417
    Minister appreciates that this issue is very important to families with children with special needs. Will he undertake to impose a moratorium on the closure of special schools, pending an investigation into this cruel policy?
    Mr. Twigg: I am certainly aware that many authorities are looking at the nature of their provision for children with special educational needs. In some cases—but only in some cases—that may result in decisions to close special schools. Such decisions must be rooted in educational evidence and educational good practice, and I do not believe that there is any evidence to suggest that they are driven by a desire to save money, or are a consequence of the local government settlement. We want to ensure that there is inclusive education, and I am happy to give the assurance that special schools continue to have a role in that regard. However, circumstances will vary between local communities, and rather than imposing a moratorium centrally from Whitehall, we should let local communities decide, provided that they make those decisions in full consultation with parents and others concerned in their local communities.

    School Buildings
    Syd Rapson: What steps he is taking to improve school buildings. [102704]
    The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): Since 1997 almost £10 billion has been made available to meet priority building needs in schools. The Government have recently set themselves the aim of ensuring that secondary education facilities in every part of England are rebuilt and renewed to 21st century standards, while we continue to improve the quality of provision in primary schools. My written statement to the House on 26 February outlined a new approach to achieve that goal, starting with £5.1 billion available in 2005–06. We are now consulting widely on those proposals.
    Syd Rapson: I thank the Minister for his informative answer. Will he lend his support to the Paulsgrove and Wymering learning community project, which has replaced five elderly schools with one new multi-million-pound state-of-the-art facility that will enable the whole community to benefit from education, not just the children at school?
    Mr. Miliband: I think that I am right in saying that I met some of the parents, teachers and pupils from the Paulsgrove area when they came to the Jubilee Room to make a fascinating presentation about their education project. I am extremely tempted to make a friend of my hon. Friend by promising my support for his application to the private finance initiative round currently under way—but I fear that if I do, I will also make a large number of enemies. However, I promise that the application from Paulsgrove and Wymering will be taken seriously, as will all the applications for the current round of PFI funding.
    Mr. David Heath: I acknowledge the fact that schools' capital funding is
    418
    better now than it was during the deplorable previous 20 years. However, there is a still a huge backlog of work; across the country there are more than 20,000 temporary classrooms which should be replaced. When will we see a scale of funding that acknowledges that problem and establishes an organised replacement programme for temporary classrooms throughout the education system?
    Mr. Miliband: The hon. Gentleman was on firm ground with the first half of his question, and I agree that there have been major steps forward. He should know that this year about £3 billion is being allocated to capital improvement, but by 2005–06 it will be £5.1 billion, which is a major improvement by any measure. He is of course right that too many schools are in need of major investment—an investment to which we are committed. The plans that we announced a couple of weeks ago set out a bold vision for education investment on the capital side, and I think that the hon. Gentleman will see the benefits in his constituency, as we all will all over the country.
    John Mann: One of the most remarkable achievements of the past five years is the way in which primary school results in coalfield communities have been catching up with those in the rest of the country for the first time ever. On the allocation of resources, so that we can finish the job in secondary schools, will the Government take due notice of the fact that we have an over-representation of clapped-out buildings? Give us the buildings and tools, and we will finish the job at secondary level.
    Mr. Miliband: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his commitment to education and social renewal in coalfield areas. I think that I am right in saying that we may discuss the issue later this Question Time, and I look forward to that. I can assure my hon. Friend that his commitment is recognised and that the bids that are in at the moment will be taken seriously.
    Mr. Nick Gibb: How can schools in West Sussex continue to maintain their school buildings when, as a result of the second lowest increase in central Government funding and a 22 per cent. reduction in the school standards fund, they face a cut in funding of between £40 and£55 per pupil? Is it the Government's policy that West Sussex should be socially excluded from the Prime Minister's commitment to education?
    Mr. Miliband: It is very unwise of the hon. Gentleman to start talking about cuts in education when his own Front-Bench spokesman on Treasury affairs has committed his party to a 20 per cent. cut in Government funding for public services. He is unwise to venture into that area. I urge him to be extremely cautious about bandying around figures for cuts when every authority in the country was guaranteed an increase of at least 3.2 per cent. per pupil in the education funding settlement announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions in December.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: My hon. Friend is on record as saying that if children are to attain the best

    419
    possible educational standards they need to be taught in modern school buildings. The children in my constituency are being taught in some of the worst buildings in the country, and teachers are working hard to try to improve standards. When will my hon. Friend attend to the appeal made on behalf of the local education authority, governors and teachers, and myself as MP for Normanton, to ensure that we get the buildings that children are entitled to if they are to receive the best possible education?
    Mr. Miliband: My hon. Friend has been pressing the case for Normanton schools with real passion. Previously, he has put a similar question to my hon. Friend the junior Minister—[Laughter.] I mean my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg), who was doing such an able job earlier in allocating responsibilities. However, I assure my hon. Friend that the commitment that he seeks for his constituency is shared by the Government. We hope to come forward with our response in the not—too—distant future.

    Student Debt
    Sue Doughty: If he will make a statement on current and projected levels of student debt. [102705]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke): The average publicly owned debt of a borrower with a new income-contingent loan, entering repayment in April 2003, is estimated to be £7,240. Information on students' private-sector debt, such as overdrafts and other commercial loans, is not available centrally. The student income and expenditure survey 2002–03 will collect information on younger full-time students' current debt and expected debt on graduation.
    Average levels of student debt for future cohorts of leavers will depend on a number of factors, including average course length, the proportion leaving their course early, and the proportion of loan entitlement actually borrowed.
    Sue Doughty: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Is he aware that high levels of debt form a real deterrent to disadvantaged and low-income groups, such as the ethnic minorities, single parents and women? What assessment has been made of the impact of that debt on those groups?
    Mr. Clarke: I am aware that debt can act as a disincentive in precisely the way that the hon. Lady has suggested. A number of research projects, including some commissioned by my Department, illustrate the points that she makes. However, in connection with the higher education White Paper, it is important to set the debt issue against the fact that we intend to allow students to defer the up-front fee of £1,100, which at present they have to pay. We also intend to raise the repayment threshold to ਓ15,000—to make repayment through the tax system more affordable—to maintain the fee-remission scheme for students, and to reintroduce grants of up to £1,000, so that students from lower—income backgrounds have more money to live on.
    420
    Also, any debt incurred will of course be based on a zero real rate of interest, not the sort of rate involved in using a Barclaycard, or in a car loan or mortgage.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Many adults who enter university education have to give up jobs to do so. When they return to the labour market, they may not find jobs that are better paid than what they gave up, but they decide to go to university not to enhance their financial status but because their interests in education change, and they want to move into other things. Will not those people be deterred from making such a decision if they think that they will be left with debts that they might not be able to handle?
    Mr. Clarke: I accept that mature students enter university and higher education for a variety of motives that are different from those of people who go straight from school. That is one reason why the proposed £1,000 grant will go directly to independent students of the type described by my hon. Friend. It is also important to note that any debt repayment is entirely income contingent, with a £15,000 basic level. If the individuals concerned earn less than that when they go back to work, they have to pay nothing. If they earn, say, £20,000 a year, they will have to pay something of the order of £38 a month. As I said to the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty), I acknowledge that this is a legitimate issue, but I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that we are trying to take steps to deal with it.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: The Secretary of State has just mentioned the welcome reintroduction, proposed in the White Paper, of maintenance grants worth £1,000. However, the right hon. Gentleman knows that the Welsh National Assembly has already introduced Assembly learning grants of £1,500. What discussions is he having with the National Assembly to secure a transfer of responsibilities and funding in connection with student funding, to ensure that students in Wales are better off as a result of the White Paper, and not worse off?
    Mr. Clarke: We are discussing, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, the Wales Office and the Welsh Executive, precisely those questions. However, detailed work is being done to assess the financial implications of the sort of change that the hon. Gentleman suggests. It will be some time before we can come to a firm view on this and make the proper assessment. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that when we have come to that view we will publish the information so that people can see clearly the basis of any judgment that we finally make.
    Mr. Charles Hendry: Does the Secretary of State accept that the Government are impaled on a hook of their own making on the issue of student debt? Will he now drop his target of 50 percent. going to university—a figure rejected by most institutions, parents and students—which would be responsible for pushing up the cost of higher education by so much? Does he not understand that most young people want to go to university where they meet the academic requirements and do not want to be saddled with massive debts for years afterwards or to have their

    421
    admissions decided by a regulator who attaches more importance to their parents' income and education than to their own academic achievements?
    Mr. Clarke: The last point is total nonsense. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to suggest that the proposals to widen access to 50 per cent. of the population are not generally welcomed. They have been widely welcomed both by the higher education sector itself and by all those concerned with the future of the economy. That is for the very good reason that in future the competitiveness of the economy will depend on high-level qualifications, and jobs will be for people with such qualifications, rather than for people who leave school at 16. That is why we focus on that. I know that the Opposition want to shrink university education and go back to the days when between 6 and 8 per cent. of the population went to university, but that simply shows how out of time they are.

    Education Spending
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: On what basis he calculates the national education formula spending share for (a) a child educated in Braunstone estate, Leicester and (b) a child educated in the town of Braunstone, Leicestershire on the other side of Braunstone lane. [102706]
    The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): The calculation of funding for children in Leicester City and Leicestershire is done on the same basis. All comparable pupils attract the same level of funding from central Government. There is a basic entitlement for all children and extra funding for deprivation and additional costs.
    Mr. Robathan: That does not answer the question. I should be grateful for an answer and I hope that the Minister will not witter on Goebelsesque about the fact that we believe that administrative costs in education and elsewhere could be cut by as much as 20 per cent. In the city of Leicester a child receives £3,476 in Government funding whereas a child educated in Leicestershire, such as at Winstanley high school or Kingsway primary school, just across the Braunstone lane and not half a mile away, receives only£2,932. Some 4,100 children cross the border of Braunstone lane to get a better education in Leicester. Will the Minister please explain this unfair discrepancy of £543 to parents, teachers and governors in Leicestershire who are as appalled and angered as I am by a 1 per cent. cut in real terms in education funding? Will he give a less complacent answer?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is enough for the Minister to go on with.
    Mr. Miliband: The hon. Gentleman should take some pills and sit in a dark room, to coin an old phrase. Let me give him the facts. Funding in Leicester city per pupil of £3,204 is higher than in Leicestershire, which on average is £2,835, mainly because 29 per cent. of pupils in Leicester city are on income support and in Leicestershire the figure is 9 per cent. Furthermore, the increases in spending over the past five years are
    422
    instructive and the House will want to know them. Since 1997–98 in Leicestershire there has been a 36 per cent. increase in funding, worth £72million, and in Leicester city a 25 per cent. increase, worth £30 million. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the pupils who are living in Braunstone village or town, he should address a question to his local authority and ask how it is reflecting different needs across Leicestershire in the application of its funding formula that distributes money around the county.

    Sex Education
    Ann Winterton: If he will make a statement on the advice issued by his Department on the teaching of sex education in schools. [102707]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Stephen Twigg): In July 2000 we provided sex and relationship education guidance to maintained schools. The guidance places the responsibility of determining a sex and relationship education policy firmly on head teachers and school governing bodies. Schools should develop their policies and programmes in consultation with parents.
    Ann Winterton: The Minister will be aware that teenage pregnancy rates in Britain are four times higher than in the Netherlands, where Dutch parents and school governors have more control over what is taught in schools and where family links are stronger. Bearing in mind our high teenage pregnancy rates and the even higher rates of sexually transmitted disease, which is almost at epidemic proportions in certain parts of the country, will the Minister follow and promote the example in the Netherlands which advocates sexual abstinence among the young and strengthens the role of parents and governors in these matters?
    Mr. Twigg: The hon. Lady will know that our guidance indeed strengthens the role of parents and governors. She is correct to identify the high rates of teenage pregnancy and of sexually transmitted infections as a major cause for concern. That is an important part of the reason for providing our sex and relationship education guidance. I am sure that she will join me in welcoming the fact that the most recent figures show that teenage pregnancy rates have fallen again. Teenage conception rates have fallen for three years in a row and are now 9 per cent. lower than in 1998. I am not complacent about that, but the figures show that the existing programmes are having some impact.
    Jonathan Shaw: Is it not the case that, since the social exclusion unit's ground-breaking report on teenage pregnancy, this country has for the first time woken up to the fact that we have one of the highest levels in the world? In the 1970s, our teenage pregnancy rates were about the same as those in the rest of Europe but in the '80s and '90s they went up in the UK while they were going down throughout Europe. Does my hon. Friend agree that educational underachievement and teenage pregnancy go hand in hand? Will he ensure that his Department carries on relentlessly with its programmes and strategies on

    423
    teenage pregnancy so that the rates continue to fall and that young people understand the consequences of sexual relationships? We must put an end to cases such as those reported by the social exclusion unit in which young people believe that by drinking vinegar they will not get pregnant.
    Mr. Twigg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the powerful way in which he set out his case, which demonstrates the importance of Departments working together and with local agencies, including schools. Enabling young people to make responsible and well-informed decisions is at the heart of our sex and relationship education policy. The statistics on teenage pregnancy suggest that we are having some success but clearly we still have a long way to go.
    Mr. John Bercow: Does the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) was absolutely right to describe the sex and relationship education guidance issued in July 2000 as excellent, balanced and reasonable? Will he confirm that that is a far better basis for providing information and developing understanding among children than the offensive, redundant and irrelevant section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986 which, the other night, the House once again wisely voted to repeal?
    Mr. Twigg: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and associate myself entirely with his remarks. I am delighted that we received firm cross-party support in the vote on Monday night, with a significant number of Opposition Members joining Labour and Liberal Democrat Members and Members from other parties in the Lobby. I very much hope that the other place will take notice of that strong cross-party support for repeal of section 28.
    Ms Meg Munn: Does my hon. Friend agree that schools can be usefully supported in their work on sex education by other services, such as those provided at Rowlinson youth club in my constituency where there is a drop-in clinic for young people who can discuss with health professionals, in a non-judgmental way, their concerns about personal relationships?
    Mr. Twigg: Absolutely. I agree entirely. There are a number of such opportunities, where the school, as the hub of the local community, can work with other services to ensure that young people receive all the advice, guidance and education that they need.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: Much as the hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) would like to turn the clock back to the days when we could only have sexual intercourse after permission from a priest or the local registrar, and while I congratulate the Minister on the welcome decrease in the number of teenage pregnancies, does he agree that sex education is part of general education? It is the same as history or politics and, in many cases, a good deal more useful. Will he pledge to the House that he will try to ensure that all
    424
    children in this country, regardless of which school they attend and the flavour of its governing body, receive proper sex education?
    Mr. Twigg: I am grateful to the hon. Lady and I very much agree with her. She was a little unfair on the hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton), who, somewhat to my surprise, felt that we had lessons to learn from Holland in these matters. I am happy to look at the figures, because we can always learn lessons in ensuring that sex and relationships education is as effective as possible. We can provide the framework, but such decisions are best made at school level, involving governing bodies. A testament to the success of these programmes is not only the figures on teenage pregnancies that I gave earlier, but the fact that although parents have the right to withdraw their children from sex and relationships education, fewer than 1 per cent. do so. That demonstrates that we are having an impact, but the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) is right that we need to do more.

  The Solicitor-General was asked—
  SOLICITOR-GENERAL

    Domestic Violence
    Mr. Ben Chapman: If she will make a statement on specialist domestic violence prosecutors within the Crown Prosecution Service. [102719]
    The Solicitor-General (Ms Harriet Harman): Each of the 42 areas of the Crown Prosecution Service has a specialist lead prosecutor on domestic violence. About 13,000 cases of domestic violence are dealt with by prosecutors each year, mostly in the magistrates court, with the most serious cases going to the Crown court. The CPS is doing important and very difficult work to ensure that perpetrators are brought to justice and victims are protected. I strongly support its commitment and professionalism and commend it to the House.
    Mr. Chapman: Although I welcome both the fact that domestic violence is increasingly being reported and the success that the CPS is having, we still need to recognise that it represents a quarter of all violent crime. Will my right hon. and learned Friend join me in commending the work of the standing conference of women's organisations on the Wirral and Deeside, which has proactively and effectively tackled the problem? Will she also agree that the message that we need to get out loud and clear is that domestic violence is a serious crime and that it is not merely a matter for the privacy of the individuals concerned? That is true whether it be in relation to domestic violence against women, as it generally is, against men, or in mixed homes or single sex homes.
    The Solicitor-General: I endorse my hon. Friend's comments. Domestic violence is not a private matter that goes on behind closed doors and is for the family to deal with—it has to be a public policy issue that is treated as seriously as an assault on a stranger in the street. I join

    425
    him in his commendation for the Wirral and Deeside forum, with which the Crown Prosecution Service is fully involved. I emphasise to the House that our determination to tackle crimes of violence means that we must tackle domestic violence, because, as my hon. Friend says, it represents a quarter of all violent crime.
    Mr. John Burnett (Torridge and WestDevon): I hope that the Solicitor-General can assure the House that no domestic violence prosecutors and no members of the Crown Prosecution Service sell information to the media. What are her Department's policies in relation to briefing the media? She will be aware of the difficult balance to be struck between freedom of speech and the right to a fair trial. The Attorney-General is drawing up new guidelines on that. Will the Solicitor-General confirm that her Department will consult widely before any precipitate new guidelines are drawn up?
    The Solicitor-General: The important point that the hon. Gentleman raises involves four issues: first, as he said, the freedom of the press; secondly, as he said, the right to a fair trial; thirdly, the privacy of the individual; and, fourthly, the confidentiality of police investigations. In addition to the guidance that the Attorney-General is drawing up, on which he will consult—I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman gets a copy of the draft guidance and offer to place it in the Library so that other hon. Members, including Conservative Front Benchers, can see it—the Lord Chancellor's Department is reviewing certain aspects of the matter, particularly payments to witnesses, and the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport is considering the issues. We must recognise that when things go wrong it leads not only to the financial cost of lost trials, but to a terrible human cost to the people involved.
    Mrs. Ann Cryer: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the Lord Chancellor's Department is organising a series of conferences on domestic violence in the Asian community? Conferences have already been held in Bolton and Brentford and another will be held in Bradford on 3 June. They are not being held because of a particular problem in that community, but because the subject is taboo and often skirted round. The hope is to encourage an open debate within the community. Someone from the Crown Prosecution Service will attend the Bradford conference, and it may be useful for a special prosecutor to be there to explain their position.
    The Solicitor-General: I will ensure that that happens and that the CPS joins that important gathering in my hon. Friend's constituency. I will respond to her point about the Lord Chancellor's Department by simply commending to the House the work that is being done by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton).
    Domestic violence crosses all races, all cultures, all creeds, all classes and all socio—economic groups; it is not confined to any one or other. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) has made it clear that she will back up women in her constituency if they seek her help or that of the criminal justice system to tackle these crimes.

    Motoring Convictions
    Andrew Selous: What her policy is on prosecuting drivers with numerous previous convictions for motoring offences. [102720]
    The Solicitor-General (Ms Harriet Harman): The Crown Prosecution Service reviews each case on its merits, applying the tests of evidence and public interest that are set out in the code for Crown prosecutors. If sufficient evidence exists for there to be a realistic prospect of a conviction, a prosecution will proceed if it is in the public interest. A history of numerous convictions will provide the basis for the belief that the offence is likely to be repeated. It will also be a public interest factor tending in favour of prosecution.
    Andrew Selous: Does the Solicitor-General share the concern of many of our constituents that someone who has been convicted of causing death by dangerous driving, and who has several previous driving bans—I understand that in this instance there are more than 80 previous convictions—can be sentenced for up to only 10 years? If she does, what does she propose to do?
    The Solicitor-General: Sentencing in this area is considered carefully by the courts. When death has been caused by dangerous or careless driving, it is important that the sentence reflect the gravity of the effect of the crime on the victim's family. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that the Sentencing Advisory Panel has recently produced new guidance for use when death is caused by dangerous driving. The Court of Appeal will consider its response to that report on 31 March, when four cases will come for sentence. The Court of Appeal will consider what the tariff should be.
    Mr. Tony McWalter: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the concept of a "motoring" offence is rather strange? Often, a motor car is used as a weapon or is used to carry out various outrageous forms of antisocial behaviour. The concept of a motoring offence should be placed in a wider context, and policing should be organised in a way that ensures that the civil part of the offence is given due weight.
    The Solicitor-General: Those points are well made. A good partnership between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service is important when tackling such offences. It is well recognised that offences that are labelled as "antisocial behaviour" or simply "motoring" can have devastating consequences, including loss of life or serious injury.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does the Solicitor—General acknowledge that many of the most serious motoring offences are committed by drivers who are under the influence of drugs or a cocktail of drink and drugs? Will she join her ministerial colleagues in the Home Office and the Department for Transport, who have undertaken to consider our proposals—which I put forward yesterday and which my noble Friend Lord Dixon-Smith is putting forward today in the other place—for new offences against drug drivers? Will she

    427
    ask her noble and learned Friend the Attorney-General to consider this matter in the hope that the Government will accept our proposals?
    The Solicitor-General: I will ask the Attorney—General to look at the hon. Gentleman's proposals, and I will also ask the Crown Prosecution Service about any difficulties that it has in relation to prosecuting drivers who commit offences while driving under the influence of drugs. The danger of drink driving has become much better recognised, as has the importance of effective prosecutions, but such prosecutions are more difficult with drugs. However, I will certainly take the hon. Gentleman's proposals seriously and respond to them.

    Cruelty to Animals
    Norman Baker: If she will make a statement on her policy in respect of prosecutions for animal cruelty. [102721]
    The Solicitor-General (Ms Harriet Harman): The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
    428
    undertakes most prosecutions for animal cruelty. It has long-established expertise in both the investigation and prosecution of cases involving animal welfare.
    Norman Baker: Is the Minister aware that, since 1997, there has been a decrease in proceedings for animal cruelty offences, a decrease in the number of convictions and a decrease in the percentage of those convicted, despite the fact that not all animal cruelty offences are even notifiable? Is that not very worrying, given the strong feelings among all our constituents throughout the country? What is the Minister doing to improve the situation?
    The Solicitor-General: I am not able to say whether or not the situation is worrying, I am afraid. I will have to look into that and get back to the hon. Gentleman. I do not know whether there is less cruelty or less investigation going on, but I can certainly say, from the Crown Prosecution Service's point of view, that if there is evidence of a criminal offence and it is in the public interest to prosecute, it will do so.

Business of the House
12.30 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): The House will be aware that Iraq remains before the Security Council. At present, we do not know when a decision will be reached. When we know the final outcome of discussions in the Security Council, we will arrange for a debate and vote on Iraq as soon as possible. In the meantime, the business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 17 MARCH—Consideration of an allocation of time motion, followed by all stages of the Northern Ireland Assembly Elections Bill 2003.
TUESDAY 18 MARCH—Remaining stages of the Extradition Bill.
WEDNESDAY 19 MARCH—Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc) Bill.
The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages that may be received.
THURSDAY 20 MARCH—Second Reading of the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill [Lords].
The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages that may be received.
FRIDAY 21 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.
The House will not adjourn until Royal Assent has been received to any Act.
The provisional business for the following week will be:
MONDAY 24 MARCH—Second Reading of the Licensing Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 25 MARCH—Opposition Day [5th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion—title to be confirmed.
WEDNESDAY 26 MARCH—Progress on remaining stages of the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 27 MARCH—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords].
FRIDAY 28 MARCH—Private Members' Bills
I should like to inform the House that the Government business in Westminster Hall for April will be:
THURSDAY 3 APRIL—Debate on the report from the Science and Technology Committee on science education from 14 to 19.
THURSDAY 10 APRIL—A cross—cutting question session on urban renewaltitled "Liveability—Creating Decent Places", followed by a debate on the report from the Health Committee on the National Institute for Clinical Excellence.
Mr. Forth: I am sure that the House will be most grateful to the Leader of the House for giving a commitment to hold a debate on Iraq. I understand that 24 hours' notice is required in the United Nations before the laying of a resolution, and reports are telling us this
430
morning that President Bush intends to give notice to the inspectors and the agency folk in Iraq, giving them a reasonable time to leave. Given those time scales, will the Leader of the House tell us whether he might expect to make a business statement to the House tomorrow, when a lot more will be known than today about how things stand at the UN and elsewhere, to give the House maximum notice of that debate on Iraq? But, in any case, we all welcome the undertaking that has been given that such a debate will be held as soon as possible.
My hon. Friend the shadow Attorney-General has a written parliamentary question to the Prime Minister for reply tomorrow concerning the advice that the Attorney—General has given to the Prime Minister on the legality of military action in Iraq. Given that there is an increasing belief that the Attorney-General's advice may well be against military action by this country, certainly if that takes place without any United Nations cover, may we please have a statement in the House by the Solicitor-General acting on behalf of the Attorney-General who, as we know, is in another place, and ahead of any debate on Iraq, as to the position with regard to the advice being given to the Prime Minister and the Government by the Attorney-General on the legality of military action in Iraq?
I do not, please, want the Leader of the House to hide behind the argument, as the Prime Minister did yesterday, that the matter is utterly confidential and cannot possibly be in the public domain. My advice is that although such advice may well normally be confidential, "Erskine May" states that it is always at the discretion of the Minister if he, or in this case she, considers it expedient, to share that advice with the House and with the public. My plea is that in this case it may overridingly be not just expedient but proper that that advice be put into the public domain. In any case, something must be said ahead of the debate so that our debate on Iraq is properly informed on a matter of such gravity.
The Leader will be aware of the report of the International Development Committee HC 444–1 on the consequences of possible military action against Iraq, which was published recently and which states in paragraph 41:
"Although Clare Short told us that humanitarian considerations must be paramount, there are still concerns that this will not be the case."
In fairness to the Secretary of State for International Development, I note that she lodged in the Library at 11.30 this morning a written ministerial statement covering the issue of humanitarian aid to Iraq. That is good only as far as it goes. Will the Leader please arrange for an urgent statement, or preferably debate, on the matter, if possible ahead of the debate on Iraq, but certainly to take place at around the same time, in order that the House can give due attention to this crucial aspect of possible military action in Iraq? I hope that the Leader of the House will agree that this is the only way to do justice to the issue and to the Select Committee report.
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the sombre way in which he approached the grave and serious situation that we are dealing with. I am grateful to him for his welcome for what I said about our willingness—indeed, our keenness—to come to the House as soon as we are able to do so.

431
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether I would make a business statement tomorrow. That is not ruled out. I will be in the precincts tomorrow, should it be required. We should, of course, bear in mind the time difference between London and New York. In effect, if there is anything for us to know, we will know it by the time we wake up tomorrow. There are unlikely to be any developments in New York in the time that we are sitting tomorrow, but if necessary and if it is appropriate, I shall make a business statement tomorrow.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the Attorney-General's advice. He accurately summarised the situation. The Attorney-General's advice is, as a general rule, confidential—indeed, that is set out in the ministerial code—but there is provision in exceptional circumstances, by agreement, for his advice to surface. I will reflect on what the right hon. Gentleman said and make sure that my colleagues are aware of what he said. These issues will, I am sure, be fully debated and explored in any debate that we have on Iraq.
I repeat to the House what has been said at the Dispatch Box by a number of my colleagues: there can be no question of a British Government going to war if it were not sound of its legal basis and if it was not confident that it was acting within international law, nor would the British Prime Minister under any circumstances take that action if he believed he was acting outside international law.
On the international humanitarian relief that may be required should there be action in Iraq, and which is required now, even without any military action in Iraq, we welcomed the report from the Committee. It is important that all possible focus be given to the humanitarian need to respond to what may happen in the course of action, and to the very real humanitarian need of the people of Iraq, 60 per cent. of whom even now are fully dependent on food aid. It is for that very reason that the Department for International Development has already made available £7million simply for planning and preparation. It will continue to do so intensely and will seek any appropriate opportunity to keep the House informed.
Mr. Paul Tyler: We, too, welcome the commitment given to us by the Leader of the House about a prior debate and decision in this House regarding any hostilities undertaken by British troops. May I also welcome the support that we are now receiving from the Conservative Front Bench with regard to the request that we made to the Prime Minister, through my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) yesterday at Question Time, that the advice of the Law Officers be given to the House? Is there not a very important constitutional principle here? I accept what he said about "exceptional circumstances", but is it not right to say that the Law Officers are answerable and accountable to Parliament, not to the Government of the day? Surelyit must be an exceptional circumstance when very important issues of international law are being challenged in the way implied in the statement of the Secretary-General of the United Nations? Should
432
there not be a second Security Council resolution, is it not absolutely essential that the Law Officers make a statement prior to any debate in this House?
I wonder whether the Leader of the House heard or read the transcript of the very important interview given by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr.Clarke), now de facto leader of the Conservative Opposition, on the "Today" programme yesterday when he made it absolutely clear that there are precedents, mechanisms and means by which the Law Officers have to give an answer to the House on an issue of such importance. [Interruption.]
Mr. Cook: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman achieves consensus in the House with his observations, but I did, indeed, hear the interview to which he referred and I can understand why the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) may remember the previous precedent, as it was the Maastricht debates, which I am sure are written on the heart of everybody who was a member of the Cabinet at the time when those debates took place within the Government.
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. He mentioned that advice had been challenged by lawyers. We must recognise that in the present developing state of international law, there will always be room for more than one view, if not 25 different views. Whatever may be said on behalf of the Government about the advice that has been received, I would not wish to commit myself to the proposition that it will not be open to challenge. It is in the nature of these things that lawyers will challenge any proposition.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North): Does the Leader of the House accept that many people outside the House will find it simply incomprehensible that there is to-ing and fro-ing in the UN about not getting support for a second resolution, a determination by the United States to go to war and an apparent decision by the Prime Minister and the Cabinet to go to war without any resolution or legal basis whatever, and yet this House, which is representative of the ordinary people of this country, is denied the right to a debate and vote in advance of British troops being sent in? Is there any reason why there cannot be a debate today, tomorrow or even over the weekend so that the British people can see what their MPs are saying and voting on in advance of the start of a war?
Mr. Cook: Of course, I fully understand the passion to which this issue gives rise and the very strong feelings held by my hon. Friend and many others both in this House and in the country. I can only say to him that, as a member of the Cabinet, I am not aware of any decision of the sort to which he refers. I would also say that we have been quite clear that we will come to the House whenever there is any decision in New York in order either that the House can endorse any second resolution or that it may debate and vote upon a motion in the event that there is no decision on the second resolution. I genuinely believe that the right time for the House to consider and reach a decision on this matter is when the process in the United Nations has come to a close. In the

433
meantime, I hope that all hon. Members will join me in expressing the best possible support for the British Government's efforts to get unity in the United Nations.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider allowing time for a debate next week on the growing practice among Ministers of delaying indefinitely replies to questions for a named day by saying that they will reply "as soon as possible"? In that connection, will he consider an issue that I raised with you, Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, regarding detailed questions about the biological warfare material provided by the United States to Iraq and to the Iraq atomic weapons commission on which information is required urgently by the House, but on which Ministers are simply failing to give any knowledge or information, although they have it available to them?
Mr. Cook: Of course, the point with which the hon. Gentleman concludes is a very important issue of substance. Having had some experience of answering questions in the Foreign Office, I say to him that if he tables a question about material that may have been transferred back in the 1980s by another power, while that information may be available, it is not entirely surprising that it cannot adequately be pinned down within the five days required by a named-day question. If he wishes to pursue what I fully accept is an important issue, although it goes back some years and involves another power, he may have to be prepared to show a little more patience than is allowed for by a named-day question.
Mr. Eric Joyce: My right hon. Friend may be aware that there was an especially well-attended debate in Westminster Hall yesterday on community pharmacies. The debate was opened by the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) and the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) responded to it. However, for my constituents, health is a devolved matter and the perspective of the Department of Trade and Industry is equally important. Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on that important issue over the next while?
Mr. Cook: I am aware that the matter was debated in Westminster Hall yesterday and I am fully aware of the substance of the issue, which has been raised in business questions for the past four weeks. I fully understand the widespread concern in the House about the security and stability of the local pharmacy service, which is so important to our constituents. I have spoken to the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry and for Health to alert them to the concerns that have been expressed in the House during business questions, and they are both fully cognisant of the great importance of the matter to the public. I assure my hon. Friend that the Department of Trade and Industry will be fully involved in any future decision. We will seek to ensure that we take on board the importance of having regard to competition principles, but also try to ensure that they operate in a way that is consistent with the
434
Government's health policy and our commitment to a health plan to ensure that pharmacies are available to all members of the public.
Tony Baldry: The Leader of the House will be aware that members of the International Development Committee, after hearing all the evidence, unanimously concluded that there is not a viable humanitarian plan for Iraq. The House has heard numerous statements from the Secretary of State for Defence in which he has kept us posted on preparations for the military campaign in Iraq. We have yet to hear a single statement to the House from the Secretary of State for International Development on the humanitarian plan for Iraq. I am sure the Leader of the House would feel that it must be in everyone'sinterest—not least the Government's—for there to be a clear statement from the Secretary of State for International Development on the humanitarian plan for Iraq. Otherwise, the impression will be given that the humanitarian plan will be very much an afterthought to the military campaign, which I am sure is not the impression the Government wish to give.
Mr. Cook: And I am sure it is not the impression that the hon. Gentleman would wish to convey either. He knows perfectly well that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has worked very hard to ensure that we develop humanitarian plans and she has, indeed, produced a statement. In fairness to her, I should say that she made a speech to the House on the matter only recently.
Mr. David Chaytor: Is it not the case that because Iraq contains the second largest oil reserves in the world, any debate on the conflict in Iraq is inseparable from a debate on the diversity, security and sustainability of our energy supplies? Does my right hon. Friend recall saying last year, in answer to my request for a debate on the Energy Green Paper, that the best time for such a debate would be after the publication of the White Paper? Given thatwe have had the White Paper and we are in the midst of a conflict with Iraq, will he find time for a debate on the future of our energy policy and, particularly, the balance of fossil fuels, nuclear, renewables and energy efficiency, as that goestoward meeting our Kyoto targets?
Mr. Cook: I am not necessarily persuaded thatthe best approach to having a strategic, long-term debate on the balance between renewables and fossil fuels would be in the context of the potential crisis in Iraq. Having said that, I acknowledge that I am aware of the deep interest in the House on energy policy. I recall giving such a commitment to my hon. Friend and I assure him that despite the difficult problem of balancing business—it continues to increase and there is pressure on our available timetable—we shall look for an opportunity to discharge that commitment.
Mr. Alex Salmond: The Leader of the House said that as a member of the Cabinet, he was not aware of any shift of the Government's position on the second resolution. But if we extract the anti-French bile, that seems to be what the Foreign Secretary was saying this morning. Indeed, it seems to be what the

435
Prime Minister divulged to the Leader of the Opposition—remarkably enough—this morning. For the avoidance of any doubt and with the benefit of the Cabinet discussion, will the Leader of the House tell us whether the parameters for military action set out by the Prime Minister on 6 February—as he described it, the only circumstances in which force would be committed—still pertain?
Mr. Cook: May I say to the hon. Gentleman that the position is, as has repeatedly been said in the House over the last few days, that we are working extremely hard to try to secure agreement within the Security Council? We are looking for a second resolution. No decision has been taken beyond that, for the very simple reason that we are entirely focused on securing agreement to a second resolution and will continue to be so. I think that that is the best outcome for Britain, for the House and, indeed, for the international community.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: The Leader of the House has been very fair and consistent over recent weeks in promising that, where possible, there would be a debate and a vote before military action. With the uncertainty in the United Nations, however, we now face a situation in which theremay not be a Security Council resolution, the Americans might move very rapidly to military action and events might overtake the ability of the House of Commons to have such a debate. I hope that the Leader of the House agrees that it is vitally important that there should be an opportunity for the House to vote, to give comfort to the Government or otherwise. How will he respond if it becomes apparent that no resolution will go through the Security Council by the end of tomorrow and that military action is imminent? The House would then have the capacity to sit on Saturday. How would the House be recalled in that eventuality?
Mr. Cook: I have already said that we will arrange for the House to debate and vote on Iraq as soon as possible when we know the outcome of the proceedings in New York. Should that require the House to be recalled over the weekend, that is not ruled out. I do not wish people to assume from that that it will necessarily happen, but it is an option that is not ruled out and we shall have to watch matters carefully on a day-to-day basis, depending on the progress of the talks in New York. On the general issue of principle that my hon. Friend raises, may I remind the House that, at the start of the present crisis, I said that it was inconceivable that any Government could commit their troops to action without the support of Parliament? That remains my position and the position of the Government. Of course, any Government must reserve the right to act immediately if the safety of troops is at risk, and I do not think that any hon. Member would object to that reasonable qualification. Subject to that one obvious reservation, however, I attach the highest importance to the House having the opportunity to debate and vote on the matter before conflict.
Mr. Roger Gale: Notwithstanding assurances given to the House by Defence Ministers,
436
Members of Parliament with constituents in the Gulf continue to receive letters from worried relatives about the level of supplies. All hon. Members understand that in any major mobilisation there are likely to be local difficulties. However, given the number of complaints that are now coming forward concerning the lack of goggles and desert boots, will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Defence to come to the House and make a clear statement about how these issues are being addressed?
Mr. Cook: In fairness to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, I do not think that any single member of the Cabinet has made more statements to the House than he has over recent months. I am sure that he and his colleagues at the Ministry of Defence will continue to respond to these concerns at every opportunity. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have ordered a very large quantity of desert boots, which are currently being provided. I was pleased to note that, when the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Defence spokesman visited the troops, they found them in good morale and, indeed, reported afterwards that food was in good supply.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Since the last motion on Iraq on 26 February endorsed the United Nations process and not military action, as was explicitly stated by the Foreign Secretary at the start of the debate, is it not vital—particularly if there is no further United Nations resolution—that the Government should seek the endorsement of the House before committing British forces to the terrible and possibly illegal precedent of pre-emptive war?
Mr. Cook: I agree with my hon. Friend that the vote last time was not a vote on a commitment to military action, and that the Foreign Secretary said that specifically at the start of the debate. I said it myself in the business statement that preceded the debate on the Monday of that week. My hon. Friend is, therefore, within his rights to say that it is important that the House should meet and vote specifically on that question. In fairness, I would remind him that I have only just said that I attach the highest importance to the House having the opportunity to do that before conflict, subject to the obvious reservation—to which I do not think anyone objects—that we must always safeguard the safety of our troops. With that one reservation, however, we will do all that we can to ensure that that debate takes place before any action. As the Foreign Secretary has said, it is as important to the Government as it is to the House that that debate should take place in good time.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Referring to the UN Security Council resolution again, may I ask whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will come down to the House in the eventuality of a French veto of a second resolution or the frustration of such a resolution by France, Germany or any other EU country on the Security Council, and say that the United Kingdom is abandoning the studies into the adoption of the euro that the Treasury is undertaking? If there is

437
such a divergence of fundamental political views, what is the point of wasting taxpayers' money on such a stupid enterprise?
Mr. Cook: I must congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the magnificence of his obsession. I would only say that our efforts to secure unity within the Security Council are unlikely to be enhanced by introducing the euro to the debate.
Mr. Martin Salter: Will the Leader of the House give us some indication of when we will be able to consider and vote on the Report stage of the Hunting Bill? May I respectfully suggest that, should we be dragged into a war in Iraq, it would hardly be appropriate for the House to be turning its attention to such matters?
Mr. Cook: I am not in a position at the moment to offer a date on which the House might consider the Report stage of the Hunting Bill, although I am aware that it has concluded its proceedings in Committee. I note what my hon. Friend says. As someone who served on the Committee and who has certainly taken a close interest in the matter, his words must carry weight.
Mr. Andrew Mackay: As there has been much damaging press speculation on the nature of the Attorney-General's advice to the Prime Minister, and as it is clear from "Erskine May" that the Prime Minister may, at his discretion, reveal the legal advice that he has received, is it not very important indeed that the Prime Minister should let us see this legal advice, ahead of the debate next week? It is to be hoped that that would set our minds at rest and add to his case.
Mr. Cook: For better or worse, we are probably all very grateful that the Government are not responsible for the speculation in the press. The existence of that speculation does not necessarily mean that it is well founded. Plainly, this matter is a factor in the debate, and I am quite sure that my right hon. Friends will consider how best they can respond to it in any future debate. However, I repeat, and it is important that the House and the country fully understand this, that there is no question of any Government—certainly not this one—proceeding to military action in circumstances in which they believe that they do not have international authority for it.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I want to return to the issue of advice from the Attorney-General. If we invade another country without international law on our side, it is indeed a matter of the utmost gravity, as the shadow Leader of the House said. Will my right hon. Friend impress on the Government that there are precedents for making such advice public? In these circumstances—these exceptional circumstances—it is absolutely vital that we get that advice.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is, of course, absolutely right to say that these are very grave circumstances, and in this grave situation we have to conduct ourselves in such a way as to ensure that we build the broadest possible consensus for any action that may be necessary. She is correct in saying that there are precedents for such
438
legal advice becoming known; the Maastricht debate was the previous such precedent. Such occasions are rare and infrequent, as the distance from that precedent confirms, and the Government would have to weigh very carefully whether it would be appropriate to do this. I would say to the House—this is consistent with what I have already said repeatedly—that we would only act within the context of international law. I do not myself imagine that, were such advice to be made public, it would have any dramatic or sensational impact.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: May I urge the Leader of the House to reconsider his last answer and to bear in mind the fact that, as someone who supports what the Government and the Prime Minister are trying to do in this matter, he should bring into the public domain the advice that has been given by the Attorney-General? May I also urge him to disregard the wholly fallacious and inaccurate point made by the Liberal spokesman? The Leader of the House will be aware that my hon. Friend the shadow Attorney-General has consistently asked for this advice to be brought into the public domain.
Mr. Cook: I already have sufficient difficulty with the conflict between us and Saddam Hussein without intruding into the conflict between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative party. I hear the points that have been made about the wish to be fully apprised of what the advice would be. I say again that I am not aware of the Government having any reason to hide or conceal that advice in the sense of having something that they want to suppress. We have repeatedly said that we will act only in a way that is consistent with international law. I do not believe that the Government would act in any other way.
Mr. David Drew: My right hon. Friend will be aware that 14 B-52s are currently parked at RAF Fairford. That is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), but it has a major impact on all local Members. Will my right hon. Friend liaise with the Secretary of State for Defence on the arrangement with the United States air force under which those B-52s will be used? Will he also talk to the Home Secretary about whether it is right to use the Terrorism Act 2000 to try to prevent those who protest under our democratic rights in this country? Will he question whether that is the appropriate legislation to use?
Mr. Cook: I am not aware that the local police force or any other body has invoked that Act. If my hon. Friend wants to take up that complaint with the Home Office, I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will willingly follow up the issue for him.
On the wider question of the role that may be given to the B-52s, my hon. Friend will be well aware of the long-standing agreement between us and the United States by which any action from British bases is fully cleared with the British Government. I am sure that that close co-operation will continue in the context of the B-52s and anything else.
Mr. Paul Goodman: The Leader of the House will be aware that there is widespread concern in

439
the Muslim community in Britain about the consistent application of United Nations resolutions, especially on Kashmir. Resolutions addressing the need of the Kashmiri people to determine their own future have been outstanding for roughly 50 years. I know that he appreciates the importance of these matters. Will we be able to discuss those issues in an early debate?
Mr. Cook: I cannot point the hon. Gentleman in the direction of a forthcoming debate on Kashmir in the House, but I am fully aware of the considerable interest in the issue among the many ethnic communities in Britain that have strong community ties with Kashmir and the two countries of the Indian subcontinent. It is a difficult issue, as I know well from previous experience, and I would not recommend any Member to tread lightly into that contested territory. I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important that those of us who wish the peoples of Pakistan and India well should do all that we can to enable them to find a way to resolve this long-standing sore.
David Winnick: I fully support the policy on Iraq, as I did the liberation of Kuwait 12 years ago. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, when we have a debate, it will be an opportunity for some us to point out to President Bush that it would certainly help the allied cause if the US Defence Secretary were found a different job as far away as possible from the international scene? That would please many of us, and probably irritate France and Baghdad.
Mr. Cook: I hear what my hon. Friend says. I shall content myself with saying that I am pleased for him that he has got his comments on the record. He will appreciate that no member of the Government has ministerial responsibility for reshuffles in Washington.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: There is an obvious risk that the debate on Iraq will take place after hostilities have commenced. In those circumstances, I hope that the debate would be on a substantive motion. If hostilities have commenced, many of us would wish to table an amendment to the effect that we pledge our total support for the British forces engaged, but none the less do not think that the case for war has been made. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we can do that only if we have a substantive motion to amend—hence the importance of debating Iraq on a substantive motion?
Mr. Cook: I fully understand the genuine concerns of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, which he has expressed in measured tones on a number of occasions. I, for one, would not for one moment suggest that people who express those legitimate doubts are lacking in support for British troops. That would be an unfair issue to bring into the argument. On timing, I attach great importance to our having such a debate before hostilities commence, but whether it is before or afterwards, I would prefer a debate to proceed on a substantive motion.
Mr. Ian Cawsey: Given the major disagreement between the British and Dutch
440
management of Corus over the sale of its aluminium works and the precarious position in which that leaves British steel production, will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate or statement on the urgent need to protect steel production in theUnited Kingdom?
Mr. Cook: I entirely understand the enormous importance of this matter to the general state of British manufacturing industry and to the local economies of the three areas most immediately affected. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is fully seized of the matter, and has spoken to her opposite number in the Dutch Government. I assure my hon.Friend that we will continue to do what we reasonably can to achieve the best possible outcome. Should that outcome tragically involve a closure, the Government will do all they can to assist the local community and local people to deal with the consequences.
Richard Younger-Ross: Can the Leader of the House arrange for a statement on the workings of the National Care Standards Commission, with particular regard to the management of the closure of care homes? I ask this particularly in view of the closure of the Gatehouse care home in my constituency, whose residents were given only five days' notice to leave the home. All the research shows that such stress will cause illness and may even lead to premature death.
Mr. Cook: I am sure that all hon. Members share the hon. Gentleman's concern about such a deplorably short period of notice. It is certainly not consistent with the Government's view as to the reasonable notice period that should be required for people to be transferred from a nursing home that is closing. In this particular case, the home is privately owned, so we have no power to intervene regarding the period of notice, but it is not satisfactory. I hope that all responsible care home owners will follow the public sector in ensuring that any period of notice, if it has to be applied, is adequate and enables residents, their relatives and the local authority to respond adequately.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Is it not imperative that we have a statement about the advice given by the Attorney-General? Members of Parliament who vote for an aggressive war launched by America and its collaborators may be culpable and may be committing an offence if the Attorney-General's advice were that Britain was going against international law. We would individually be responsible. Incidentally, should war start, would any time be allocated next week for ministerial resignation statements?
Mr. Cook: I shall certainly consider the latter point in my timetabling of business for the week. On the former matter, there is not much that I can add to the many answers that I have given already. I rather suspect that, if the advice were published, it would show that the Government'sactions are wholly consistent with international law. Under those circumstances, I would not expect my hon. Friend necessarily to change his view of the action.
Angela Watkinson: Will the Leader of the House ask a Minister to come to the House and

441
make a statement on early-day motion 851, which relates to a grossly misleading report in The Sun about a visit from the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh to Redden Court school in my constituency?
[That this House condemns the grossly misleading report in the Sun Newspaper on Friday 7th March on the visit of the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh to Redden Court School in Upminster, which attempted to cast a slur on a highly successful and memorable occasion.]
Mr. Cook: I have seen the early-day motion, and I have first-hand experience of the extent to which Her Majesty's often excellent and much appreciated work is not fairly reported in the press. It is a mystery and an affront to local people when they participate in an event that they regard as successful and which they remember with a sense of gratitude to read a travesty of it in the local press. I urge those who write such pieces to try accurately to reflect the overall balance of opinion of people in the local community, who appreciate the visit and what the royal family has done for them.
Joan Ruddock: Although my private Member's Bill is due to be debated tomorrow, I would welcome any statement my right hon. Friend could make to the House then. Does he agree that yesterday's withdrawal of virtually all the international UN staff who administer the oil-for-food programme is the clearest possible indication that war is imminent, and that the House urgently needs to know how food supplies will be resumed in the event of a protracted conflict?
Mr. Cook: The fact that, understandably, responsible employers—in this case the United Nations—must necessarily make contingency plans need not mean that there will be a conflict; but in the present circumstances I well understand why the UN might decide to err on the side of caution. I will not pretend that it would be possible to maintain the programme at its present level of efficiency and volume without UN staff, but the UN has taken steps to ensure that local residents will be trained and equipped so that it can continue in their absence. I hope very much that that proves satisfactory.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: If we are, as it seems, on the point of war, is it not essential for the British Government to continue to make the case for the need to go to war to the British people? The Leader of the House said this morning, in very profound terms, that the Prime Minister would not go to war unless he believed that he had proper legal cover. In the event, either there will be legal cover or there will not—in which case it is surely absolutely essential for the Solicitor-General to come to the House and make the legal advice public before we have a proper debate.
Mr. Cook: It follows logically from what I said that the Prime Minister is satisfied that he has adequate legal authority in international law for any action that may be taken. Whether it is necessary for any other Law Officers to say that, given that both the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister will undoubtedly participate in any exchanges in the House, is a matter of judgment; but I repeat that the Prime Minister will take no action that he believes to be inconsistent with international law.
Mrs. Ann Cryer: Could we have a debate on the implementation of the Ottawa agreement, which
442
was intended to ban the manufacture, stockpiling and use of anti-personnel landmines? That might allow us to discuss the inclusion of cluster bombs, and also to discuss the possibility of Ministers using their best endeavours to persuade their American counterparts to refrain from using those hideous weapons in any military action in Iraq.
Mr. Cook: I know of my hon. Friend's long-standing interest in this. She will recall that I was Foreign Secretary when we secured the Ottawa treaty, which I regard as an important step towards ensuring that we act to minimise the danger and risk that landmines pose to civilians. I am sorry that we could not persuade our United States colleagues to be a party to the treaty, and I hope that at some time in the future we shall be able to persuade them to reconsider.
Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Clifton-Brown.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: You have already called me, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I apologise. It is the early morning start. I call Dr. Lewis.
Dr. Julian Lewis: I am afraid I am a poor substitute for my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown).
When the debate on Iraq takes place, will the rule on collective Cabinet responsibility be relaxed for Ministers other than the Secretary of State for International Development? Would that not give Cabinet Ministers such as the Leader of the House an opportunity to explain to the House why they opposed the first Gulf war in 1991, when Saddam had invaded one of his neighbours, but apparently support the forthcoming second Gulf war when Saddam has not yet invaded any of his neighbours?
Mr. Cook: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his interest in my views—
Mr. John Bercow: He has a detailed record.
Mr. Cook: I have never doubted it. Fortunately, so have I. At that time, the point on which I expressed concern was whether a bombing campaign lasting so many weeks was really required.
The short answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is yes, I think Cabinet responsibility will apply. It will apply to all who are in the Cabinet at the time of the debate.
Jon Trickett: The Home Office recently published statistics on police authorities, revealing that West Yorkshire, where 39 of every 1,000 burglaries take place, is the worst-performing authority. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on policing? I might then be able to express my constituents' admiration for rank-and-file police officers in the area. I could also ask serious questions about the management of the West Yorkshire force, and insist that the chief constable begin replying to letters from Members such

443
as me. In my letters I have asked for enhanced policing, on behalf of residents of Girnhill lane in Featherstone, and have asked searching questions about the recently reported statement of a senior police officer that West Yorkshire has stopped investigating burglaries.
Mr. Cook: I appreciate what my hon. Friend says about the progress that has been made, and I echo his commendation of his local police force. I am sure we all appreciate the fact that we can make more progress in fighting crime now that Britain has a record number of policemen.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must now take points of order.

Points of Order
1.18 pm
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The very first recommendation of the International Development Committee's report, published yesterday, calls for an immediate statement, yet this morning we were given a written statement that failed to address the report's 23 recommendations. Indeed, it raised more questions than it answered. The Secretary of State for International Development has said that her assessment of the "overall level of preparedness" for humanitarian contingencies in Iraq is
"limited, and this involves serious risk."
It is left there, with no opportunity for us to question the Secretary of State in the House about that serious level of concern.
The Leader of the House said in business questions that the Secretary of State had come here to make a statement very recently. That was six weeks ago today, when the Secretary of State responded to an Opposition day debate on the subject. Six weeks is a long time in the present crisis. The House allows us certain procedures, such as urgent questions. How can we use those procedures if the Government sabotage our legitimate right to a debate by publishing a ministerial statement that fails to answer our questions?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady mentioned urgent questions. She submitted one this morning. I do not give a reason for refusing such questions, but there will be other days and other occasions on which I might be more disposed to agree to her request.
Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You are the defender of Back Benchers' rights to raise issues of the day. One issue of the day is the new benchmark tests that the Government are producing at the United Nations. They have sprung from nowhere, and they are effectively new triggers for war. Why cannot Back Benchers have the right to raise that in the House?
Mr. Speaker: That is really a point of disappointment, because I did not call the hon. Gentleman earlier.
Mr. William Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, I tabled a written question to the Prime Minister for answer tomorrow—before the leader of the Liberal Democrats raised the matter at Prime Minister's Question Time—regarding the legal basis of the war against Iraq. As was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), the shadow Leader of the House, "Erskine May" is very clear about the question of confidentiality. Will you, at a later date, give a written ruling on the confidentiality of Law Officers' opinions?
Although the Attorney-General, regrettably, is in the House of Lords, he has personal rather than collective responsibility for the legal advice that he gives the Government. He gives advice not only to the Government, but to the nation and to the House. It is a matter for the Prime Minister to give a proper answer to the question that I tabled the day before yesterday and to reply to my request for the basis of the legal advice

445
regarding war with Iraq, but he cannot do that by hiding behind an improper use of the so-called "doctrine of confidentiality".
Mr. Speaker: I make no commitment, except to say: let me think about that matter. That is the best commitment that I can give the hon. Gentleman today.
Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is there a parliamentary point of order in the procedure by which the Prime Minister calls the Leader of the Opposition to Downing street, and the Leader of the Opposition then makes a statement outside Downing street that apparently is a shift in Government policy? In terms of order, can we introduce to our proceedings a means by which we can question the Leader of the Opposition on what is or is not Government policy, or does the Prime Minister speak only to the Opposition leaders who he thinks will agree with him?
Mr. Speaker: Those matters are nothing to do with me.
Gregory Barker: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), Mr. Speaker. Do you understand the considerable anger that there will be in the country at the failure of the Secretary of State for International Development to come to the House to answer questions from across the Chamber in response to the publication of the International Development Committee report? Non-governmental organisations as well as constituents of mine will see that the only reason why she is not coming is base political motivation—it is to stop her saying things that would clearly embarrass the Government. That is not good enough when there are so many important issues at stake, on which we are being denied an opportunity to question her.
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.
Alistair Burt: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), Mr. Speaker. Are you aware of any precedent where the immediacy of a demand by a Select Committee has been met by the Government, but where the political urgency of the situation, bearing in mind what is happening in Iraq, has been so woefully misunderstood as to produce a written rather than the imperative oral statement?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is drawing me into the argument.
I call Mr. Clifton-Brown.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Iam grateful for the acclaim.
446
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to have to raise a point of order on a different matter entirely. I had understood that it was the convention of the House that when a matter in one's constituency was to be raised by another Member of Parliament, the constituency Member of Parliament should be informed first. I have been sitting here since before business questions started. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), with whom I have very cordial relations, saw me sitting here. He could have easily come over to me and informed me that he was going to raise the sensitive matter of the B-52 bombers at Fairford, and I would have been happy for him to raise it, but it was discourteous of him to raise it without informing me.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is right about the courtesies of the House, but I think that the matter could be sorted out between both hon. Members. That would be the best thing.
Mr. John Burnett (Torridge and West Devon): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you consider the matter of the Attorney-General's advice, if you come to the conclusion that the advice itself should not be put in the public domain, will you please ensure that the Attorney-General, and the Solicitor-General in this place, come to the House to confirm that they believe that the actions that the Government are taking are fully compliant with international law in all respects?
Mr. Speaker: Those matters are not for me to deal with.
Mr. Mark Francois: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the shadow Attorney-General, Mr. Speaker. It now seems extremely unlikely that there will be a second resolution at the United Nations and, therefore, that the legal validity for war will effectively rest on the interpretation of UN Security Council resolution 1441. You have already undertaken to reflect on the point raised by the shadow Attorney-General. May I ask you to include it in those deliberations that, given the critical importance of that resolution, it must surely be right that there are exceptional circumstances, as defined in "Erskine May", whereby that legal advice must be made available to the House of Commons before we vote on a substantive motion? Will you please bear that in mind in your deliberations?
Mr. Speaker: All that I shall say to the hon. Gentleman is that he has been in the Chamber and heard what I had to say to the shadow Attorney-General. I will leave it at that.
Lynne Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Should not a Government Minister come to the House and give assurances that the Government have indeed received written legal advice on the legality of war with Iraq, and that that has been shared with all members of the Cabinet?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady is capable of asking the Minister concerned herself. She does not need me to give a ruling on the matter.

BILL PRESENTED
  NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS
  Mr. Secretary Murphy, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Robin Cook, Mr. Secretary Blunkett and Mr. Desmond Browne, presented a Bill to make provision about the date of the poll for the election of the next Northern Ireland Assembly, and for disregarding certain days for the purposes of the period after a poll within which an Assembly must meet; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 74].

Fireworks Bill [Money]
Queen's recommendation having been signified—
1.26 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Miss Melanie Johnson): I beg to move,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Fireworks Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(i) any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of any provision of the Act, and

(ii)any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act, and

(b)the making of payments into the Consolidated Fund.

It has been said in the past that money resolutions attaching to private Members' Bills deserve more consideration than those attaching to Government or public Bills. I am not sure that I entirely agree with that position but I agree that this important Bill requires full and proper consideration at all stages, including the money resolution.
On Second Reading on 28 February, it became clear that the Bill has universal support not just from within the House but from many other bodies. The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, the Trades Union Congress, the British Medical Association and the National Farmers Union have all indicated broad support for the Bill's intentions. The diversity of that very small—I hasten to add—selection of the Bill's supporters shows how broadly its effects will be felt. Every one of us in England, Scotland and Wales could be affected by the Bill either directly or indirectly, whether through less noise and nuisance from fireworks, through better regulated firework displays or through buying fireworks from a properly licensed retailer.
The Bill contains enabling powers to make regulations dealing with a wide variety of matters relating to fireworks. As such, its full financial effects will depend on the content of such regulations. It would be foolish to try to second-guess at this stage exactly the shape and nature that those regulations may take. However, when regulations are made, normally, offences are created. The regulations that will follow the Bill will be no different. For example, there will be potential for creating offences for non-compliance, breaches and preventing enforcement of the regulations. Therefore the Bill will have certain financial implications for central and, perhaps more especially, for local government.
The Bill is unlikely to impact on central Government staff numbers, and it is likely to have a direct financial effect on central Government finances only while it progresses through its various development stages. It is more likely to have an effect on local authorities, whose trading standards and perhaps environmental health officers may have new or different roles. The police already have some enforcement responsibilities under existing legislation. Those could change under the Bill, but it is not envisaged that any revised role would require more officers or more time dealing with fireworks issues.

449
The Bill will have some implications for the court and legal aid system, so we must consider carefully the likely number of new cases that will have to be dealt with, and estimate the time that they will take up and how many appeals the courts may need to hear. That will all become clearer if the Bill makes progress and we get to the point of considering regulations to enforce it.
As I said on Second Reading, much of the detail needs to be thrashed out not only in debate in Committee but when the regulations are introduced and in light of the way in which such regulations should be constructed. Only then will the financial implications of the Bill in detail become known and better understood. I believe that this money resolution is drafted clearly and broadly without being drawn too widely. I commend it to the House.
1.30 pm
Mr. Andrew Robathan: I understand that it is customary to table a money resolution such as this for a private Member's Bill, but I welcome what the Under-Secretary said. The Opposition concur on the likely costs. We welcome the Bill, and certainly its spirit, but we are slightly concerned about the lack of substance in it. We look forward to strengthening it in Committee.
Our constituents have real concerns about the proliferation of noisy fireworks throughout the year. I trust that the Bill will help them, and reduce the distress, disturbance and noise and the real fear that many people—especially the elderly—and their animals experience.
Mr. Andrew Stunell: The Liberal Democrats wish the Bill a fair wind and this short debate provides the opportunity for the House to discuss the funding and the support that it will need for its full implementation in due course.
Question put and agreed to.

MARINE SAFETY BILL [MONEY]
Queen's recommendation having been signified—
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Marine Safety Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of theAct.—[Mr. Spellar.]

MARINE SAFETY BILL [WAYS AND MEANS]
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Marine Safety Bill, it is expedient to authorise the making of charges by fire authorities in connection with marine incidents.—[Mr. Spellar.]

Flood and Coastal Defence Policy
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
1.31 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): I am pleased to open this debate, which gives hon. Members an opportunity to discuss flood defence, a subject of particular importance to many people—[Interruption]—including, belatedly, the Opposition.
The Government have a good story to tell on flood and coastal defence, and a good record. Given the nature of our country—the number of our rivers and the fact that we are an island—we have effective structures in place. The Environment Agency, our lead body, is an effective organisation, and our system is based on river catchments, which is the most appropriate way of ensuring the delivery of flood and coastal defence, but we also integrate our approach effectively with issues such as the forthcoming water framework directive, environmental issues, diffuse pollution issues and biodiversity.
I pay tribute to all staff involved in the recent flooding incidents—most notably that of January 2003—including those who work for the Environment Agency, local authorities, internal drainage boards, British Waterways, our emergency services and many local community groups. Many of them worked through the holiday period and gave incredible support, dedication and unstinting service in dealing with those floods.
Mr. Martin Salter: I concur with my hon. Friend's tribute to staff at the Environment Agency, community groups, parish councils and volunteer search and rescue people, but does he agree—I raised this matter with him in Westminster Hall on 4 February—that there is a question concerning the amount of resources available to emergency planning officers throughout the country? I would contend—as would the Local Government Association—that there is a total lack of funding within the civil defence grant. I understand that the total civil defence grant—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I would contend that that is overlong for an intervention. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will catch my eye later to develop his point more fully.
Mr. Morley: I understand the gist of what my hon. Friend says, and he did make that point in Westminster Hall. I said at the time that he was absolutely right: there is a need to overhaul and review the procedures for emergency response, which is a Home Office lead responsibility. The co-ordination of flood events and other civil emergencies is part of its responsibility. I know my hon. Friend's concerns about this and that he has been working with his community groups. I will draw his points about the need for adequate funding to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Home Office.
Sir Michael Spicer: The Minister mentioned that it is Government policy to have catchment areas and integration on rivers, but that is

451
not happening at present. There is a massive flood prevention scheme at Bewdley on the River Severn that has shoved all the water down to my constituency. The Minister has not got there yet; what he says may be an aspiration, but when will it becomereality?
Mr. Morley: It is reality because it is based on catchments. There are three key criteria applied to any flood defence scheme. The first is the impact on the environment. The second is technical: whether the scheme works effectively and, within that, whether there are any implications for other communities in the area that must be taken into account. The third is a cost-benefit analysis. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the implications of one scheme for other communities are taken into account.
Hugh Bayley: I am grateful to the Government for their response to the consultation exercise, but does my hon. Friend agree that a river is a drainage system, draining the entire catchment from source to sea, and that it would be wholly illogical to place the cost of carrying flood water away from upland areas to those living downstream by imposing a flood plain levy? Does he agree that drainage is a public good—one of those things from which everyone benefits, and to which everyone should contribute?
Mr. Morley: Drainage is a public good, and my hon. Friend is pre-empting what I am going to say about the funding review. The debate today is an opportunity for hon. Members to respond to that. I understand his point: drainage is important for the whole of our country, and it is for that reason that the recommendation of the funding review was that the bulk of flooding and coastal defence expenditure should continue to come from the Exchequer. We as a Government accept that. Some people get direct benefits in relation to the defences that are provided and there has always been a partnership approach between local and central Government, with central Government paying the bulk of the expenditure.Within the review, there were a number of recommendations about additional sources of funding, on which I shall expand in a moment.
My hon. Friend was right that a flood plain levy was one of the suggestions. We are looking carefully at the recommendations of the report, but the idea of the flood plain levy in the consultation was almost universally unpopular. I can reassure him that a flood plain levy is a very low priority for the Government and we would like to consider other issues.
I want to stress the positives in relation to flood and coastal defence and the improvements that we are constantly striving to make. However, I know that, despite our successes, there is no consolation to anyone who has suffered from flooding. I want to make that clear and express my sympathy to those who have been victims of flooding. We are not complacent and we are striving to make the system better. I shall touch on what we are doing today.
Jon Trickett: I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend is doing, but does he acknowledge
452
that, sadly, areas such as Hemsworth are subject to flooding by human excrement because of the lack of drainage? In his expenditure review, will he look at enhancing the expenditure on such matters by private companies such as Yorkshire Water?
Mr. Morley: That issue will not form part of this funding review, which deals with funding for flood and coastal defence. However, my hon. Friend makes a very important point that enables me to stress that the sources of flooding are not simply fluvial. For example, run-off from fields and roads, and small ditches belonging to riparian owners, can contribute to flooding, and sewer flooding is indeed a major problem. We, along with the Ofwat regulator, are embarking on a price review of the investment programme for water and sewerage companies for the next five years. I know that sewer flooding is an issue of particular importance to many hon. Members, and I want to reassure them that in my talks with the regulator, following the Government's initial submission, I have asked that more priority be given to addressing that issue in sewerage companies' future forward programmes. I know that many hon. Members will welcome that approach.
Mr. Mark Francois: The Minister will undoubtedly be aware that flooding is a very emotive subject in the county of Essex. This year, Essex commemorates the 50th anniversary of the great flood of 1953, which killed almost 100 people in the county. He will also be aware that central Government funding for flood defences in Essex has recently been reduced, and that this, too, is an emotive issue, given our history. Will he therefore agree to meet me and a delegation from Essex county council, so that we can debate the issue of flood defence in Essex? Perhaps we can persuade him to look again at one or two of these important points.
Mr. Morley: As hon. Members know, I am always willing to meet them to discuss their individual constituency problems, and to do what I can to address them. I do not know the details of the Essex budget, but what I do know is that budgets in individual areas fluctuate from year to year, depending on the schemes that have been approved, and on the schemes submitted by the regional flood defence committees. Of course, the responsibility for deciding on local priorities rests with the regional flood defence committee, which, along with the Environment Agency, decides on the priorities and submits the scheme to Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Our job is to provide grant aid, and to make a technical evaluation of individual schemes. If the hon. Gentleman will write to me with his concerns, I shall be only too happy to see if I can address them.
Mr. Philip Hammond rose—
Mr. John Smith: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Morley: If hon. Members will give me time to develop my speech a little further, I shall be happy to take interventions.
Mr. Smith: I wanted to mention resources.
Mr. Morley: We will have the opportunity to discuss that issue. Indeed, the point that I was about to make is

453
that we have increased resources substantially. The House might be interested to learn what has happened since we came to power in 1997. Back then, annual expenditure was some ¤310 million. After increases in successive spending reviews, we are now set to spend ¤564 million by 2005–06. That is an increase of ¤254 million—or more than 80 per cent., in cash terms, in less than a decade. That is a considerable increase.
Adequate funding is important, but flood defence is not just about spending money. We also have to put in place the means to target investment where it is most needed, to get the best value for taxpayers' money, and to ensure that our aims and objectives are achieved. They include the production of a set of high—level targets for flood and coastal defence bodies to follow; strengthened guidance to local planning authorities on building on flood plains; better procedures for appraising schemes, to ensure that taxpayers' money is well spent; and new scheme appraisal and priority score techniques, to ensure that the priorities are open and transparent in the allocation of funds for individual schemes. We also want to reinforce the strategic approach to flood defences by developing the shoreline management planning initiative, and by introducing new concepts of catchment flood management plans and coastal habitat management plans. As hon. Members have said, and as we accept entirely, it is important to address food management on a catchment basis.
We also want to look at new technology, designs and innovations, such as temporary community defences, which can be erected temporarily in particular areas when there is a flood risk warning. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) has raised issues such as this in general terms, and in relation to his constituency. He might be interested to know that we have approved a £600,000 DEFRA grant for the purchase of temporary community defences in the Severn area. Worcester is one of a number of areas that will be included in the pilot trial scheme for such defences.
Mr. Michael Foster: I want to say a big "thank you" to the Minister on behalf of the people of Worcester, and in particular on behalf of Worcester Action Against Flooding, a pressure group that is meeting tonight. It will be mightily impressed by his announcement, and the champagne will certainly be flowing tonight in Worcester.
Mr. Morley: That is the best kind of flowing to have in discussing these issues. Many organisations, and in particular those that are part of the National Flood Forum—a body that I regard very highly—are considering these matters. I have to be honest and say that, although we are increasing funding and looking at different solutions, sadly, for all sorts of technical reasons, in some areas it will be very hard to find an effective engineered solution. Although such temporary defences will not be the answer in all circumstances, they may be in some. We certainly want to extend such provision further in order to give communities flood and coastal defence.
Mr. John Smith: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said about increased resources, but what about the smaller schemes in villages such as
454
Colwinston, in my constituency, which fall between the Environment Agency and the local authority? Such places can raise their own money—often, it is private sector money—but sometimes it is not quite enough. Is he thinking of any schemes to help them to get additional funding when they have shown their own initiative?
Mr. Morley: That is a very interesting suggestion. Indeed, I have encountered communities and individuals who have put up their own money to provide their own flood defences. Incidentally, they have to go through the same planning and appraisal process to ensure that they will not impact on other individuals or communities. I warmly welcome local community initiatives to try to raise funds. As my hon. Friend says, they sometimes fall just a little short, and I undertake to discuss this matter with the Environment Agency and the regional flood defence committees, to see whether some initiative might give financial support to those who are prepared to meet a proportion of the funding. We have examined one or two such schemes on a pilot basis. The particular circumstances must be considered, and the idea needs some thinking through, but I can assure him that we will discuss it.
Mr. Andrew Turner: I am interested in the suggestion that the Minister made, before he moved on to temporary flood prevention measures, about new plans. I am concerned that the creation and implementation of new plans will drive back much of the work that has already been done in some areas. A brief example is what happened in my constituency in 1994, when such a plan was drawn up. That plan still has not been implemented because of new regulations piled on new regulations.
Mr. Morley: I do not know the details of that plan, but it may well have come fairly low on the regional flood defence committee's priority scoring league table. Although the plan may be regarded as desirable, it may have a relatively low score. If the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me with the details, I will be very happy to provide him with some more information.
Sir Michael Spicer: I am grateful to the Minister for giving money to Worcestershire but, as he said, value for money counts as much as anything. In that context, why has he rejected the concept of helping self-help schemes, which seem to offer very good value for money?
Mr. Morley: We have considered a pilot scheme in partnership with a local council. Self-help schemes are designed to protect individual houses, which is fine, and the protection of individual homes is the responsibility of householders. The commitment for across-the-board grant aid for self-help schemes could be large and open-ended, and would divert money from larger-scale community defences, which protect a lot of homes and property. A balance therefore has to be struck. We take the issue seriously, however, and the hon. Gentleman may know that the Department has put money into the evaluation of various self-help devices and the establishment of a kite mark of standards so that people know that the devices have been tested and that they are buying something effective.

455
I welcome the innovation by many companies, including British companies, which have produced a range of products to assist people to protect their homes. The National Flood Forum has set up flood fairs—people in flood-risk areas can go along and see some of those devices being demonstrated and explained, which is useful and effective. We take such developments seriously. The support that we can give is limited but, where we can give it, we are certainly willing to do so in the way that I have described.
Yesterday, I announced the Government's conclusions on the flood and coastal defence funding review. The full written statement was given to the House yesterday morning, because I wanted to give Members an opportunity to read and think about it before raising their concerns in today's debate. I am happy to set out the main points of our response.
Norman Baker: I thank the Minister both for giving way and for his courtesy in giving the House that statement, which was useful. Will he tell us what will require primary legislation and what can be done by regulation? If there are matters requiring primary legislation, will they be incorporated in the Water Bill?
Mr. Morley: One or two issues will require primary legislation, but those in our announcement, particularly the reorganization of regional flood defences and local flood defence committees, will be included in the Water Bill.
To recap, in our response we accepted that the majority of the service should continue to be funded by the Exchequer. I have outlined the way in which expenditure has grown under this Government, but, to meet the challenges ahead, we need to investigate alternative sources of funding, recognising that there has always been an element of shared responsibility in funding, especially when the beneficiaries are identical to those of the flood defence service. That will reduce at least some of the burden falling on the general taxpayer, who may receive little or no direct benefit from flood defences—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett).
I confirm that the Government are continuing to investigate alternative sources of funding identified by the review group. We are paying attention to the idea of a development connection charge—a tax to be paid by developers in the flood plain. I know that new taxes and charges are never popular, and shall certainly bear in mind the issues that were raised when we consulted. I should stress that no definitive decision has been made about a connection charge, as there are many details that have to be considered and resolved. However, we are giving thought to the issue.
I took careful note of the report on flood and coastal defence by the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, to which I pay tribute. I have always held the Select Committee in high regard, and DEFRA takes its views seriously and tries to respond to them. The Select Committee called for streamlining and simplification of the institutional arrangements for flood and coastal defence. We concluded that the Environment Agency should take responsibility for all
456
rivers creating the greatest flood risk, which will help to provide a much greater consistency of service across the country. Those rivers, responsibility for which is currently split between the Environment Agency, local authorities and internal drainage boards, will be redesignated as main rivers and brought under the control of the agency. We expect day-to-day maintenance and work on those rivers to be contracted back to the local authorities and IDBs if they are willing to take on that work and have a good track record on delivery.
We have retained IDBs—the former Select Committee on Agriculture recommended their abolition—and recognise that many of them do a good and effective job in draining land in areas of special drainage need. The Government's statement outlines a number of measures that we want to take to ensure that IDBs do their job in a way that reflects wider interests, including nature conservation and flood defences for people and property. I shall investigate ways of making the boards more accountable by, for example, bringing them under the ambit of the local government ombudsman, and I want to add impetus to the project to make the boards more efficient and better able to cope effectively with the full range of responsibilities now falling to operating authorities.
There are some very small IDBs, and there is a strong case for the smallest ones to consider mergers or working within consortiums, which have already been established successfully in many parts of the country.
Mr. Mark Todd (South Derbyshire): As someone who has participated in the various Select Committee considerations of this matter, I applaud the Government's response to the need for organisational reform to deal with flood defence. Ordinary consumers of flood defence services will now have a much clearer idea about who is responsible for the services on which they rely.
Mr. Morley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which has taken an interest in the matter and looked at it in detail.
Mr. Andrew Lansley rose—
Mr. Morley: I would like to make progress and do not wish to take up too much time. However, I am glad that we have a little more time for the debate than we expected—[Interruption.] Well, on that basis, I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to the Minister for arguing himself into giving way. Part of my constituency is covered by an IDB. When we suffered some exceptionally heavy rainfall, the performance of IDBs in relation to the water courses for which they were responsible was generally better than was the case for bodies with responsibility for other rivers. Accountability can therefore be a good thing, but we do not want uniformity to lead to a reduction in the protection standards achieved by IDBs. If the operating authority is going to be the Environment Agency, will it

457
contract out duties quickly and non-bureaucratically in a way that allows IDBs to do substantially the same job as they do now, because they often do it very well?
Mr. Morley: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. To avoid contradiction, perhaps I should put on record my vice-presidency of the Association of Drainage Authorities. I am a strong supporter of IDBs—my constituency, like those of many hon. Members in the Chamber, relies on them very much. There are some tiny IDBs with tiny budgets, and we need to look at their efficiency and delivery of service. We expect the Environment Agency to contract a lot of work back to IDBs and local authority, but only if they deliver the work efficiently. That is an important consideration and it will be treated seriously, as hon. Members would expect of all decisions made by the Environment Agency. We expect the vast majority of IDBs to be capable of delivering such a service.
Diana Organ: Does my hon. Friend have a view about the optimal size of IDBs? In my constituency, there are twoIDBs—one is a reasonable size and has a reasonable budget, and the other, the North Gloucestershire internal drainage board, is very small. Does my hon. Friend have a model for what he would consider a good, viable size of IDB with a budget that would allow it to do the necessary work to prevent flooding?
Mr. Morley: In all honesty, I must point out that the optimum size of an IDB will vary according to where it is. Many IDBs have given the matter a great deal of thought. I want them to consider the matter themselves, taking into account the guidance of their own associations. Considerable savings could be made by merging IDBs, or through the consortium approach. I know that my hon. Friend would welcome those savings, as she will welcome my announcement today that IDBs will come under the remit of the local government ombudsman. That will resolve some of the problems that otherwise come to my Department.
I turn now to the question of the Environment Agency's flood defence work, and how that is funded. We propose to change that funding. Subject to the passage of amendments to the Water Bill, the agency's work will be funded by a single stream of DEFRA block grant. That block grant will embrace the current DEFRA capital grant, which currently has to be awarded on the basis of individually approved schemes, and the revenue funding that currently goes to the agency from levies on local authorities. That will greatly simplify the present funding arrangements and provide much greater certainty of funding for longer-term planning.
Gregory Barker: I thank the Minister for giving way, and I am grateful to him for the interest that he has taken in flooding in my constituency, and especially for his visit to Robertsbridge. However, the picture elsewhere in Sussex is not so happy. The Sussex flood defence committee feels that the Department has led it down the garden path. It believes that it was promised 75 per cent. match funding from DEFRA if the county council raised the levy by 7 per cent. Only 65 per cent. was forthcoming. Will the new
458
funding formula give the Sussex flood defence committee a better deal? So far, its experience has been pretty shabby.
Mr. Morley: I disagree. No formal funding arrangements would be made on the basis that the hon. Gentleman described. Funding should be provided by local authorities on the basis of the flood and coastal defence needs of their communities and areas. The level of grant has been increased by this Government. It has been set at different levels according to the priorities and needs of different areas. We take into account the needs in Sussex, and they are reviewed every year. I shall take that into account in future.
Mr. Ian Cawsey: My constituents and I are grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that he will recall visiting Gowdall and other parts of my constituency several times. When the Environment Agency builds flood banks, that often requires work on people's land, and sometimes even in their gardens. Outbuildings and garages occasionally have to be demolished. Could local residents make a case for compensation in such circumstances?
Mr. Morley: This is a complex matter. I am aware of phase 2 of the Gowdall flood defence scheme, and I have visited the village three times in connection with the floods of 2000, so I know it and the details of the scheme very well. It appears that, over many years, some permanent structures such as garages have been built into the flood bank. People should give careful thought to what they build into flood banks but, because the structures are so long standing, I understand that the Environment Agency considers that there might be a case for compensation, in some circumstances, if they have to be demolished or removed. I assure my hon. Friend that the agency is looking at the matter. I am sure that the residents of Gowdall will be pleased about the significant additional expenditure being made on raising the local flood defences. I concede that the village was severely affected in 2000.
The idea is to simplify funding arrangements, to give more certainty to the Environment Agency so that it can adopt longer-term planning in connection with regional flood defences. As for delivery, we are also planning to streamline the current structure of regional and local flood defence by creating a single tier of committees. It is expensive and inefficient to run two committee tiers, and one committee often ends up second guessing decisions made by the other. Again subject to the passage of amendments to the Water Bill, we propose that the local tier of committee be abolished.
However, we recognise that local input is important. Local priorities and views must be taken into account, so we also propose to split some of the larger regions into, say, two or three smaller areas. Those areas will be served by a single-tier committee, but there will be more of them, thus ensuring that local accountability and involvement are maintained.
We are also changing the way in which DEFRA goes about considering proposed capital schemes undertaken by the Environment Agency. In particular, we will consider proposals at an earlier stage of development. That will avoid committing resources wastefully on schemes that are unlikely to be approved for grant. We

459
will try to identify preferred options, and then put them out for consultation. We also try to involve our engineers at an earlier stage in the development or proposals, so as to speed up the appraisal process.
I have to be honest with the House: flood defence provision is complex. The point has been made that we must ensure that one scheme does not impact on another. For that reason, a scheme has to go through the planning process, and often through a very detailed technical appraisal. I do not want to give the impression that putting in flood defence schemes, especially the major ones, will necessarily be a speedy exercise. In some cases, it can take quite a long time. I do not want to mislead people, but we want to try to ensure that unnecessary delays because of departmental bureaucracy are minimised.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Morley: I want to come to my concluding remarks, but I give way to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Little hampton (Mr.Gibb).
Mr. Nick Gibb: The Minister will be aware that the Chichester flood relief scheme sends water down the Pagham rife through my constituency when there is a danger of flooding, and that the Environment Agency last year missed the seasonal window of opportunity for installing sluice gates in the Pagham reserve. Will he assure me and the people of Pagham that the agency will not miss the window this year, and that it will install the sluice gates this spring and summer?
Mr. Morley: Yes. My understanding is that the agency can meet the deadlines for the work on the Pagham sluice gates. To be fair to the agency, in any scheme one is likely to come across unforeseen circumstances sometimes, such as geological ground conditions, water conditions, delays with contractors or even court cases with contractors. Such problems are not unknown. I know that the agency was confident that local communities were not at risk, even though the Chichester scheme sluice gates were not in place. I have visited the Chichester a number of times, and I was very pleased to turn the first sod when it began. I am glad that it is now in place.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Morley: I give way to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath).
Mr. David Heath: I am grateful to the Minister, who is beleaguered by hon. Members. He has not mentioned the contribution that agri-environmental schemes can make to catchment management. I have raised the matter of water retention before, but is thought being given to soil management? Very often, compacted soil prevents water from flowing through to aquifers, and therefore being retained, before it goes into the river system. Is the agri-environmental review addressing that issue?
Mr. Morley: It certainly is. I touched on the matter briefly, in the sense that our general approach to flood
460
and coastal defence involves the soft solutions as well as the hard ones. That is, we want to look at sustainable solutions that involve working with the forces of nature. That means using salt marsh, sand, various gravels and pebbles, and even agricultural land in flood defence schemes. We are issuing soil codes as part of the entry level pilot schemes. We want those schemes to include the various codes produced by DEFRA and which are based on good agricultural practice. In that context, we want to minimise soil compaction, as the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, and the run-off from fields that can cause flooding problems for people.
We recognise that agri-environment schemes could well be part of the range of measures that we can offer as coastal and flood defence solutions. The salt marsh option, for example, is part of our country stewardship option, and it is being used in a number of small schemes around the coast. We take such matters into account, and there may be greater scope for their use. However, once soil and the water tables are saturated—and agricultural land this winter probably reached its full water-carrying capacity by the end of December—the land can take no more water. Any further rain simply runs straight off into the water courses.
That is the situation that has faced us all this winter. The combination of those factors led to the flooding incidents in December and January, in conditions that were very similar to those in 2000. We have to take such matters into account.
Hugh Bayley: Is there anything that my hon. Friend can do to speed up the publication of the Ouse catchment study, which is being carried out by the talented staff of the Environment Agency at its York office? It is now two years since the devastating floods in York which affected 600 properties. The consideration of new flood defences to protect some of those 600 properties is dependent on the conclusions of the study, so naturally the people concerned want the study to be published as soon as possible.
Mr. Morley: I understand my hon. Friend's concern and I have followed the progress of the study. It is a sophisticated study,looking at York and the whole catchment in relation to the best approaches to deal with minimising flood risk down the whole of the Ouse in Yorkshire. My understanding is that the Environment Agency will be able to draw some conclusions from the scheme this summer. That will help guide it towards the necessary options. If the scheme demonstrates that there is a need for further investment in York defences, I am sure that the regional flood defence committee will take that into account in the normal way. I should emphasise that York is protected to a high standard at present, but it is important to look ahead. Part of the Government's approach is to look ahead with investments in flood warning schemes, improved weather forecasting and the Foresight programme, which is led by the Government chief scientist and is trying to look ahead for 50 or 100 years in relation to changing weather patterns and their potential implications.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Morley: I know that one or two other Members wish to intervene, but I should like to bring my remarks to a conclusion. I hope that I will have the opportunity to answer their points at the end of the debate.

461
The series of measures that I have outlined today will streamline the flood and coastal defence service. Subject to the passage of facilitative measures in the Water Bill, which has had its Second Reading in another place and will shortly come to this House, we will be able to implement these measures relatively quickly. We will do so in consultation with other interested parties. I am glad to see the warm response that the proposals have received from the Environment Agency and the Association of British Insurers.
We will produce a proposed implementation plan on the Department's website which will also give some indications of time scales and the process for implementing the changes. We plan to review the measures after they have been in operation for three years. We do not want to disturb the arrangements for flood and coastal defences because their provision is a long-term business that requires long-term investment and stability in relation to delivery. We want to take account of developments and currently emerging issues, such as the implementation of the water framework directive and the Government's wider regional agenda and developments on new funding streams, and, of course, the way in which the IDBs react to the proposed changes.
I look forward to the debate and I hope to respond to as many points as possible. I believe that what I have outlined will be an improvement in the delivery of flood and coastal protection. It is part of our commitment, demonstrating that while we have a good record, we are not complacent about what we are doing or how we are delivering it. We are seeking ways to improve it as part of the constant investment we are making in reducing the risks of flooding to the British people.
2.13 pm
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Prior to this debate there were three resolutions which could have run for two and a quarter hours. Bearing in mind the large number of hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate, I am sure that we are all grateful for the expeditious dispatch of those resolutions, which took a total of some five minutes, allowing us rather more time for this important debate.
Some 50 years ago, on the night of 31 January 1953, the North sea flooded and a disaster took England by storm. Wind speeds of 125 mph were recorded before the tidal flood descended on the east coast. Some 307 people died, 24,000 homes were damaged or destroyed and over 30,000 people were evacuated. Nearly 200,000 acres of land were inundated and 100 miles of road and 200 miles of railway were seriously damaged.
Speaking on 30 January this year at the 1953 floods conference in Norwich, the Minister assured his audience that the Government were committed and on track to meet the challenges of flood and coastal defence today and tomorrow. He contrasted 1953 with today, stating:
"we do live in different times—not least because we are better at warning people. In 1953, there was no national warning service. Emergency plans were hampered by poor communications."
I suggest that the Minister may be accused of a certain wishful thinking in the light of the flooding disasters of Christmas and new year 2002–03. Despite 136 flood warnings, 645,000 properties were flooded and many
462
were left stranded without communication as the Environment Agency's website was overwhelmed by excessive demand. Apparently the problem was 40 times worse than in the year 2000 and was not merely a matter of excessive water flow, but also one of sewage and drainage surcharge—a particular unsavoury phenomenon.
Flooding is often mentioned in the same breath as such admirable words as "sustainable", "strategic approach" and "integrated management". Yet how much of that did we see over the new year's flooding, and how far is it being put into practice in the Government's long-term vision for flood and coastal defence? Climate change, tilt and sea level rise mean that the UK will be increasingly subject to higher rainfall and risk of flooding, both along the coast and inland.
I start by welcoming the Minister's announcement yesterday to increase funding significantly, with a rise to ¤560 million by 2005, which is to be paid through a direct block grant to the Environment Agency. This at long last allows for longer term planning.
Hugh Bayley: It is a matter of concern to my constituents and constituents in many towns and cities which are subject to flooding whether the hon. Gentleman's party gives a commitment to maintaining this level of funding for flood defences should it return to Government.
Mr. Sayeed: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman allow us to get back into Government first. [Interruption.] We will not have too long to wait, I trust.
Both the money and the direct block grant make a step in the right direction towards a much more modern, efficient system of flood management. However, it is not enough simply to invest money. We also need to invest thought. Our thinking must be driven by an understanding of sustainability that is holistic, giving due consideration to the environmental, social and economic needs of our communities.
Much more needs to be done—the Minister touched on this—to champion new approaches to flood defences and to streamline institutional arrangements. I acknowledge that, at long last after six years, the Government have taken a significant step towards that with yesterday's announcement. However, I remain concerned that DEFRA's consultation on the flood and coastal defence funding review,which examined the funding mechanisms for flood and coastal defences, explicitly excluded from its scope
"emergency planning and emergency funding arrangements".
The Minister informed me in the Westminster Hall debate on 4 February, column 50, that a review of emergency planning had been delegated to the Home Office, so I sincerely hope that the two Departments can, for a change, demonstrate coherent government over the issue.
I have spoken a number of times in this House, warning the Government about the dangers of the multi-tiered system of responsibility. Before yesterday, operational responsibility for flood defences continued to rest with the Environment Agency, the internal drainage boards, local authorities and maritime local authorities, riparian owners, the water companies, the Highways Agency and many other interested parties.

463
That was hardly conducive to an integrated, strategic and streamlined approach, with the flexibility to recognise and react to specific local needs. It was, as it will continue to be until the changes are implemented, a recipe for arguing over responsibility until a problem escalated into an expensive and damaging disaster. I am thus delighted that the Minister appears to have taken up my proposal for the establishment of a single executive operating authority, funded by a central grant and able to require action to be taken in the event of an emergency, and later to apportion responsibility and costs. In that way, instead of a problem developing into a disaster while the parties argue about which of them is responsible, swift remedial action can be taken and blame and costs apportioned afterwards. There is no doubt that we need one body with the right and the might to enforce action, and I trust that will now be provided.
As I understand the Minister's statement yesterday, the Environment Agency has been given full responsibility for the major risk rivers, with power to contract some operational flood defence work back to competent local authorities and internal drainage boards. I welcome that. However, if the Environment Agency is to become the executive operating authority, there must be an appeal system against its decisions. The organisation could have a vested interest in its adjudications, so it is essential not only that it act impartially but that it be seen to do so and publish proof of that.
It also seems that overall responsibility for coastal defences will remain with local authorities. How will such local responsibility dovetail with the newly acquired powers of the Environment Agency in the general chain of command? Has the Minister considered instituting a statutory duty for operational authorities to carry out flood and coastal defence activities, rather than their present permissive powers? What is wrong with the Scottish example, where local authorities have a statutory duty of flood prevention?
The Minister has proposed the abolition of the local committees in favour of a definitive list of regional committees, and the draft Water Bill also included provision for the empowerment of regional flood defence committees. How is a region defined in that context? Would such provisions mean that, in the interests of regionalism, we should be sidelining internal drainage boards, which are often a valuable repository of local knowledge and experience? How will the Government ensure that decision making does not become too remote from local circumstances? How effectively will the process function when catchment areas overlap both regional and national boundaries?
Furthermore, when will the Government realise that floodplains contain areas that provide general economic and environmental benefit to the greater community—not for capital gain by the development and building industries, but as water-absorbing land that can reduce the risk of flooding elsewhere? Currently, more than a quarter of new property, by value, across England and Wales, including £80 billion worth of property in and around London alone, is built on floodplains. How many more millions of households are to be exposed to increased flood disasters, lack of insurance cover and a
464
drop in property value, which will render their homes a worthless asset? Why are the Government putting more people at risk from flooding, while simultaneously planning to increase taxes to pay for more crucial flood defences?
Mr. Todd: The hon. Gentleman presents a somewhat unsophisticated argument. The main threat is not to the houses constructed on floodplains, as they are often well defended and raised above the floodplain, but to surrounding properties that are not so defended.
Mr. Sayeed: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's second point. The Deputy Prime Minister's proposals for the Thamesmead area will do considerable damage not only to that area but to the properties that surround it. Why should properties that have not been subject to flooding be caused to flood in the future owing to excess building?
Why are more than one in three applications to build homes on floodplains being approved in defiance of the advice of the Environment Agency? Last year, the Government approved 288 of the 758 planning applications to which the Environment Agency objected. On appeal, a further one in five was passed, again against the agency's advice. Perhaps the Minister would comment on the proposition that it is hardly unreasonable to ask that the agency, and indeed the water companies, be treated as statutory consultees on developments in a floodplain and that their advice be adhered to unless there are good published reasons to disagree.
Dr. John Pugh: I should hate the hon. Gentleman to think that the Environment Agency always got everything right. In my constituency, the whole of Southport PR9 is classified as a floodplain and under threat of flooding not from the sea, because we have an excellent sea wall—indeed, sometimes there is some difficulty in finding the sea—but from the river, even though we have no history of flooding from any river. None the less, organisations such as Marks and Spencer refuse insurance to people in the PR9 area because the Environment Agency is using a bad map.
Mr. Sayeed: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. The Environment Agency's first mapping was purely topographical. The agency did not ask the I DBs or other bodies which areas were at real risk of flooding. Maps produced by Norwich Union were far superior to those of the Environment Agency, and the agency recognised that it was at fault.
As I understand it, the agency's objections to the planning applications were not based on crude projections taken from an inaccurate map; they were well founded objections that were ignored by the Government. It would be sensible for the agency and the water companies to be treated as statutory consultees on developments in floodplains, as I pointed out earlier.
Mr. Todd: Would the hon. Gentleman support my proposal, which I understand that the Government are keeping as a reserve option, that any application in a floodplain to which the Environment Agency objects should automatically be referred to DEFRA for decision rather than being determined locally?
Mr. Sayeed: I am dealing with that point. If those bodies were statutory consultees, they would have to be consulted.

465
I now come to the Deputy Prime Minister's regeneration scheme for the Thames gateway region. That scheme will put another one million people at risk from flooding. More than 58 square miles are below the level reached by high tide and parts of Thamesmead lie 12 feet below high tide. As we know, the Thames barrier may not last as long as predicted, owing to tilt and rising sea levels, and is currently subject to a far greater proportion of closures than intended under its original design. As a consequence, development in the south-east will require major added investment to protect vulnerable areas from increasing coastal and fluvial flooding. The Minister has told us that he is considering a new tax on property developers who are planning to build on floodplains to pay for the erection and maintenance of flood defences.
Mr. Morley: The Thames gateway is currently defended to a one in 1,000 standard for flood defence, which is extremely high. It is true that, at some point, the Thames barrier will need to be upgraded or replaced because of its design limitations. That has been built into forward investment.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the floodplain connection charge. Planning authorities can ask developers to contribute directly to flood defence schemes as part of their development. That provision already exists under planning policy guidance 25. The idea is that the levy would contribute on a national scale to flood warning systems and the ongoing maintenance of flood protection schemes in all areas that are at risk.
Mr. Sayeed: I thank the Minister. I understand those points and will deal with them later. As he knows, however, the one in 1,000 figure is disagreed to by several other authorities. The fact is that if one builds homes that lie 12 ft below high tide, one runs a considerable risk. The consequence of all this development in the south-east will be that we have to invest considerable new sums of money to protect vulnerable areas from increasing coastal and fluvial flooding.
Will developers play a part in raising the revenue to deliver increased funding to the Environment Agency? Who will be required to pay for the increased drainage costs? Will it be householders, who do not want ever more urban sprawl, local authorities, who are opposed to building on floodplains, or the water companies, who will simply pass on the extra costs to their customers? How far has the Minister considered a supplementary one-off "connection charge" on all development projects that are likely to have an adverse drainage impact on a particular catchment? The funds raised from such a levy could be used to improve flood protection in the area, with money contributing to flood forecasting and early warning systems, floodplain mapping projects, emergency planning and post-flood clear-up strategies.
How can the Minister square all his admirable intentions with the determination of the Deputy Prime Minister to continue and increase building on floodplains, covering ever more of the midlands and the south-east with bricks and mortar? It seems that we are being treated, yet again, to an example of joined-up government in rhetoric and contradictory policies in action.
466
Can the Minister guarantee that planning policy guidance note 25 will be enforced to ensure that appropriate development and flood mitigation measures for new development and for neighbouring existing properties take place?
Why is so much house building being planned for these areas, given that in the north of England housing is being left derelict or destroyed and existing infrastructure is being wasted? Is it because there is such regional inflexibility that there is ever greater pressure for inappropriate development? The priority should be jobs in the north, not urban sprawl in the south. Surely it is time that the development of floodplains was capped and that the Minister spent more of his energy and resources on soft defences and the encouragement of sustainable land management practices that assist water retention and maintain hedges and ditches to act as buffers.
Why are flood defence moneys and agri-environment funds not linked to ensure that landowners can he paid for flood mitigation practices? Inland hard and artificial defence structures often shift the problem upstream or downstream, and are far less cost-effective than a softer approach. High fluvial flood defence embankments in fact produce external costs by displacing floodwater downstream and preventing valuable environmental functions such as groundwater recharge. Instead of that piecemeal approach, the whole river catchment should be considered, not just the areas that are prone to flooding. In some cases, water can be stored upstream in washlands, providing the same flood defence function as more traditional approaches, but with the additional benefits of creating wildlife habitats, helping to meet biodiversity targets, and providing social amenities to local people. A similar attitude to the coastal flood threat could also reap both environmental and economic rewards.
Building higher and higher defences against rising sea levels is not an efficient use of part of the United Kingdom's coastline. The realignment of coastal defences could save the taxpayer money, provide natural flood buffer zones and safeguard important inter-tidal habitats, such as salt marsh, against the threat of coastal squeeze. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds—I pay tribute toit—has identified many realignment possibilities around the UK. That can result in shorter defence distances, which at present cost an average of£3,000 per km per year to maintain. In north-east England, it could cut the length of wall from 88 km to 56 km and create at least 1,500 hectares of salt marsh, with the potential for a valuable fishery. New areas of salt marsh and similar habitats could help to absorb the impact of winter storms and rising tides, resulting in less ongoing spending on maintaining harder defences, yet still protect property further inland.
Before I leave the question of coastal defences, I have to mention the plight of Happisburgh, because it illustrates how coastal erosion is destroying homes and livelihoods. Worse, it threatens to obliterate entire communities. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) visited Happisburgh, which is on the north Norfolk coast. The Minister would not recognise that coast, which he visited in 1998, because so much of it has been eroded by the sea. Erosion has accelerated at a rate that exceeds anything predicted by Whitehall or by independent experts. An

467
entire community feels frightened and abandoned by Government. The plight of Happisburgh mirrors that of other villages and small towns on the south coast of England, for the Government have recently changed the formula for assessing bids for new coastal defence works. Happisburgh would have qualified under the old system, but is now in effect being told that nothing can be done. Indeed, the local council told my hon. Friend that even a town the size of Cromer would find it hard to qualify for coastal defence works under the terms of the new formula. I am sure that that cannot be the Government's intention. Will the Minister explain what value the Government place on the survival, not only of individual buildings or businesses, but of an entire community? Will he confirm that they will look again at the formula?
Mr. Morley: I am of course familiar with Happisburgh, as the hon. Gentleman says, as I am with all coastal issues. There is a contradiction in his comments. He supports soft defence, which I am pleased about—it appears to be something of a policy U-turn—but soft defence requires a dynamic coastline, and a dynamic coastline means recognising that erosion has taken place for centuries. Local authorities are the lead bodies for coastal erosion issues. The scheme that was submitted to us in DEFRA was withdrawn by the local authority because it had problems with local objections and land ownership issues. It is a matter for the local authority, and we will judge its application on its merits when we receive it. Of course, I am sympathetic to the situation in which people in that community find themselves.
Mr. Sayeed: There is a considerable difference between letting local farmland drop into the sea and compensating farmers for it, and letting whole communities fall into the sea. The Minister did not answer my question about the changes in the new formula, but he may care to consider it.
I urge the Minister to ensure that the criteria used to identify areas that qualify for flood defences be reevaluated to take into account all the impacts and costs associated with flooding. That point has been made forcefully to me by Norwich Union. I congratulate that insurance company, which has done much more work on flooding than any other commercial organisation. It remains concerned that February's change to the scoring system did not clarify whether the cost and benefit evaluations took account of social and health costs, which can be significant. The risk is that some communities will not receive schemes because they are not prioritised correctly.
Will the Minister review the distinction that was made in the Coast Protection Act 1949 between coastal defence and river flooding? If the sea breaks through at Happisburgh, it could surge right through the Norfolk broads, causing irreparable damage to the national park. Despite that danger, the Environment Agency has apparently told local people that it cannot get involved in their campaign for coastal defences because its remit is limited to river flooding. There seems to be a serious lack of joined-up thinking.
Mr. Andrew Turner: Earlier, I referred to Castlehaven, and I accept that its case is not as bad as
468
that of Happisburgh. However, in all such cases, does my hon. Friend agree that twists and turns in policy and designation, and the length of the process, can delay the implementation of proposals that local authorities are prepared to make? That can cause great stress to residents.
Mr. Sayeed: I agree with my hon. Friend's point, but I would admit that the Government are, at long last, moving towards reducing the number of different conflicting organisations that have an input to such cases. I agree that the planning system is a cause of considerable delays.
I want to discuss public information. I welcome the facts that householder comprehension of flood risk is said to be on the increase and that the Environment Agency is advocating more self-help. Yet I wonder whether that increase in comprehension is enough. In its "Home and Dry" advice pack, launched on March 5, Norwich Union states:
"more than 90 per cent. of homeowners in some of the country's high-risk flood areas admit they haven't even taken the simplest of steps to protect their property—such as moving valuables upstairs—and say they don't really know what measures they can take."
In addition, 67 per cent. of the people surveyed in February this year were worried that not enough is being done about flooding and that sufficient progress has not been made in the past 12 months. Property owners must be made fully aware of the threats that are associated with living on a high-risk floodplain, and encouraged to take precautionary measures on a seasonal basis. For instance, I would have thought it logical—although it seems hardly to occur in practice, even in new homes—that electrical connections should be placed at a higher level above the floor.
We can all disagree over the causes of global warming. However, what is indisputable is that the dual spectre of coastal and inland flooding looms increasingly large. The exercise of those forces of nature is out of our control, but the minimization of their impact lies in the hands of the Government. Although they cannot turn back the tide, stop the rain or reverse rising sea levels, they can do much to protect us from what is foreseeable today and may become a catastrophe tomorrow.
Reform is undoubtedly the key to environmental protection and value for money. Moreover, the implementation of the Association of British Insurers' statement of principles on the provision of flooding insurance, which applies from January of this year, is dependent on Government action. Even that commitment still leaves upto 200,000 homes in the most high-risk areas without flood insurance. Ultimately, if the insurance industry considers that it can no longer provide cover for certain domestic properties and small businesses, the onus will be on the Government to provide cover as the insurer of last resort. Flood prevention is actually the cheap option. The Treasury has to learn that. The delivery of a policy that looks beyond sandbags to a long-term preventive strategy is essential before the next disaster catches us as unprepared and underfunded as we were in 1953.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I share a thought with the House? Perhaps 180 minutes or so are left in the

469
debate for Back-Bench contributions, but 17 Back Benchers are trying to catch my eye. There is also another Front-Bench contribution to come. I am aware that many hon. Members wish to raise particular matters as well as making general observations on constituency concerns. Perhaps everyone will bear that in mind.
2.44 pm
Hugh Bayley: Having had two opportunities to ask questions directly of the Minister during his speech, I am prepared, in order to allow other hon. Members to make speeches, to make this the shortest speech that I have ever made in this Chamber.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has taken the Chair by surprise—just as the Chair obviously took the hon. Member by surprise. I am sure that everyone appreciates his forbearance.
2.45 pm
Norman Baker: I shall try to be brief to allow other hon. Members to contribute. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down!"] I promise not to take in excess of half an hour, as did the Conservative Opposition spokesman; and I will give way to the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) if he wishes to intervene.
I thank the Minister for his usual courtesy in presenting his case today. He allowed numerous interventions. He always gives way to local hon. Members and responds as best he can. He also meets local hon. Members and we had the courtesy of a written ministerial statement, which is in Hansard, for us to see before today's debate. I am sorry if those comments are unhelpful to him, but that is how I feel. I hope that they do not damage his prospects—especially as there may be some vacancies for promotion in the Cabinet and elsewhere in future.
Yesterday's written parliamentary statement, which the Minister has amplified today, is well balanced. It acknowledges that changes had to be made to flood arrangements. The arrangements were archaic and anachronistic, and they prevented proper flood defence measures from being brought in as soon as possible, which is what all communities wanted. Change was long overdue. The Liberal Democrats made the same proposals—although we would not be so arrogant as to call them our proposals. The ABI also recommended the same proposals. It may be that the Government will pay more attention to the ABI than they will to other people who argue for change. However, whatever the reasons, there have been sensible changes that will go a long way towards improving flood defences. The environment block grant to the Environment Agency is a sensible and long overdue measure. I also welcome the change that will give the Environment Agency responsibility for all rivers with the greatest flood risk. I take it that, by risk, the Minister is referring to the consequences for houses if they are flooded, rather than to frequency with which flooding may occur.
I pay tribute to the RSPB, which is very knowledgeable about flooding. It too has argued for these changes and will doubtless welcome the Minister's
470
comments, just as I have welcomed them. Other hon. Members will welcome them too. It is sensible to streamline the present approval processes for flood defence schemes and to bring DEFRA engineers in earlier.
The Minister rightly concentrates on the flood-defence aspects of particular works—that is his job. However, I hope that he will acknowledge that flood-defence works often provide an opportunity for amenity improvements for local communities. For example, the construction of improved flood defences can provide river walks or other developments along riversides. They can enhance conservation areas; but they can also damage them if the materials used are not suitable. What discussions has the Minister had with his colleagues in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to see what tie-up there can be between his objectives and the ODPM's objectives, to ensure that both can be met in the introduction of a particular scheme?
Mr. David Heath: My hon. Friend might also be interested in the tie-up between the Highways Agency, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed), and the Environment Agency because road schemes can often act as water-retaining measures, sometimes to the advantage of communities, but sometimes—as with Ilchester Mead in my constituency, where the A303 causes floods—to their great disadvantage. It is very difficult to convince the Highways Agency that correcting those problems is its priority, because its priority is building roads, not stopping floods.
Norman Baker: I agree with my hon. Friend, who makes an important intervention. Joined-up government is needed across Departments to look at those matters, but sometimes things work in reverse: the Highways Agency is currently advocating a scheme for the A27 in my constituency that was described as the worst possible environmental option when it was proposed previously, but the agency is justifying the scheme because it will have less impact on the floodplain. So those in the Highways Agency sometimes invoke that argument to save money when it suits them and ignore it when that suits them.
Mr. Bill Wiggin: I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman about the Environment Agency's progress in my constituency. This is particularly relevant to him because the Welsh Environment Agency takes care of flood defences in my part of England, and, as he will know, it is run by the Welsh Assembly, which is run by the Liberal Democrats in coalition with the Labour party, so I am curious to see how he reacts when he hears that those on the Lugg internal draining board say that they are extremely unhappy with the agency's progress. What would he say to them?
Norman Baker: I am not familiar with the position in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and I am sure that he is capable of arguing his case very articulately in the House and with other colleagues. Cross-border matters are an issue. Water does not respect boundaries between counties, flood defence committees, nations or whatever, and we shall have to address that in

471
considering the Water Bill and different legislation for Scotland and England, so the hon. Gentleman makes a valid point.
Perhaps we know all this, but it is worth putting it on record that we are having debates about flood defences not simply because the system has been faulty for so long, but because we are facing climate change of significantly increasing proportions. Average surface temperatures on the earth are 0.6° C higher than 120 years ago. The 1995 intergovernmental panel on climate change predicted that global temperature would increase by between 1° and 3.5° by the end of this century, and models project an increase in sea level of between 13 and 95 cm between 1995 and 2100. Those are all those significant figures that affect this country, but they often affect developing countries far more.
Under those circumstances, it is incumbent on the Government not simply to put money into flood defence, which they are now doing, and to have a coherent strategy, which is now coming, but to ensure that their other policies that affect climate change are in line with the Minister's desires to minimise its impact, thus reducing the call on moneys for flood defences. So he will be disappointed that last year, for example, the amount of energy generated from renewable sources in this country dropped from 3.3 to 3.1 per cent. of all energy generated, notwithstanding the energy White Paper.
The Minister will be disappointed that carbon dioxide emissions from aircraft are due to double between 1990 and 2010, and the Department for Transport propose to do nothing about it. He will be disappointed that road traffic reduction targets have been abandoned, and we are now back to predict and provide methods for road building. He will be equally disappointed that the Kyoto protocol has not been signed by the United States Government, and our Government seem keener on discussing other matters with the US Government, rather than environmental issues and climate change.

The Government need to address the issue on a cross-departmental basis, and all the good work that the Minister and his colleagues in DEFRA may be doing is undermined if other colleagues in other Departments that have impacts on climate change are not following sensible policies and, in fact, are making matters worse for the Minister at DEFRA.
I will not run through the various problems with flooding that we have in this country—they are well documented and the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire referred to some of them—but I will refer, as the Minister will understand, to the position in Lewes. He would be disappointed if I did not, and I must do so given the horrendous impact of the floods in my constituency in 2000.
I welcome the fact that we are now approaching a stage where a start will be made on the Mailing Brooks scheme in the town. That was announced a couple of days ago.
Mr. Morley: Yesterday.
Norman Baker: The Minister confirms that that happened yesterday, and I very much welcome that
472
scheme, as it will go some way to relieve the considerable anxiety about flooding in my constituency. However, there are still problems in identifying a proper funding mechanism, notwithstanding the announcement that the Minister has made today. For example, I refer him to a letter that I received on 7 March from Peter Midgely, the Sussex area manager at the Environment Agency, in which he says:
"Elliot Morley has provided more funding for flood defence, but given the complicated nature of the level grant settlement, a further discussion with the Sussex Flood Defence Committee is necessary before I can give the exact figure, which will be sent to Lewes in the coming year."
He is unclear exactly how much money he has, despite the announcement that the Minister made some time ago that extra money would be forthcoming, and he is in the best position to know, yet does not do so.
I have also had representations from Councillor Roger Thomas of East Sussex county council, as other Sussex Members may have done. I see the hon. Member for Wealden (Mr. Hendry) nodding, and I suspect that he has received a similar representation. Councillor Thomas was concerned about Sussex flood defence funding for 2003–04, and says in a letter to Peter Midgely:
"It is extremely disappointing that DEFRA has decided that the 75 per cent. grant rate will not be applied and that the rate will remain at 65 per cent. for 2003–04"
I will not read the whole letter, but he and other members of the flood defence committee were led to believe very strongly that the 75 per cent. rate would apply and they based their calculations on that only to have the rug pulled from underneath them at the last moment. That is how they see it anyway, and if we are to achieve co-operation between the different bodies involved—local authorities, DEFRA, the Environment Agency and others—we need some certainty about the financial arrangements in which they work. Clearly, those financial arrangements have not worked very well in Sussex this year from the point of view of the members of that flood committee.
The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire mentioned Happisburgh, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who is taking a very close interest in the issue, has asked me to raise it in the House this afternoon. He is currently either speaking or intending to speak in the debate in Westminster Hall—one of the casualties of our double Chamber system. He has asked me to reiterate the fact that nearly 300 people have written to him about that issue.
My hon. Friend has taken up the matter with the Minister and asked for a meeting—I hope that the Minister will agree to that—and he has asked me to pass on his view that the people of that area feel neglected and that no investment has been made in protecting their community. I shall not go into the details for soft defences and managed retreat, but there is a strong feeling in that community, and the issue needs to be addressed. Clearly, that has not been done satisfactorily so far.
Mr. Morley: I can certainly confirm that, as with all Members who have a pressing constituency problem in relation to coastal defence, I will be happy to meet the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) and discuss those problems. However, I want to deal with

473
another problem: there has been misinformation about Happisburgh. The responsibility for drawing up the scheme lies with the local authority, as the lead authority. It is true that we have new criteria to assess flooding and coastal defence, but I am pretty sure that the original application that was made and then withdrawn used the old system and that the local council's advisers were concerned about some issues, so we have not been able to give proper consideration to any scheme proposed by the local authority to defend Happisburgh. Of course, if the local authority can put together a scheme that meets the three criteria—technical, environmental and cost benefits—we will consider it, but those criteria must be met.
Norman Baker: I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention, as well as for his willingness to meet affected parties. It is good that he put that on the record, and I shall draw it to the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk.
Mr. Sayeed: Will the hon. Gentleman press the Minister, as I have done, to look again at the criteria, so that they include the social, economic and environmental impact of the new demands, because they may well damage existing communities?
Norman Baker: I imagine that the Minister will take those criteria into account—it would be extraordinary if he didnot—but the hon. Gentleman has put his view on the record, and I am sure that those issues will be part of any review by the Minister.
I want briefly to mention the insurance situation and to welcome what—at least in retrospect, if not at the time—has been the constructive attitude taken by the ABI, which has provided a two-year window of opportunity, which the Government have taken and the ABI has responded accordingly. The detailed mapping that Norwich Union and others have undertaken—like the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire, I pay tribute to the work that Norwich Union has done—has been welcome. It is clear from that that for about 200,000 properties, there is a major flood risk and insurance will be difficult to obtain. Some of those properties may have been bought in the knowledge that such a risk existed, and the price may have been discounted accordingly. It is not the function of Government to subsidise people in that situation. However, given the increasing flood risk as a result of climate change and other factors, a small number of properties will be adversely affected, with no prospect of getting sensible insurance cover. Will the Minister comment on that when he responds to the debate?
I refer to the cost-benefit analysis conducted by the Environment Agency under Government guidelines to determine what flood defences are justifiable in a particular area. I have raised the matter before, and the Minister will know the strong concern in Lewes and elsewhere that the formula applied grossly underestimates the value of properties affected by floods. Had a realistic formula been applied to houses in Lewes—I am sure the same is the case elsewhere—a higher level of flood defences would have been justified on the Department's own criteria.
474
As matters stand, some areas of Lewes are not getting the flood defences that they consider appropriate, and the same applies in Uckfield, where the formula adversely affects the constituency of the hon. Member for Wealden. Will the Minister examine the formula to ensure that a proper value is put on properties to guarantee that the flood defences considered are in line with the properties' value, rather than with some artificially low value that has been applied following the floods of 2000?
The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire mentioned soft measures. In Lewes the Environment Agency has been quite good at producing plans for the centre of town that have identified solid, architecturally robust flood defences. To my surprise, the agency has been less good at negotiating with farmers and those affected downstream to identify land that could he used for overspill, thereby reducing the need for hard defences, which may not only disfigure a town, but be expensive for local communities and the Department. What steps is the Minister taking to encourage the Environment Agency to look at its procedures in respect of soft measures to see whether more could be incorporated and to speed up the process by which they are implemented?
Mr. David Drew: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one of the soft engineering measures that can be included with flood prevention is reed bed technology to overcome some of the enormous problems with sewerage, which are not disconnected from flooding problems? Too often we look for hard technology answers, when there is a much simpler way that we could work with the environment, rather than against it.
Norman Baker: I agree. I hope the Minister will respond to that intervention when he sums up.
In conclusion, I thank the Minister again for his statement. The Government are moving in the right direction. The new measures that have been suggested and the extra money are welcome in tackling the flood defence challenges that we all face.
3.3 pm
Rev. Martin Smyth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the flow of the debate, but this is the first opportunity that I have had today to raise the matter, although I advised the Speaker of it this morning.
On 4 March I received an answer from the Northern Ireland Office concerning the granting of work permits for the Movie Star cafée in Belfast and the contacts that the Department for Employment and Learning had with Work Permits (UK) on the application made for a group work permit. The reply stated:
"When processing work permit applications for Northern Ireland the Department for Employment and Learning applied the same criteria as used in Work Permits (UK).As no guidelines existed in respect of pole dancers, it was only after querying this aspect with Work Permits (UK) that DEL"—
that is, the Department—
"treated the application in question on the basis of an entertainment application."

475
This morning's mail included a response from the Home Office, which states:
"Work Permits (UK) was not consulted by the Department of Education and Learning on the issue of permits for pole dancers. Work Permits (UK) does not issue work permits for overseas nationals to work as pole dancers."
The reply goes on to make it plain that even for dancers, they would have had to be of a very high standard before a work permit would be granted. I therefore believe that, intentionally or unintentionally, someone has been misleading me and, as the matter is now on the record of the House, the House has been misled. I seek your guidance as to what action could be taken.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this is the first that I have heard of the matters that he raises, which he clearly considers very serious. I suggest that in the first instance he has a word with the Table Office and sees what its reaction is to the problems that he is experiencing. He can then decide where and how to pursue the matter from there.
3.5 pm
Mr. Charles Hendry: I am grateful to be called so early in the debate. I begin by apologising to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the Minister and to the House for the fact that I shall have to leave before the end of the debate for a public meeting in my constituency, where flooding will be one of the issues discussed.
Let me begin with a little background to the problems of flooding in my constituency. As the Minister is well aware, in October 2000 there was severe flooding in Uckfield and flooding in the surrounding villages of Buxted and Isfield, and also in Hellingly on the Cuckmere, rather than on the Ouse. There was an intense period of incredibly heavy rain. It had not been raining for very long; the problems were caused by the amount of rain over the previous day or so. The results were dramatic. Many people will remember from their television screens the sight of a lifeboat in Uckfield high street. Although it caused some amusement to find a lifeboat inland, we should not forget that one person was washed away and almost drowned. There could have been significant loss of life, had the problems been worse.
The frustration in the constituency arises because two and a half years on, there is no serious sign of progress. The Minister will well remember his visit to Uckfield shortly after the floods, and his promise at that time that action would be taken to reduce the risk of flooding again. He knows that shortly afterwards, the Prime Minister called to Downing street councillors from the areas affected by flooding and he, too, made a personal assurance that the issue would be addressed. There was some jocularity in the House recently when my remarks were interpreted as implying that the Prime Minister had promised to stop it raining. We know that he walks on water, but even this Prime Minister would not promise to stop it raining. However, he promised to take action to minimise the risk of flooding affecting those communities in future. It is a great disappointment that two and a half years down the line, nothing concrete has happened.
476
The Environment Agency has been trying to drive matters forward, and I join the Minister in paying tribute to the staff, particularly Peter Midgley, who seems to have been taking lessons from the Minister in dealing in the most emollient and caring manner with those difficult and frustrating issues. Peter Midgley has genuinely been seeking to address matters, but he is working with his hands tied. At the end of the day, it is a question of money. If he were given millions of pounds more to spend this month, he could spend millions of pounds more this month.
We all accept that many of the measures that we would like to see implemented would take a long time to assess and evaluate, but there are some cheaper measures that could be introduced quickly. If the funds were available to the agency, that could start straight away. I accept that there is a limit, but I do not believe that it has been reached. Will the Minister speak to his ministerial colleagues about whether a national emergencies fund could be set up, perhaps through the national lottery? The great frustration after the floods of 2000 was the incredibly lengthy process of evaluating every scheme that was proposed. It would be much better if there were a fund, independently administered, and run by people who knew how to say yes, rather than always saying no, hold on or maybe. In the circumstances, when there is a national emergency such as the horrific floods that occurred throughout the country in October 2000, we need money to be quickly available.
It is my contention that most of the positive developments have been local. In particular, I pay credit to the work of the Cuckmere valley flood forum. The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) and I have both attended meetings of the forum, which works in a positive way in bringing together different parties to try to find agreement on the way forward. While there are difficulties in respect of some of the solutions that are being considered for the Cuckmere, we would all pay tribute to the forum for allowing the issues to be dealt with in the most constructive way possible.
I also pay tribute to the local authorities. Wealden is very keen to make progress. The district authority has put money to one side for work to start straight away, but it is being held up because the Environment Agency says that it needs to take that work into account as part of the whole scheme of things and cannot give it the go ahead. My plea to the Minister is that, where alternative sources of funding are available, he should look to see whether some ideas can be fast-tracked. That does not mean cutting out the necessary work that has to be done; once we know that funding is available from a local authority or elsewhere, he should see whether it is possible to short-circuit, or rather cut short, the system so that those schemes can be carried out more rapidly.
Mr. Morley: I am happy to consider how local authorities can apply funding as quickly as possible, but issues of flood defence must go through technical and environmental assessment, as well as cost-benefit analysis. The money aspect may be less important, but the technical aspect is very important. The problems of Uckfield are not simply a matter of money, as I think the hon. Gentleman accepts. In 2000, when I stood with his predecessor on the bridge at Uckfield, we agreed how difficult it would be to try to resolve the problem because

477
of the pinch point where the bridge and mill are situated. Nevertheless, I understand that the Environment Agency is to proceed in the very near future with work designed to improve flow at the bridge and will do what it can, bearing in mind physical restraints and technical problems, to improve the situation.
Mr. Hendry: As always, I am most grateful to the Minister for that assurance. If I may, I shall return to that issue in a moment.
The county council has also been keen to work on the process. It has done good work in trying to keep the ditches clear, but as the hon. Member for Lewes and my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) have said, it is extremely frustrated this year that what it thought was a genuine commitment has not been met. It was believed that, if the contribution was raised by a certain proportion, the Government would match 75 per cent. of the funding, but that has not been carried through. If that is not the Minister's interpretation of events, perhaps he could write to us to explain his interpretation so that those facts can be clearly established.
I welcome the decision to give the Environment Agency responsibility for rivers prone to flooding and to contract local authorities for some of the work on maintaining them. As the Minister is aware from our recent meeting, there is frustration that the Environment Agency does not seem to have been doing enough to clear trees along the banks and remove fallen trees, supermarket trolleys and other junk in the rivers, when more could be done to prevent flooding in future.
At new year, we again had some minor flooding in Buxted and very nearly had flooding in Uckfield. I went every couple of hours to look at the situation in Buxted. It was shocking to see how much could change in only two hours: the river would rise from a small stream to something more akin to a raging torrent some 6 ft higher. It was easy to see how the floods in Buxted had occurred. Inevitably, the problem was lots of water coming into the village. When it could go under the bridge, it did so, but when it reached a level at which it could no longer go under the bridge, it went around the side and started flooding the neighbouring properties.
It does not take rocket science to understand what the solution might be. We must either enlarge the bridge—we all know that that would merely pass the problem downstream to Uckfield—or do more in terms of upstream storage. There is great frustration in the village of Buxted that the Environment Agency, with Government endorsement, has turned its mind against the idea of upstream storage with regard to those local rivers.
The frustration in Buxted turns to anger when we look at the plans for Uckfield. Again, there is no intention to consider upstream storage. As the Minister said, there is the possibility of enlarging the bridge, but the Environment Agency's principal response, which is endorsed by the Government, is that the industrial estate built on the floodplain should be moved, and other houses built there. We could stand here for ever debating the rights and wrongs of historic building on floodplains. If we could start again from the beginning, we would say, "No, we should not have done it", but we cannot; we are starting on the basis of decisions made 20 years ago.
478
When the industrial estate was built, it was approved by all the authorities—the rivers authorities, the predecessors to the Minister's Department and others. They all considered the proposal and decided that it was reasonable to build a large industrial estate on the site. The estate is the largest in East Sussex, employing some 1,500 people, and moving it is simply not an option. The nearest site that would be available is only about a quarter of the size. As a result of relocating to that site, we could lose 1,000 jobs in Uckfield, so the majority of jobs on the current site would have to be lost if that route were taken.
Even if that proposal goes ahead, who will pay for it? When we came to see the Minister, he made it clear that the Government could not be expected to do so. I wonder whether his new tax could be used to pay for relocating buildings judged to have been built in the wrong place. Looking at his reaction, I suspect that he already has other plans for that money. Similarly, my constituents cannot be expected to pay. If we tell those businesses that their premises are essentially worthless because of their location and that nobody will take them over, they will simply be unable to afford to relocate elsewhere in the community. The only solution would be for those businesses to close, which would be a devastating blow to a community such as Uckfield.
In addition, houses are being built in those communities, notably at Olive's meadow. The Minister may say that there are not many houses, as only 17 or 20 are involved, but people have invested their life savings and brought up their children in those houses. They are places to which people have intended to retire and may be their nest eggs for when they need some funds for their later years. To say that the homes are valueless and cannot be sold because the Government have deemed that they should not be located where they are would be a terrific and awful blow to the people who live in them. I ask the Minister to look again to see whether more can be done. Will he also tell us where else in the country the primary recommendation for a solution to flooding problems has been moving buildings on the flood plain? It is my impression that Uckfield is the only place where that course of action has been proposed as the solution.
I do not want to detain the House unduly, as I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. I accept that residents must do all that they can to prevent flooding and I join colleagues in paying tribute to Norwich Union for its work in highlighting how that can be done. Ultimately, however, it will have to be the Government who address the problem at the most fundamental level. It is two and a half years since the floods that did so much damage. As I said, in Uckfield, nothing has so far been done.
I hope that the Minister can give us additional assurances as to how that process can be speeded up. In October 2000, we had meetings with the Environment Agency followed by meetings with him in Uckfield to consider the problem. The Environment Agency came up with its recommendations in July 2002. At the end of 2002, the Minister's Department approved the building of a working model enabling us to see the effects of different solutions. By the time that that model has gone out to contract and physically been built, a further six months will have passed, and it will be even longer before the actual measures can properly be evaluated, so the earliest time when we can expect specific proposals

479
and realistic alternatives will be at the end of 2003. The awarding of the contracts would then happen some time in 2004, after which it would take a year or more for them physically to be built. We are therefore looking at a period of five years-plus from when the flood took place to when a solution will be put in place.
For many reasons, I hope that the Minister is not in his post in 2005, primarily because I hope that the Conservative party will be in government. However, if a Labour Government are still in power, I hope that the Minister will continue to hold his position, as he understands the issues and, if there is another flood in Uckfield, I want it to be him who returns to the town and explains why, in the course of five years, nothing has been done. It is appalling that every time we have heavy rain, my constituents are caused tremendous concern. I urge the Minister to do more.
3.19 pm
Diana Organ: As the hon. Member for Wealden (Mr. Hendry) said, it is always a pleasure to have a debate to which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary replies, because he is so knowledgeable and gives informed and concise answers.
Before I go any further, I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if occasionally I do not realise where I am in my notes. I lost my spectacles this morning and I am wearing those of my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Alan Keen).
In 1985, when I was pregnant and had a three-year-old child, I returned home from a half-term holiday to find a fire engine pumping gallons of water out of my house. For three months, my family was disrupted while we lived upstairs. It was not quite as dreadful as the scene in "Angela's Ashes" where the family goes upstairs to Italy, but it felt grim at the time. For example, the kitchen was not in use because the electrical goods had gone. I shall not forget that episode, and my child, who is now 21, never forgot that her birthday celebrations were held upstairs.
Thousands of people had such an experience in the floods of 2000 and 2001. Indeed, the Association of British Insurers suggests that 1.8 million homes are at risk from flooding. Our climate is increasingly stormy, and the weather is expected to get 30 per cent. wetter by 2080, so the problem will remain well into the future. However much the Government try to do, we cannot fight mother nature and what God may do with his storms.
Given that we can do something but not everything, people who fear the possibility of flooding will welcome the Government's announcement of an 80 per cent. increase of £255 million by 2005, and changes to organisation such as the streamlining of administration, the Environment Agency's new river basin, catchment area approach and the direct block grant that it will receive.
I understand that if the Scottish equivalent of the Environment Agency is asked about future planning development in a flood plain, it is almost mandatory to take its view into account. It is not simply treated with due respect. When the Environment Agency gives local authorities a view on proposed development and flood
480
risk, the planning authority can simply ignore it. Does my hon. Friend hope to add to the weight of the Environment Agency's views in the planning process through the proposed streamlining?
My constituency is known as the land between the Severn and the Wye. That is a blessing, albeit mixed. It is prone to severe flooding. I am grateful that my hon. Friend has visited the constituency when flooding has occurred in the past. He has met many parish councillors and constituents and been helpful. I also pay tribute to the Environment Agency's work in the tidal Severn flood management strategy and along the Severn generally.
I pay especial tribute to the Environment Agency's handling of constituents who believe that the answer to the problem is to dredge the Severn, as was done in the past. It makes practical sense and is logical to some extent to take the sand out of the bottom of the Severn and dump it on the side. We thus have a bank to save us from the Severn flooding and we lower the draw of the estuary. I am grateful that the Environment Agency has patiently, carefully and courteously explained that the dynamics of the River Severn are much more complicated and that one would have to dredge night and day ad infinitum to gain even the slightest benefit.
Mr. Michael Foster: Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that in places such as Worcester on the River Severn that are approximately 6 m above sea level, the river would have to be dredged by 5m? That would make the Severn tidal all the way upstream to Worcester and thus cause huge environmental and other disasters.
Diana Organ: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who, through the all-party group on flooding, invited a well informed hydrological engineer to speak to Members of Parliament. He explained to those who, like me, have a modest interest in and knowledge of geography, why dredging is not the answer for the Severn.
I am grateful for the work that is being done on the Severn in my constituency, especially on Lydney docks flood defence, a scheme that costs £5.5 million. It goes from Lydney to Aylburton. During the terrible floods in 2000, the industrial estate flooded badly and threatened the working day of Watts Industries, a major employer, in Lydney. The work that is being done means that that should not happen in future.
I am also grateful for the work that was mostly completed by 2003 on upgrading and improving the maintenance of the River Severn between Westbury and Minsterworth. I understand that one last part needs to be completed at Minsterworth, and that that should happen by 2004. I hope that it is completed on time.
The Environment Agency has also undertaken work, which is important for local householders, on an improved early warning system for three new areas: Gloucester to Westbury, Westbury to Aust, and Aust down the Severn. There are different dedicated lines from which householders can get information about flood awareness and the possibility of flooding.

481
The Environment Agency has also run a flood awareness campaign, comprising a roadshow, a bus and radio advertisements. It tells the public about checklists, available information and the actions that people can take to help avert a flood intheir homes.
Mr. Hammond: The hon. Lady has a rather rose-tinted view of the work of the Environment Agency. Did she try to access its website on 3 or 4 January? She would have found that it had crashed completely. A few days later, she would have found that parts of the website that claim to be updated every 15 minutes had not been updated for several days. My constituents' view is less rosy.
Diana Organ: I do not have arose-tinted view, but I want to note the Environment Agency's work and response to the problem of flooding on the Severn.
I have one or two worries. In Gloucester, a scheme costing more than £500,000 over two years will complete repairs. However, in the long-term, there is a proposed £20 million scheme for Gloucestershire and other work in the Severn estuary that will start in 2009. My constituents are concerned that the work that is to be carried out in Gloucester might result in all the good work that has been undertaken in the section between Minsterworth and Westbury being made vulnerable, because the water has to go somewhere, and if we are stopping it going into Gloucester, it might be pushed further down the river. I would like reassurance from the Minister that the work that is being done to save households from flooding in Gloucester will not be to the detriment of my constituents further down the river.
Mr. Drew: If it is not going to flood in the Forest of Dean, it is not going to flood in Stroud either. Seriously, the water has to go somewhere, and it is clear that the way to form a solution to this problem is to look at this part of the Severn and come up with an estuary solution based on which areas can be allowed to flood. I hope that if and when this proposal is put together, the Minister will bring all the relevant Members in on it.
Diana Organ: Yes, it is important that the MPs adopt a catchment approach to dealing with flooding in the area.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) mentioned the role of the Highways Agency. The A417 between Gloucester and Maisemore, which the Minister has visited with me, floods regularly. If only we could raise the level of that road a little, it would act as a flood defence against the Severn while keeping the route into Gloucester open. Could we consider a joint project between the Highways Agency and the Environment Agency?
I have come to the point at which the rose-tinted spectacles come off. I am very concerned about the internal drainage boards. I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me so much time last week with the clerk and the chair of Chaceley parish council, who came to raise their concerns with us. I sat on the then MAFF Committee that made the recommendation to abolish the internal drainage boards, and I recognise that in the proposed streamlining the intention is to retain them. When the boards are small, it is possible for them to
482
spend at least 50 per cent. of their money on administration rather than on the real job of maintenance. I am also worried about how the boards hold proper elections when they are so small, about minutes being circulated to the people who are paying towards the work of the boards, and about their accountability. I wonder, too, whether they cover the whole of the area that they are meant to cover, or whether they give preferential treatment to certain landowners in particular areas, as seems to be the case with the North Gloucestershire internal drainage board.
I am very pleased to hear that the Minister has decided that the boards will now be covered by the local government ombudsman, but people can take a case to the ombudsman only after the inefficiency and incompetence have occurred. What measures is he putting in place to monitor the work of the boards to ensure that they spend public money efficiently and competently and that they are truly accountable? Many of us are worried that the boards can differ so widely—just as parish councils can—and that some are very good and some are terrible. I would like to hear from the Minister about any further measures to make them more accountable. I was delighted to hear about the extra resources and the streamlining. It is important, though, that the Government should meet their commitments and that they intend to do so on time, so that people do not have to suffer as I did in 1985.
3.33 pm
Mr. David Wilshire: In a dry summer, 20 per cent. of my constituency is under water. Every winter, that figure is significantly higher, and occasionally—as in 2000 and 2003—agreat deal more of Spelthorne is under water. We had a very useful Westminster Hall debate on flooding in the Thames valley, and the Minister said then that he would make time available for a debate on the Floor of the House. I thank him for doing just that. During that earlier debate, I said that I had no wish to play the blame game, and I say that again this afternoon. What I want to do is to try to get him to do more than he is already doing.
Most of these debates tend to focus on rivers, but as the Minister has said, there are two separate issues: rivers and sewers. They are interconnected, but they raise very different issues. The hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ) rightly recounted what it was like to have her house flooded. I, too, have had that experience. With all respect to the people who have had river water in their house, that is as nothing compared with having the contents of someone else's toilet in one's living room. Whenever we have these debates, we should spend as much time asking ourselves what we intend to do about sewer discharges as we spend discussing river flooding.
Mr. Hammond: Much of what the Minister said related to money, but one of the big problems of sewerage flooding is illegal connections of surface water drains to the foul sewers. He did not pick up on that point. That problem could be addressed without the expenditure of large sums. Does my hon. Friend agree that that would be a good starting point?
Mr. Wilshire: I do indeed, and I shall deal with that a little later. The thrust of much of what I want to say is

483
based on the contention that many inexpensive steps could be taken, in addition to the major schemes that most debates focus on. Indeed, some measures would cost nothing.
Before we discuss what we intend to do about the problem, we should establish the facts, certainly about what happened in the lower Thames earlier this year. There is a raging debate—rather like the raging torrent that occurred—and assumptions are made so often that they are now bedded deeply into the minds of my constituents and those in neighbouring constituencies.
Three things are being blamed. For those who do not know the intricacies of the Thames, the Jubilee river scheme is the flood relief scheme that keeps Maidenhead dry. Most of my constituents are convinced that it causes more houses in my constituency to be flooded. The Minister shakes his head, but the Jubilee river figures large, the Thames barrier figures quite a bit and the lack of dredging gets mentioned.
The Minister has studied some facts, and he has come to a conclusion. He kindly wrote to me on 22 February about my request for information. He said:
"Given all the work done to date it is clear to me that the Jubilee River is not responsible for flooding and it is really not logical to claim otherwise."
He may well be right, or he could be wrong. I am not suggesting either that he is right or that he is wrong, because I have not seen the facts that he has seen. The message that I want to give him is that, however correct he may be—even if he is 100 per cent. right—a simple statement merely asserting that will not do.
Mr. Morley: I accept that it is important that people have an opportunity to consider the facts. My conclusion is based on measurements of the Jubilee river taken by the agency upstream and downstream, which show no significant difference in the performance of the river, and on the hydrological modelling of the flooding both before and after the flood event. The agency will rightly make that information publicly available, so that people can quite properly see why the Jubilee river is not in itself a major contributor to the flooding that people have experienced.
Mr. Wilshire: That is the point I am trying to draw from the Minister. Many of my constituents would argue, "The Minister would say that, wouldn't he?". The Environment Agency will come along and say exactly the same, and my constituents will argue, "Well, it would say that, wouldn't it'?", and the local MP may stand up and say the same thing, and the response would be, "Well he would say that as well, wouldn't he?"
Mr. Paul Goodman: Does my hon. Friend agree that we are touching on a problem raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed)? There is no court of appeal higher than the Environment Agency, and it does not seem right that it should be judge and jury in its own case. That is why my hon. Friend's constituents and mine in Medmenham and Marlow are justified in calling for an independent inquiry.
Mr. Wilshire: I am sure that that is one commendable solution. We need an inquiry or some other form of
484
independent verification, so that we can tell sceptical constituents that it is not only people with a vested interest who say that the Jubilee river was not to blame: independent experts say the same. That is why I commend Spelthorne, Runnymede and Elmbridge borough councils, which have taken it on themselves to engage an independent expert. I applaud them for that. I would be eternally grateful if the Minister could see his way to paying some of the cost of that—he would expect me to ask that. I invite him to join us in trying to convince people of the truth, whether it is what he says or something else.
Mr. Morley: May I stress a point made in an earlier intervention? The modelling was done on behalf of the agency by independent consultants; it was not done by the agency itself. It would be a bit much to ask the agency to pay for even more independent analysis.
Mr. Wilshire: With the greatest respect, I would suggest that if the model was wrong in the first place and produced a certain answer, if it was still wrong it would give the same answer. I am merely asking the Minister to join us in trying to find some independent means of convincing my constituents of the truth, whatever if may be.
The same applies to the sewers: we must establish the facts. My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) made one of the obvious comments when he said that there were unauthorised connections. When constituents ask, "What are they going to do?". or indeed, "What are you going to do?", we must pluck up courage to say, "One thing we might have to do is disconnect your downpipes from your patio and put them somewhere else."
In my constituency, which has combined sewers, a Victorian legacy is part of the cause of the problem. Close to a river everything must be pumped—gravity plays no great role—and if pumping is inadequate, something must be done. We must ask how much more development we can put into existing infrastructure without its causing a problem elsewhere.
We must decide what action to take. It is all too easy to say that we need another grandiose scheme—another Jubilee river, for instance—but the years go by. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Mr. Hendry) pointed out, if we are not careful we find that five or 10 years have gone by and more floods are happening. There are certainly minor things that the Government can do.
I think that the Minister should look again at planning guidance note 25, and do more to protect open spaces. We keep having this debate about flood claims, and I think we must now say that enough is enough. My constituency still maintains a reasonable amount of open space next to the Thames; there is enormous pressure for that to be built on, and the Government are putting enormous pressure on us to build more houses in the south-east. Given that every part of my constituency that is not liable to flooding has already been built on, we know where the pressure will inevitably lead us. Protecting the flood plains must be one of the Government's priorities—and it will cost them nothing, as all that is needed is a new planning guidance note.
The Government must also go back to the planning process. A planning Bill is currently before the House, and it cannot be beyond the wit of the draftsmen to

485
come up with a clause giving the Environment Agency power to direct rather than recommending refusal. Time and again, when I ask why this or that happened in my constituency, the agency tells me, "We objected—we said what would happen and it happened, but someone overruled us." When I learned about planning all those years ago as a councillor in a coalmining community, what was then the National Coal Board had power to direct refusal if something built near a mine might fall down it. I do not see why the Environment Agency should not have the same powers.
Mr. Drew: I agree. Moreover, there is always a problem when local authorities make their own judgment about planning permission. It is not unknown for them to act against an Environment Agency recommendation because they have a vested interest.
Mr. Wilshire: Indeed. I objected to the right to determine one's own application as an exception to the rule 20 years ago, and I have objected to it ever since. Control must be handed to the Environment Agency when there is a risk of flooding.
Another inexpensive step that the Government could take is persuading people to take up the offer of a warning scheme. I was amazed to learn how few of my constituents had signed up to what is, in fact, a very good scheme. The more we do together, the better. The Government, the Environment Agency and local councils can all help to publicise the scheme, and financially it will be a relatively painless operation.
There is one other little thing. I discovered to my horror that among my constituents there are at least a few thoughtless people. The county council has road closure powers. It puts up a sign. The Government refuse to fund Surrey police adequately to enforce it. People remove the signs, drive large four-wheel drive vehicles down flooded roads and flood houses that until then had not been flooded. I urge the Government to look hard at doing something about the road closure powers and the penalties for those thoughtless individuals who could not care less about other people's property. Again, that is not an expensive thing to do.
The other thing that must happen is that the Government, and other people, must provide more money. In 2000, after the floods, the Government provided £16.3 million as emergency relief. How much will be provided this time? I hope that it will be more, but it should be at least the same. Why is the flood committee grant for the lower Thames, which was £1.1 million in 2003–04, being cut in the coming year to £300,000, after we have had two flooding episodes recently? Why does the flood committee have reserves of £17 million? I assume that that money was given to it to spend on flood defence, not to put into a high-interest account in Zurich or wherever it is kept. It should spend it. Why has it not spent it?
The other thing that the Minister needs to do in relation to financing is persuade his colleagues elsewhere to revisit the grant formula for the fire service and for the police in the south-east. Almost no allowance is made in the funding formulae for flood defence work by either police forces or the fire service, and something needs to be done about that.
There is another thing that the Minister needs to deal with in relation to funding. Let us take Thames Water as an example. It tells me that, in its area, it has 5,000
486
properties that are liable to internal flooding from sewage. It also tells me that it will cost £100,000 per property to put it right and that it is committed to putting it right by 2010. There is a need to spend £500 million. Is Ofwat prepared to sanction that? Do the Government believe that it is right that the customers of Thames Water should meet the whole of that enormous cost? Because so much of it is the result of inherited clapped-out Victorian infrastructure, should not the Government consider contributing to that, rather than just leaving it to the water companies themselves?
As I said earlier, the reason why I speak today is not to try to blame anyone for what has happened. These are acts of God. Understandably, we cannot stop the rainfall when it chooses to come down. I speak to seek the Minister's help. With regard to establishing the facts, can he give us an undertaking that he will publish all the information that he receives about what happened earlier this year? Will he give us his help and fund some independent verification, so that we can check the facts?
On planning for the future, will the Minister ensure that he encourages lots of little schemes as well as one or two big ones? Will he ensure that his plans, which I support, to streamline the bureaucracy and planning process are brought into effect at the earliest possible moment? Because the fiasco over the terminal 5 public inquiry is always close to mind, will he ensure that any schemes that are developed do not get bogged down in the awful planning process that goes on and on and on before anything starts?
Will the Minister ensure that we get adequate emergency grant to cover the costs that have occurred this year, and assure us that we will get adequate funding to do the new flood defence works that have to be done?
As a very last, personal request, either next month or at the beginning of May, I am planning to hold a major public meeting in my constituency. Will the Minister arrange for people from DEFRA to come to explain to my constituents the role that they have been playing and will play in future to ensure that fewer of my constituents' houses flood in future?
3.50 pm
Mr. Michael Foster: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), particularly as I share his sentiments on the take-up of automated warning systems and on the thoughtlessness of some drivers. In his constituency, the problem is caused by 4×4s; in mine, it is articulated lorries.
I welcome the debate. The floods of 2000—when Worcester had three incidents in five weeks, all of which were 5 m above normal level—gave real impetus to the need to improve flood defences in that county. As a result of the floods, the all-party group was set up after the general election in 2001. It has been successful, in that several of its recommendations have been taken on board by the Government. The increased investment is most welcome, and I was delighted to hear the welcome from Conservative Members. I listened with care to their call for more money and I shall remind them of that in time to come. That is enough partisanship for now.
Mr. Andrew Turner: Acknowledging the end of non-partisanship, does the hon. Gentleman accept that one

487
of the problems is obtaining value for the money that the Government make available? Continually revisiting schemes because of changes in regulations is a waste of money.
Mr. Foster: I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, but some schemes that have been changed have benefited constituencies that tend to flood.
I am delighted that the extra funding in the spending review has removed the threat that many of my constituents feared—that they would no longer get household insurance cover. I welcome the response of the Association of British Insurers to the spending review.
I want to concentrate on the challenges facing my constituency, but I shall make a few minor, but more general points. The single point of contact for flood defence has been widely welcomed in the House today, although I do not think that one particular individual first thought of it. Certainly, the National Flood Forum and the all-party group have discussed the issue, as did the Select Committee before that.
The bulk of the cash increases are coming from general taxation, and I want to explore the alternatives that were touched on in the discussion document. On the use of connection charges, I welcome the prospect of those who undertake development in at-risk areas contributing to the wider community for that risk. I look forward to the raising of cash through that route because more cash is needed, as Members on both sides have said. I am also delighted to read that the flood plain levy has, in effect, been kicked into the long grass. Most Members in the Chamber would welcome that.
The hon. Member for Spelthorne mentioned the awfulness of flooding and how dealing with silt left over in one's house compared with dealing with a sewer flood. There is a big difference between the two. Having witnessed more sewer floods than I would like, they are difficult to describe to someone who has not been there, experienced the smell and waded through what can only be described as papier maché. People will understand exactly what is coming up in kitchens and living rooms. I do not know how people can go on to lead a normal life in the house afterwards.
In Worcester, there has been severe sewer flooding in the Waverley street and Cavendish street areas, and I pay tribute to Severn Trent, which has improved the pumping of sewage across the River Severn. With any luck, we will no longer have the problem of water back-filling the old Victorian sewers, which are combined surface water sewers, and coming up into people's houses at low levels.
In January, the Environment Agency presented a pre-feasibility report for Worcester to a meeting of Worcester Action Against Flooding. It covered the 5.5 km from upstream of Barbourne brook, in Worcester, to the confluence of the River Teme. In total, it covers 220 properties that are prone to flooding in one in 100-year events such as the one that occurred in 1947. The Worcester floods that occurred in November and December, which affected some 90 properties, were a one in 50-year event. The Environment Agency has split Worcester into three distinct flood cell locations. My
488
hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ) pointed out that dredging is no longer an option, certainly for a river the size of the Severn; however, building upstream capacity has been mentioned in the past as a way to protect Worcester.
Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: The hon. Gentleman says that dredging is not practical for a river the size of the Severn. However, dredging is taking place at the bottom of the Severn, in the River Parrett, near Bridgewater, and it is proving quite successful. Would he like to expand on why that is so?
Mr. Foster: At Worcester, the River Severn is about 6 m above sea level. In order to lower it to a level at which it would no longer flood residences, the bed would have to be lowered by 5 m. To do so would make the Severn tidal at that point, and the risk of flooding would probably be greater, with water coming up from the Severn estuary. For that reason, it is not a practical option. Building upstream capacity would require the equivalent of three Clywedog reservoirs upstream of Worcester, to prevent its houses from flooding. For those who are not familiar with such reservoirs, each one would be 70 m deep and cover 620 acres. Trying to find that capacity upstream of Worcester would not be an option, so we have to look at defences as a viable way forward.
Under existing cost-benefit rules, benefits accruing to Worcester for all 11 cells taken together would be in the region of £1.9 million, for an expense of £5.2 million. It is clear that that is not a viable option, but under the rules that will come in from this April, benefits will rise to £6.4 million, making such schemes viable in the city of Worcester. I welcome that change in the cost-benefit rules, for which the all-party group has campaigned. For Hylton road, in Worcester, a cost-benefit of what was in the region of 0.55 to 0.87, requiring a ratio of at least 1:1, has moved to 1.8 to 2.84. Hylton road has therefore become a viable proposition, in terms of covering the 24 domestic and commercial properties.
I reiterate my welcome for the temporary flood defence grant for the Severn area. It is along places such as Hylton road that pallet barriers or Danish sausage barriers—depending on which the Environment Agency uses—will have a real impact in protecting residents, until permanent defences are found.
Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman is an expert on this subject, but he is perhaps being a little too relaxed about the change in the cost-benefit calculation. If many schemes previously considered financially unviable now become financially viable, surely all that will happen is that many that appear viable will not, in any case, be financed. The change is setting an order of priorities; it is not, I think, guaranteeing that every scheme with a positive cost-benefit outcome will be financed.
Mr. Foster: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention; however, I was about to qualify my comments with the word "but". I want to press upon the Minister my real concern not about the new cost-benefit scheme, but about the prioritisation of projects that pass the test. Once the test has been passed, schemes are, in essence, run against each other to establish an order of priority.

489
If schemes were being assessed today, the Hylton road scheme that I mentioned would qualify as a priority, and would score 24 out of 30 points, with a threshold of 20, so everyone in the Hylton road area would be happy. Indeed, five of the 11 cells in Worcester would qualify, and a further four would be just two points below the threshold. However, under the planned new scheme there is a ranking of 44 points, and the same Hylton road flood defence would score just 5.6. It would clearly not pass the threshold test—even though the cost-benefit test showed that it was a viable financial option—and would not rank as a high priority. I believe that that addresses the point made by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond).
Perversely, Toronto close in the Lower Wick estate, which does not qualify under the cost-benefit rules, achieves the highest priority rating of the 11 cells in Worcester. I suggest to the Minister that there may be something amiss in the way in which prioritisation is dealt with, and I urge him to have a look at that. Under the new prioritisation scheme, the category of people gives priority to the elderly, single-parent households and disabled people. The chair of Worcester Action Against Flooding wrote to Sir John Harman of the Environment Agency when she found out that the cell in which she lives scored 0 in the people category. She said:
"I live in cell 10—we scored 0. To my knowledge (and I don't know everyone by any means!) there are 3 disabled children, I registered disabled adult living on benefits (also a single parent!) and at least 8 people over the age of 75 (one in her 90s) two of whom are disabled!"
Even so, that cell scored nil in the people category. The chair of WAFF has made a good point, and I urge the Minister to look at it.
Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend has raised two issues. First, if there is a new scoring system, new schemes could be introduced. That is true, but we are spending more money, as I have outlined, so we are planning on the score going down in years 2 and 3 as we will have the capacity to accept more schemes. Secondly, on his detailed points, part of the problem in Worcester is that houses are scattered in some areas. There are also problems with fluvial gravels and the high cost of building programmes.
The new scheme is, I believe, more accurate and has certain advantages. However, I am concerned about some of the examples that my hon. Friend gave, and it would be worth while looking at a town like Worcester to see how the scheme is working and what its effects are.
Mr. Foster: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I know that people in Worcester will welcome his special interest in the way in which the prioritisation scheme works.
In summary, many tributes were rightly paid to the Minister for the work that he has done on flooding and flood defences. He has taken time to talk to Members, including myself, with serious constituency interests. He has been successful in getting money from the Treasury and changing the cost-benefit rules. As of today, he has been successful in getting temporary defences for areas along the river Severn. If he could look at those prioritisation scores and perhaps give them a bit of
490
tweak in favour of places such as Worcester, he will have done everything that a Minister can do to help to keep the people of Worcester dry.
4.3 pm
Mr. Robert Key: In a constituency such as Salisbury it would be surprising if flooding were not an issue. After all, the heart of constituency—the city of Salisbury—lies at the confluence of five rivers: the Nadder, the Ebble, the Wylye, the Avon and the Bourne. This winter, 11 villages in my constituency were flooded, some gravely. Some flooded that did not flood in 2002. I have a long association with those rivers and their tributaries. I have an advantage because I have had the honour of serving as a Member of Parliament for nearly 20 years, and have seen Ministers come and go. How delightful that the present Minister has stayed long enough to understand the issues. I wish him well, promotion and all the richness that will come to him one day—but not yet, I hope
I first acquired personal knowledge of the River Avon in 1947, when I fell into it, aged 2. Were it not for the quick action of the Bishop of Bombay, I might not be here today, as it was he who pulled me out. Ever since, I have paddled in the River Avon and its tributaries—for pleasure in my childhood, and dressed in wellies and a Barbour jacket over the new year.
I visited many villages over the new year period—Orcheston, Tilshead, Shrewton, Tisbury, Chilmark, Winterslow, Cholderton, Allington, Hurdcott, Ford, and Pitton. I also visited Downton, of course, as it had the worst floods this year. I discovered that two different sorts of people exist. Some people see a lovely house in an idyllic rural setting by a river and decide that they must live there. They buy the house even though they know that it is going to be flooded. In Downton, I met one such gentleman wearing wellies who shrugged his shoulders and said he knew that it might happen.
Increasingly, people dwell in houses built in rather obviously flood-prone places. One of my favourite examples concerns the poor, sad people who bought a house in a very attractive area, only to discover that it flooded almost every winter. One did not need to be a rocket scientist to work out why that was, as the house was on a very flat bit of land through which a winter bourn clearly flowed. Perhaps they might have known that the house would be flooded, given that flooding looked so obvious on that site, and that the name of the village was Lake. However, the district council at the time thought that it was a good idea to build in that spot.
I heartily endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) said about road closures. I hope that the Minister will liaise with the Department for Transport and, if necessary, the Home Office on the matter. It is appalling to see HGVs pile down little village roads and through villages that are flooded. Bus drivers and even local people are also to blame: they seem not to understand that doing more than about 1 mph in a four-wheel drive vehicle will cause flooding because the wash will raise water levels the vital two or three inches that causes water to go over front-door sills. That really matters. Sadly, on one occasion in 2000, I had to report a police Land Rover for doing exactly what I have described. I am glad to say that that is a rare occurrence.

491
I should like to take a short trip down memory lane. A remarkable author called Ralph Whitlock was born in the village of Pitton and many years later died in the neighbouring village of Winterslow. In 1988, he wrote a book about life in the villages on the edge of Salisbury plain. I shall quote one passage, which states:
"More than twenty years have now elapsed since the springs last broke in Pitton. The water-table in the chalk has evidently been sinking steadily. New residents tend to be sceptical about the tales of floods, and it is difficult to believe them.
The senior citizens who remember them well regard wet summers and wetter autumns with hopeful anticipation: "I hope I live long enough to see the springs down just once more!" they say. It would, they feel, be a just nemesis falling on those who ignored their advice and built new houses on sites which were once flooded regularly.
But the years pass and the springs stay well below the surface. It is unlikely that they will be seen again."
He was wrong. We need to remember that in the 1960s this country's climate was unusually dry. In that period, many planning authorities and river boards allowed houses and industrial estates to be built on flood plains. That is at the root of many of the current problems.
One of the saddest examples can be found in the village of Pitton. Ralph Whitlock told me that one could tell when it was going to flood there by checking the black stone 4 ft from the top of the well at Box cottage. When the water reached that black stone, the village would flood three days later. Box cottage has gone now. The land has been built over. The well is no more. The village floods, heavily and regularly.
Flooding is a tremendous problem, but some really quite simple solutions have hardly been touched on today. Tom Ridout, clerk of Allington parish council, wrote to me on 10 January. The matter could not have been put better. Mr. Ridout said that changing weather patterns and increased river flows were crucial factors, and added:
"If this calamity is not to recur annually serious forethought and expensive measures must he taken to quickly improve maintenance of the river—dredging, clearing of weed, clearing of banks, raising bunds, raising bridges where they have a dam effect, etc. This will require a national initiative.
At the local level, the parish council are constantly chiding their masters over matters of basic maintenance. Ditch clearing, weed cutting, drain emptying, etc. Though these factors may not have an influence on the full measure of these floods there can be no doubt that regular basic maintenance has a part to play. The local authority are ever ready to issue glossy brochures and send out wordy consultation documents and letters but slow to send men regularly, with tools, to do what needs to be done. Particularly this is so in the countryside where so often the inhabitants are at the very end of the queue for resources."
I therefore commend Wiltshire county council for reintroducing the ancient concept of lengthsmen who are attached to a village so many weeks a year and go round doing just that. It is no good weeping over the fact that our farmers no longer have a surplus of labour who used to spend the growing months ditching. They no longer ditch because there are no longer people to ditch.
492
On 29 January, Earl Peel, in the other place, asked the Government about the duties of the Environment Agency to clear arterial drains. The Minister, Lord Whitty, replied:
"The Environment Agency is not under any duty to maintain and clean arterial watercourses. Primary responsibility for the maintenance of all watercourses rests with the riparian owners."—[Official Report, House of Lords,29 January 2003; Vol. 643, c. WA 164.]
Quite so.
When we had serious flooding in Salisbury I tabled a parliamentary question to the Minister and he replied that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs had certain responsibilities, as did the Environment Agency and local authorities. I forwarded that to each of my local authorities, saying that that was what the Minister said, and could we all agree on who did what? Of course, we could not.
The district council wrote back to say that it had no statutory duty to prevent flooding, but there were two areas of legislation which give it discretionary powers to take action when problems occurred. In its wisdom, Salisbury district council has set up a working party to look into the whole question of flooding across south Wiltshire, and I commend it for that and look forward to seeing the result. The district council has undertaken various plans.
The county council wrote back to me and said that the Environment Agency had published a study which contains specific relevant areas of responsibility and that it could do no better than enclose a copy. It did not answer the question about what it had responsibility for; it just sent me the Environment Agency handbook. That is fine. Some very good ones are produced by county councils. Hampshire and the Isle of Wight county council has produced a very good flood defence information sheet and the Environment Agency has done some very good work.
I asked the Environment Agency what it was responsible for. The local regional director from Blandford wrote:
"On ordinary watercourses, sewage, highway, and groundwater flooding, we do not have a remit to provide a warning or a defence. Notwithstanding that, we have tried to influence our partners, and, where possible, will provide advice."
That is fine. I then asked the Library of the House if it could point me in the direction of a textbook or reference book which would tell me who was responsible for what. It did. It got the British Library to provide an excellent book published by the Institution of Civil Engineers called, "Land Drainage and Flood Defence Responsibilities". It was published way back in 1996 in the third edition, but unfortunately has not been reprinted since. There is no compendium for people to know exactly what to do. We find ourselves with lots of advice, but when flooding happens no one knows who is responsible for what.
Mr. Hammond: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the anomalous areas is the position of riparian owners? In theory, riparian owners are primarily responsible for the maintenance of all watercourses. In the case of the River Thames, for example, it is clearly impracticable. It is unclear where the boundary lies between rivers on which riparian owners are expected to

493
discharge their responsibilities and those where it is broadly accepted that they cannot. Would it not be better now to sweep away the responsibilities of riparian owners in respect of all main rivers?
Mr. Key: That is the problem. What is a main river? How do we define when a river is a main river or when it is a watercourse? When is a watercourse a ditch? When does a ditch become a watercourse? Where does a mill leat fall into all of this? There is a real problem here and I urge the Minister to try and sort it out. That sort of detail will help enormously. Above all, if people undertook their riparian ownership duties seriously, it would do a great deal to help.
A different area that concerns me is weather forecasting. I visited the Met Office in Bracknell a couple of weeks ago to learn about the UK weather radar network. It consists of 12 radars owned by a consortium of Government agencies, with the Met Office providing operating support. The radars operate continuously and send back information on rainfall over almost all the UK land area and inshore waters. They measure rainfall rates at five-minute intervals, averaged over three sizes of grid squares. The Met Office can thus feed into its forecasting information about when there will be dangerous flash floods. Such flooding can be accurately anticipated and pinpointed to within a kilometre every five minutes.
That is a huge technological advance and I hope that the Government will continue to expand the network. I know that they want to erect a radome at Dean hill, a prominent hill in my constituency. No doubt the scheme will be controversial, but if it goes ahead the advantages will be enormous. The entire UK weather radar network is of huge benefit to all citizens in alleviating flooding.
Another problem that has not been mentioned is Crown immunity. There are conflicting problems in the villages on Salisbury plain and thereabouts, which are the inevitable consequence of the chalk landscape. In the winter, there is saturation and flooding, while in the summer there is over-abstraction and low flows. I shall explain later why that is important. I have discovered through tabling parliamentary questions that the Ministry of Defence has sunk many boreholes in the Salisbury plain area, yet under Crown immunity, English Nature does not know about them; there is a massive void in its knowledge. However, on a top-secret basis, the Environment Agency has some answers and is allowed to know how much water the MOD is abstracting, although it does not know where the water goes—sewerage patterns in the area are notorious. Twenty-four boreholes are in use by the Army, plus one for emergencies, and substantial quantities of water are abstracted. Crown immunity has gone past its sell-by date in terms of water resources management in the countryside.
The Ministry of Defence is to be congratulated on introducing project Aquatrine, which provides it with water and waste water services throughout the country and seems, for the first time, to have allowed it to count its boreholes. The military's use of water is increasing, however; for example, project Allenby will mean that several thousand more families are housed in and around the chalk areas of south Wiltshire. There will be substantial new abstraction and we shall need careful planning for that.
494
One of the ironies of the situation is that the Hampshire Avon is one of the cleanest and most beautiful rivers in the country and has been designated a special area of conservation, yet in winter there is emergency dumping of sewage in rivers. This winter that occurred at Hanging Langford. What is the point of going to the trouble and expense of designating a special area of conservation, where there is a river of the highest quality in Europe, if we allow water companies to discharge sewage in that river?
One Monday morning, the Wiltshire Wildlife Trust phoned me to ask for help in dealing with a huge sewage discharge next to the Hanging Langford wildlife reserve. The matter has been pursued by several agencies, but it illustrates the problem. I warmly welcome the SAC strategy, but there are enormous manmade problems that cannot be disaggregated from flooding. Flooding causes substances to enter watercourses that destroy delicate environments, and it is humans who cause the trouble. For example, hormone-disrupting substances—that is, the pill—are one of the greatest problems in the River Avon SAC, and do great damage. They desex the fish and even the flies. The fish cannot live because the flies do not breed. The whole cycle is grotesque. It is our fault that that is happening, and we need to address it.
In the end, we are talking about the use of water, the cost of treating and disposing of water, and our attitude to that. I am concerned that we are obsessed with keeping down the price of water at the cost of the environment. That makes me greener than the greens, I suppose, but I intend to be pretty horrible about the water consumers' body. I was very disappointed to see that the review by the "WaterVoice" newsletter representing water customers, which most Members of Parliament will have had in their post in the past couple of weeks, wants to delay the environmental schemes. It says:
"We recognise that, because of legislation, there are still environmental schemes that need to be carried out, but we believe there is scope to defer some schemes beyond 2010 in order to reduce the impact on customers' bills."
That is wrong, and Ofwat is wrong. We should be prepared to pay more for our water to have better water quality where it counts. We can either go with the grain of nature and ensure that future generations enjoy the valleys and rivers that I loved, and indeed fell into, in my childhood, or we can play around with nature and destroy that heritage.
4.21 pm
David Wright: My constituency sits in one of the largest inland counties in the country, so it will be no surprise to hon. Members that I do not intend to talk about coastal defence. The one image from my constituency that many hon. Members will know is the great iron bridge that spans the River Severn in the Coalbrookdale area. I want to talk about Ironbridge and the communities around the Ironbridgegorge, and the devastating impact of flooding in that area.
Hon. Members will know the image of the bridge; they will also know the image of the coracle, which is the craft of the upper River Severn. One of the last great makers of the coracle, Eustace Rogers, recently died. He could never tempt me into a coracle. Several friends of

495
mine who have gone into a coracle have very quickly gone into the River Severn. I do not intend to try that out. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) might do so during the summer months, although he does not know that yet.
The Ironbridge gorge is a fantastic sight. It is a world heritage site—indeed, it was the first industrial world heritage site ever to be declared—and it provides an economic engine for the county of Shropshire. Several museums sit alongside the river, including the museum of the river itself and Blists Hill, the museum of iron. In recent years, Shropshire has had serious problems, especially relating to the rural economy. One of the things that has helped it through those troubles has been its ability to draw tourists into the area. The Ironbridge gorge and the iron bridge itself represent a magnet for tourists. Of course, it is also a living community. Some 4,000 people live within the boundaries of the world heritage site and several businesses operate in that locality. It draws people into Shropshire who then go on to visit places such as Shrewsbury, Cosford aerospace museum and other parts of our wonderful county.
Alongside the image of the great iron bridge of which hon. Members will be aware is the image of the significant flooding that has happened in recent years. Flooding is nothing new in the lronbridge gorge. The greatest flood that took place there was in 1795. I am not sure who the Member of Parliament was at that time; perhaps he paddled a coracle. In terms of recent floods, during the last century there were fairly significant floods in the gorge in the 1940s, the 1960s and throughout the 1990s. The autumn 2000 flood was a one in 50 incidence flood that was quite devastating in the locality. Many of my constituents recall how awful it was and the impact that it had on the museums and local businesses. It took several months—eventually, it may take years—for the gorge to recover all the trade that was lost owing to the many people who stayed away during that period. Some properties in the gorge flood on an annual basis and the geography of the gorge is so problematic that we may never be able to protect them.
The problem is that the River Severn meanders on its floodplain before it reaches Ironbridge, and is then channelled into a steep-sided gorge with no floodplain at all. The rises in water level are dramatic during a flood. Shrewsbury is our main warning that we are going to get flooded. If Shrewsbury gets hit, it is guaranteed that Ironbridge will get hit as well. Experience of floods has prompted the creation of a strong local group to try to draw agencies together. The Ironbridge Gorge Community Against Flooding group is superb. The chair of the group is fantastic and so is the secretary—Jemma McLay-Fortune—who does an enormous amount of work to assist residents and to work with the range of agencies involved. We also have an excellent councillor in the area—Louise Lomax. Other hon. Members have talked about officers from the Environment Agency. Peter May, who works for the agency in the midlands, has been superb. I will return in a few moments to some of the issues that he has raised with the local community.
We have good interagency working. The local authority has worked extremely well with the Environment Agency and DEFRA, but also with
496
Severn Trent Water, to try to alleviate some of the worst effects of flooding in the Ironbridge gorge. I want to thank the Minister for the commitment that he has given to meet residents from Ironbridge in the next few weeks, and for his commitment this afternoon to fund temporary barriers and measures. I assume that one of the areas that will benefit from that, in relation to the wider Severn catchment area, will be Ironbridge.
There is a system in Europe that we hope to pilot, whereby a number of pallets are laid on metal stanchions. We hope to create a burn along areas such as the wharfage in Ironbridge, to alleviate some of the worst effects of flooding. Such a scheme would not stop the one-in-50 style flood of autumn 2000, but it would prevent some of the less severe flooding that frequently occurs in the Ironbridge gorge. As I have said, that could be only a temporary or partial solution to the problem. Many residents in the gorge will still regularly suffer from flooding.
I hope that the Minister will think a little more about support for individuals in the form of defence funding. We had a flood fair in Ironbridge last year but it was not especially well attended. I do not think that residents are aware of the types of product that are on the market to defend their properties. A much stronger push is required on that issue. Some innovative products can be put in place in people's homes. There are blocks that can go over doorways, and ways in which basements can be secured to stop flooding. We have to support local people in purchasing those innovative products, which are produced by many companies in the United Kingdom.
I welcome the fact that the Severn gorge area is a test case. Throughout the catchment area, we are trying to model what happens in floods. Many communities such as Shrewsbury will benefit from more permanent solutions; others, such as Ironbridge, will not. We have to understand the dynamic of the way in which permanent and temporary measures sit together and to understand what will happen during a significant flood. We may find that areas with temporary measures may not be able to cope. They may need more permanent defences.
I would like to touch briefly on the cost-benefit analysis that is being used by DEFRA and the Environment Agency to assess flood risk. I welcome the commitment in recent months to change the cost-benefit analysis. However, I am worried that it continues to downplay the impact that flooding can have on local businesses and specific sites. The Minister has acknowledged that worry. Several months ago, he wrote to me and said:
"The unique status of the Ironbridge Gorge as a world Heritage Site clearly poses a challenge in both assigning it an economic value and determining how this is accounted for in the cost/benefit analysis."
In the wind-up speech, I would welcome some comments on whether the Minister has thought about the way in which issues such as world heritage status can be drawn into the cost-benefit analysis and the way in which the impact on businesses is being considered. As I have said, places such as the Ironbridge gorge are an economic engine-house for counties such as Shropshire.

497
They draw people into what are, as I have said, living communities. We have to consider the impact that flooding has on those communities.
Mr. Morley: I should like to say something following the representations that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members have made about the heritage issue now, in case it slips my mind in during the winding-up speeches. Heritage is a criterion in the new scoring system that will start in April, so heritage sites will be a consideration. Of course the problems of Ironbridge, as he well knows, go much deeper—literally deeper. Again, fluvial gravels are a problem, and there are real technical challenges in providing a cost-benefit solution. I very much hope that the temporary solutions that are being paid for in the Severn area—Ironbridge is one of the areas under consideration—may at least, as he says, help to alleviate the problems. Of course, in the onging catchment studies, we will look for further solutions to try to improve the situation.
David Wright: I am very grateful to the Minister for that response, and I welcome the fact that heritage will be drawn into the criteria. We need to focus on the range of support services provided by local authorities in areas that flood, such as the gorge. Telford and Wrekin council has produced an excellent pack for residents that contains information on what the agencies can offer and what support is available.
It is important that we consider temporary defences not just as a sandbag replacement policy, but as a more effective system than that, and we should monitor and evaluate it properly to find out whether we need to provide more permanent defences as time goes on. I welcome the Minister's comment in relation to heritage, and I look forward to working with him and Ironbridge residents to explore how that will impact on a perhaps re-evaluated cost-benefit model in the coming months.
I want to close by reflecting on an issue that has not been discussed extensively this afternoon: how we can try to alleviate flooding through agricultural processes. We have seen significant change in the style and structure of farming policy and strategy in this country in recent years. Hedgerows have been removed and there is a totally different style and technique of farming. I should like to ask the Minister to reflect, perhaps in his winding-up speech, on how we can promote better agri-environmenal schemes to reduce run-off from land, and on how we can perhaps subsidise and support farmers and landowners to improve the use of their land, so avoiding significant run-off into rivers, such as the Severn, which has such devastating impacts downstream in areas such as Ironbridge. In summary, to coin a phrase, much done—much still to do.
4.32 pm
Mr. Philip Hammond: I, too, will concentrate on fluvial flooding, some 150 dwellings in my constituency having been affected by flooding along the River Thames earlier this year. I should like to express my sympathy with all those of my constituents who were so traumatised by that event, coming just two years after what they all thought, in October 2000, was a once-in-a- lifetime experience. Sadly, that was not to be.
498
As the anger that many residents initially felt has given way to a more analytical desire to understand what has happened, I should like to draw out and bring to the Minister's attention some issues that were brought to my attention in correspondence and two very large public meetings, which I chaired, attended by more than 500 people and representatives of all the relevant authorities, including the statutory water undertaker and the Environment Agency.
The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) talked about climate change being the driver for the flooding events that occurred early this year. That may well be the case, but as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire),there are considerable concerns along the lower Thames that other, man-made factors may be at work and may also contribute as well as climate change, which we all recognise is inevitably a factor.
I would tell the Minister—my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne also made this point—that there is a considerable credibility issue about statements made by the Environment Agency. Well meaning, well intentioned Environment Agency officials attended the meetings in my constituency and stated very clearly that they did not believe that the operation of the weirs on the River Thames, the Thames barrier or the Jubilee river had in any way negatively impacted on the situation that my constituents experienced. Yet the people who were affected this time were, in many cases, affected much worse than they were in October-November 2000,but the flood event was much less extensive on this occasion than it was in October-November 2000. The Minister shakes his head. I speak with a certain degree of heartfelt knowledge, as in October-November 2000 my house, which is located on a tributary of the Wey, was seriously affected by flooding. In January this year, areas back along the Wey towards Guildford were not affected at all, while the flooding along the Thames in Chertsey and Egham was particularly severe.
Mr. Morley: That is right, although it could be explained from the areas of downfall and run-off. While that may be the case on particular tributaries of the Thames, I must make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that the levels in the Thames in 2003 were worse than in 2000. In fact, such levels had previously been recorded only in 1947.
Mr. Hammond: The Minister is right, but the level in the Thames is not a natural phenomenon. The level in the Thames is controlled by weirs and by the operation of the barrier. Therein lies the problem. Constituents of mine and of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne are not yet convinced that the actions of the Environment Agency in operating those devices along the Thames were not a contributory factor.
I shall put to Ministers some of the issues that arose at those two large public meetings, and try to draw out of them a couple of more general themes that may have wider applicability than the flooding effects in Egham and Chertsey. Maintenance of rivers was a major theme—the maintenance of the Chertsey Bourne, the lack of clearance of the river and the division of responsibility between the Environment Agency and the local authority. Part of the Chertsey Bourne is a main

499
river; part of it is not. That creates confusion in itself. I take it that the Minister's announcement about the Environment Agency having responsibility for high flood-risk rivers applies not just to large rivers, but to all rivers, even smaller rivers like the Chertsey bourne, which pose a serious flood risk to dwellings—in the case of Chertsey, 60 or 70 dwellings were affected on the last occasion.
Of course, concerns were expressed about development in the floodplain. I heard hon. Members speaking about the Environment Agency having much stronger powers to prohibit development in the floodplain. I do not disagree with the sentiment, but I suggest to the Minister that if that is to happen, the Environment Agency's act will have to be sharpened up. I think I am right in saying that at present the Environment Agency objects as a matter of course to any development occurring within the area shown by the agency's map as the indicative floodplain, yet we all know that its maps are far from accurate. If the agency is to have stronger powers, they must be based on very much better data than it has at present.
I mentioned the active intervention of the Environment Agency in the management of the river. Constituents of mine who live on the River Thames and know the river well experienced some rather unusual occurrences this January, in particular over the weekend of the 4–5 January—a sudden drop in the level of the river. That was after the flood event had occurred. I have not yet heard from the Environment Agency a satisfactory explanation for that sudden and significant drop in the level of the river. Other hon. Members have mentioned dredging. The Thames is no longer subject to the kind of dredging programme that went on for many years, and the level of the river-bed has visibly risen in some areas, particularly on bends of the river.
I should like to ask the Minister about the cost-benefit analysis model that is used in relation to fluvial flooding. A number of people who attended those meetings could not understand how it worked. It is abundantly clear from the figures provided by the Environment Agency that it is not aware of all the dwellings that are affected by flooding. Not everybody claims insurance when they are flooded. Sadly, some people do not have any insurance on which to claim. The discrepancies between the figures given by the EA and those given by the local authorities and residents groups made it clear that not all flooded dwellings were coming to the EA's attention. Can we be sure that the cost of flooding is being properly evaluated if it is clear that at least some flooded dwellings are not being counted? Can the Under-Secretary give an assurance that the cost of increased insurance premiums for all residents of an area when postcode-related premium settingoccurs—an on-cost to the whole community—is being properly taken into account in the cost-benefit analysis?
Does the Under-Secretary recognise that there is a problem of public credibility in respect of the Environment Agency's multiple role? It is the promoter of schemes such as the Jubilee river, and it is also the operator of that scheme, as it sets weir levels and decides when and how to open the Jubilee river and bring it into use. Yet it is also the regulator and, as someone else has said, the final court of appeal. Has he considered
500
whether the need to restore public confidence in the system might call for a split between the roles of regulator and operator, which would ensure that the EA works in relation to the operation of rivers just as does in relation to the statutory water undertakers—a function that it does not carry out, but supervises and regulates?
Is the Under-Secretary aware of another conflict in the Environment Agency's role, of which I became aware only by virtue of comments made by its personnel at the public meeting that I was chairing? I refer to the fact that the EA has a statutory duty to maintain the navigability of rivers such as the Thames. On the reach of the lower Thames that I am talking about, navigation is done almost entirely for pleasure. The duty to maintain navigability means that the target normal water level in the river is allowed to fluctuate only over a very narrow range. People who have lived on the river for many years tell me that, in the past, when heavy falls of rain were expected or taking place, it was accepted practice to allow the river level to fall in autumn and early winter in anticipation of heavy run-off during the winter season. That no longer happens, because of the EA's statutory duty to maintain navigability of the river. That issue needs to be considered; some correction may be needed in the form of legislation to create a clear set of priorities in which flood prevention comes ahead of navigation.
I want to mention one more issue that has not yet been raised: the impact of waste landfilling on the absorbency and permeability of the ground. Most landfill takes place in areas where gravel has been extracted. By definition, most of that land is situated in floodplains, and there is a great deal of it in my constituency. The modern practice is to clay-line waste disposal sites, which means that they become huge, impermeable voids in the water table—large areas of water absorbency capacity that have been removed from the equation. That is almost certainly a factor in my area. The EA pointed out to me that no statutory agency has responsibility for flooding that is occasioned by flows of ground water, as opposed to fluvial waters.
I understand the calls that have been made for public inquiries. I share the scepticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne about the appropriateness of holding a full public inquiry into the events of January 2003 because of the delay that that would inevitably involve. Like him, I welcome the action of our local authorities in commissioning some independent expert research, but it will take much more than that to restore public confidence.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will take on board the key point that public confidence in the Environment Agency is low, certainly on the reach of the Thames that I have discussed. He should consider whether the Department can do anything, perhaps through splitting roles, to help restore confidence and thus give the public a greater sense that the serious threat to their well-being and livelihoods is being properly controlled and managed.
4.45 pm
Mrs. Janet Dean: My constituency is about as far inland as one can get, but the River Dove and the mighty Trent flow through it. My hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright) mentioned heritage. If it were not for the quality of the water in Burton on Trent, we would not have such fine beers.

501
I welcome the extra funding and the greater responsibility that is being placed on the Environment Agency. However, I accept that all bodies need to continue to work together to deal with flooding problems because they do not derive from one source. Other hon. Members have referred to sewage flooding; that means that the sewerage companies are involved. This week, I had a site meeting in Rolleston-on-Dove in my constituency, which representatives from the highways authority, the Environment Agency, the local borough council, the Severn Trent sewerage company and the local parish council attended.
I pay tribute to all those who work to prevent flooding recurring, especially parish councillors who try to be the watchdog for their villages. Representatives of the local landowners were perhaps the only people who were not at the site meeting. We need to work with them on clearing the drains and ditches that run through fields and can create a backlog and cause flooding.
Whether flooding occurs in an individual property or a large group of properties, it is a terrible event for the people who live there, especially if sewage is involved. In the floods in 2000, approximately 40 properties were flooded in my constituency. However, we were within 2 in or 3 in of flooding in 7,000 properties in the town centre. The flatness of the land in Burton on Trent means that that would have happened if the flood defence barriers had been breached. Indeed, reports on local radio and elsewhere suggested that the bridges had gone, and the evacuation began in the town. That caused great problems on the roads. There was a need to evacuate some streets that were closest to the river, and that happened.
I have great sympathy for the people in the 40 houses that were flooded and those who suffered elsewhere, and I want to ask about the new priority scoring system. As I said, we were within 2 in or 3 in of having 7,000 properties at risk. We are in the "one flood in 100 years" category. I am worried that climate change may necessitate further improvements to the flood barriers in Burton on Trent.
If the flood defences in Burton had not been repaired and maintained before 2000, they would have been breached. I understand that improvements were not made on the standard that was established more than 30 years ago. In other words, we were not making the standard better than it was 30 years ago. Burton-on-Trent is protected to the one in 100 standard, but we came very close.
What calculations have been made of the effect of global warming? Are we changing our assessments owing to the likely increased risk? No one wants to scare the local population, but everyone should be aware of the risks. I am pleased that there was a local flood fair in my area recently, although it was not attended by as many people as we would have liked. There is a need to raise the awareness of people in towns such as Burton on Trent of the potential for flooding, without frightening them. There is also a need to ensure that the money is spent on protecting the areas in which many properties are at risk.
I welcome yesterday's announcement that the Environment Agency is to be given a block grant. I am sure that that will provide continuity and allow the agency to plan and develop schemes better in the future.
502
The one disadvantage that it will bring is a loss of some democratic control, and I would like to ask what mechanism will be put in place to ensure fair distribution in all regions and areas—including Burton on Trent under—the new funding system.
4.51 pm
Dr. Richard Taylor: I shall be very brief, as I know that many other hon. Members wish to speak. It is not surprising that a lot of Members with constituencies on the Severn—our longest river—have spoken, and I am pleased to join them. We in Wyre Forest are very grateful to DEFRA and to the Environment Agency for the beginning of the very effective flood defences that we have, and I am grateful to the Minister for the reassurance that there is quite a good chance that the next phase will be completed on time.
We are very sad that neither the Minister nor the Secretary of State can come to inaugurate the flood defences at the end of this month, as we were hoping they would. In fact, I was asked to stand in for them, but I did not really think it was appropriate. I did not know whether one should crack a bottle of champagne over these things, cut a tape, or whatever. So I have suggested that the ceremony should be deferred in the hope that either the Secretary of State or the Minister can come later. The defences are really worth seeing when they are erected, and, as we get something like 36 hours warning of a flood, the speed with which they can be erected is very impressive. There is a flood risk in Kidderminster—although it is much less than in Bewdley—and there are very exciting developments there, including the building of a burn to delay the flow of the Stour and to recreate one of the original marshlands just above the town. I would love to have the opportunity to take the Secretary of State or the Minister to have a look at those developments and to see something that is really functioning.
I would like to add my queries to those made by other hon. Members about what an ordinary watercourse is. The press release and the statement used the term "even minor streams" and I would like to know what the definition is. I hope that the provisions will allow other areas to avoid the kind of Gilbert and Sullivan experience that we had in 2000, when a very minor stream caused serious flooding to a group of houses. The residents of those houses built a sort of dam to protect them, which immediately deflected the flood to another group of houses. In the middle of the night, the owners of the second group of houses crept up and removed the dam. We would like to see that kind of chaos eradicated.
I welcome the Minister's high regard for the national flood forum, which was set up by just three people on the Bewdley residents flood committee. With a generous grant from the Environment Agency, two of those people are now paid a moderate salary. The amount of work that they do, with volunteers, is absolutely amazing. They are involved in research, and they have done many presentations and organised flood fairs throughout the country. They are also creating a database. Their office will be in a converted building that always floods. If anywhere in Bewdley floods, this building does. It will demonstrate how to have an office that is relatively flood resistant. They have huge contact with local firms and individuals. I support their wish to

503
develop their service further, which obviously requires more financial help. They provide a national service of advice for the people who need it.
4.55 pm
Mr. Alan Hurst: Like probably every Member who has spoken in the debate, my constituency has suffered from floods in recent years: in our case, in 2001. We have heard about many famous rivers, including the Thames, Avon, Trent, Severn and Wyre. The rivers that I shall mention may not be as internationally well known as they are, but the main rivers running through mid and north Essex are the Blackwater, with its tributaries the Pant and the Brain, the Chelmer and the Ter.
The question that Members have asked again and again is: where does the river system stop? A large part of the damage in my division was caused by brooks, which run into the minor rivers that run into the main river. Into those brooks run drains and the run-off from fields. The whole system goes back and back, almost like all of us descending from Adam and Eve. We have to go far back to judge where the danger is coming from.
The other issue that a number of hon. Members have highlighted is the division of responsibility between the various bodies. Until we resolve that question, I fear that there will be some delay in finding solutions to many of the problems that we all face. Hon. Members may have heard of a case in Finchingfield in my constituency—if not, they will have after today. It is usually regarded as the most beautiful village in England. It is much photographed, but in October 2001 it was not photographed as an inland village: it was a series of houses under or around a lake. The Finchingfield brook overflowed, and the water went higher than anyone in living memory can recall. My good friend Councillor Ron Hawkins is a local historian, and he can find no record of the waters going as high as they did that year. They went beyond the war memorial, well up on to the green, and flooded the pub, the teashop, the antique shop and residential properties. All of us will be aware that, when flood waters go away, houses are not put back into occupation straight away. It takes many months for those houses to be habitable again.
The difficulty we have with the Finchingfield brook is that the Environment Agency has responsibility only for the area just past the village green, but the brook runs beyond that, and there lies the problem. Unless we deal with the whole length of the brook, we cannot prevent further flooding.
Of late, I have been disappointed with the Environment Agency. After the floods in 2001, I was clearly told that a number of schemes would shortly be introduced, on which action could be taken. I was shown the outlying schemes for certain villages in my division, particularly in Kelvedon, but no such report was published in 2002.Being ever the optimist, I again spoke to the agency in the autumn of 2002. I was shown schemes for the village of Finchingfield, which I was assured would be consulted on after December 2002. I am a patient man, and I did not raise the matter again until February 2003, when I was referred to the regional
504
office in Ipswich. I was told that because the scheme involved a flood park beyond the agency's jurisdiction, it would not be able to carry it out. It was an inexpensive scheme, and on the face of it would not only have solved the problem of Finchingfield and down river to Great Bardfield, but would have had consequences all the way down the river system. I could not fathom whether the agency had a reason not to go ahead or whether it did not wish to go ahead, but officials in the local office told me about the schemes in good faith. Clearly there was an overruling higher up in the system.
I should like to know from the Minister whether the agency currently has power to construct flood parks beyond the line of the main river, which it operates, provided that the construction of those parks provides flood defences within the main river. If the answer is yes, I shall be greatly strengthened in my discussions with the local office. If that is not the case, can it become the case? Otherwise valuable schemes in all our constituencies will be blocked, and no real progress will be possible.
Obviously I spoke about the whole issue of flooding in my constituency after the severe floods of 2001. All of us who represent areas where flooding has been a problem know of the fear that many residents feel at certain times of the year, and the relief when spring arrives and the danger has presumably passed. The trouble is that public bodies take too long considering before they act. Some of the schemes that could solve the problem are not very expensive, but they need to be put in hand promptly rather than being contemplated at length. People should not be fobbed off with the excuse that the problem is not the responsibility of a particular agency or Department.
5.1 pm
Mr. Paul Goodman: I apologise to the Minister for missing the first five minutes or so of his speech.
Many Members have described the distress and anger of their constituents following the flooding early this year. I encountered some of that distress and anger at a public meeting in Medmenham in my constituency, which I attended to find out what local people felt about the flooding that had afflicted Medmenham and Marlow.
I shall try to emulate the tone adopted by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), who tried to approach the issue in a bipartisan way. I appreciate that there were very heavy levels of rainfall this year, and that, not being a rain god, the Minister cannot be held responsible for all the difficulties thrown up by nature. I was amused when my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Mr. Hendry) said he hoped that the Minister would still be there at the end of the current Parliament. I believe, although the Minister may correct me, that he is already the longest-serving Minister in the Government, but he may well look forward to continuing to serve for as long as my hon. Friend wishes him to.
As the Minister knows, some of my constituents believe that the Jubilee scheme was responsible for the exceptionally heavy flooding. As he also knows, the Environment Agency says that it was not, and proposes to run a hydraulic model downstream to confirm that. There are two difficulties for my constituents. First, the

505
hydraulic model is not being run upstream to where they live; secondly, what if the model is wrong—a possibility that has already been raised today?
My view, for what it is worth, is that the agency may well be right, but let me return to a problem that has surfaced repeatedly today: the agency cannot be judge and jury in its own case. I commend to the Minister the ingenious suggestions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) about the need for re-examination of the agency's responsibilities, and urge him to look again at the arguments for an independent inquiry into what happened. I ask him to respond, perhaps in writing if he does not have time at the end of the debate, to the question of whether he would fund or help to fund any independent examinations upstream, perhaps by some public body, just as some of my hon. Friends want him to help to fund independent examinations downstream.
My constituents are concerned not merely about what has already happened but, naturally, about what will happen. I welcome in that context the announcement by the EA, which the Minister has made known in a written answer, that it will be undertaking pre-feasibility studies to identify options for the alleviation of flooding in both Marlow and Medmenham. I put on record my appreciation for the courteous way in which the EA has always dealt with me in providing information.
I would appreciate it if the Minister let me know in due course what the timetable for that is and what efforts the EA will make to discuss those plans with other bodies. In the written answer, the Minister made it known that the EA would be discussing the matter with the district council but I would be grateful for any further information that the Minister has available.
Many hon. Members have already referred to the difficulties of dealing with flooding when it is dealt with by such a wide variety and number of bodies. As the Minister will know, what constituents want in these circumstances is effectively a one-stop shop, somewhere they can go to with ease to find solutions to the problems that they face. I will want to examine carefully the Minister's announcement earlier about the way in which he is rebalancing the responsibilities of the public bodies for flooding. Since he said earlier that he is always willing to meet any delegation of constituents—
Mr. Morley: Within reason.
Mr. Goodman: The Minister is now adding" within reason". I hope that, when he says that, he is not indicating that he would not be prepared—I apologise for the double negative—to meet a body of my constituents if they wished to come to see him about these matters. I may make such an approach to him and I trust that he will respond favourably.
5.7 pm
Lawrie Quinn: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman), although like every other contribution to the debate, his tended to be a bit landlocked. As the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby and, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, as a chartered civil engineer, I shall take this opportunity to make some general and some specific points. I made the Minister
506
aware of those in advance of the debate in the hope that he could answer some fairly key questions that my constituents have asked me to raise.
While I am on my feet and paying due acknowledgment to the facility of being involved in this important debate on behalf of my constituents who live at the seaside, I remind the House that Scarborough and Whitby is one of the largest rural constituencies in the whole country, certainly in Yorkshire.
Mr. Liddell-Grainger: Rubbish.
Lawrie Quinn: In the context of the area of the national park that I represent, it is fairly large. The annual mileage on my car indicates a fairly large constituency.
I have a technical and complicated problem to resolve. I was concerned to find that the journal that I receive every week as a chartered civil engineer, the New Civil Engineer, was not available in the Library of the House. I have taken the suggestion of the Speaker's Office that I provide not only the Minister, but the two Opposition spokespersons, with a copy of a document to which I shall refer later. I want to thank the Speaker's Office and the Library, which will make the document available to other hon. Members, should they need to look at it.
Before I turn my remarks seaward, as it were, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider some of the experiences of those communities in the landlocked part of Scarborough and Whitby. I think immediately of Stepney road in Scarborough or the residents of Golden grove in Whitby, whose lives have been blighted and their health affected by nasty sewage spillages that are still being investigated. I pay tribute to the Environment Agency and to Yorkshire Water, who have done their utmost to try to get to the bottom of the problem. Some of the problems might be associated with an overload—as we have heard today from Members on both sides—in which properties are added to an area and overload the system. We will find out in due course.
I pay tribute to the Minister's immediate team, and to Mr. Reg Purnell, the chief engineer at DEFRA and his team. We have heard many compliments paid to the team, particularly with regard to its work with the all-party group on flooding. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) referred to its contribution. The team is excellent and the level of professionalism is to be admired. Members will understand later why I make that comment.
The Minister is a regular visitor to my constituency and he is welcomed whenever he comes, particularly by members of the fishing industry. With me, he has visited remarkable works along the River Derwent and the River Esk nearer Whitby. However, local parish councils have asked me to ask him whether parish councils could be more formally included in the emergency recovery programme. In the area covered by Scarborough borough council, it can take a long time for sandbags to be delivered to some of the more remote parishes. Often, because of the nature of flash floods in small streams across the national park, the problem has gone from villages such as Lealholm, but the damage has been done. Could a closer liaison be achieved, or could the Minister suggest that local authorities work

507
more closely, and try to get contingency plans in place, with parish councils, which are on the spot and can respond more quickly to emergencies?
We have had serious problems with the so-called "sea cut" that goes into the sea adjacent to Scarborough. The Minister will be aware of that man-made feature, which was constructed by Lord Derwent's ancestors, who drained the family land to help their agricultural pursuits. Recently, the sea cut has been subject to flash floods and the Environment Agency has tried to respond to the flooding in the communities immediately around it.

I urge the Minister and the Environment Agency to remember that the people affected by flooding remember it and, as has been graphically suggested today, they remember those moments when they cannot get on with their lives because of flooding. The more work done to bolster the relationship between the Environment Agency's experts and technical engineers with parish councils, the stronger community bond there will be, so that communities understand the difficult technical issues.
As an engineer, I often tried to solve problems by applying lateral thinking. Given the nature of my work—bridge design and geo-technical matters—I was often cash-strapped and had to work within a very tight budget. That is why engineers seek lateral solutions to some of the problems that they face. With that in mind, I commend the excellent scheme introduced at the estuary of the River Eske, in Whitby. We found it difficult to attract grant for the necessary sea defence work, because the affected area was within the harbour bar. The very good engineering team, with encouragement from me, applied lateral thinking and, with the help of the Admiralty, redefined what was estuary and what was sea. By redefining the cliffs within the harbour bar, which are immediately underneath St. Mary's church and Whitby abbey, we were able not only to protect numerous properties, but to keep alive a very vibrant part of Whitby and to sustain it for probably the next 100 years. Such lateral thinking and the excellent experience of the Haggerlythe, in Whitby, are a tribute to what can be achieved by engineers who work with communities.
The Minister will know that my main purpose in speaking today is to highlight what my constituents regard as a big success: the considerable resources that this Labour Government have provided for the coastline of north-east Yorkshire. For the nation to recognise the need to sustain this attractive heritage coastline for communities along the Yorkshire coast is a fantastic step forward. I pay tribute to the officers of Scarborough borough council, in particular, who have taken a leading role in seeking innovative solutions to coastal defence problems along the wider Yorkshire coast—from the Humber to the north-east, as far as the River Wear. Excellent work has been carried out at Runswick Bay, at Robin Hood's Bay and along the coastline in general. Such projects would not have been possible without the resources that the Government have supplied for the people of the Yorkshire coast.
As if that were not good enough, I also pay great tribute to the abilities of my hon. Friend the Minister, and for his excellent work in persuading our friends at
508
the Treasury, as evidenced in his statement. I am sure that many of my constituents will regard that as a great success, and my remaining comments will make it clear why I say that.
The main problem that I want to bring to the attention of the House concerns the classic landscape of the town of Scarborough. I hope that Members on both sides of the House have been able to visit Scarborough. It is a great conference town, and most people who work in politics get an opportunity to visit it at some point in their careers. The promenade, the classic Marine Drive, is the result of the forethought and foresight of Victorian engineers, and it is a classic example of Victorian engineering. It is a beauty to behold, but sadly, in the decades before I became the Member of Parliament for Scarborough and Whitby, it was neglected. Like many seaside communities throughout the country, the basic infrastructure did not get the attention that it demanded. As I have said, the fact that we have considerable resources to put right years of neglect is a great tribute to the work of the Minister and his team.
It is not just about years of neglect; we must recognise the power of the sea and mother nature. People who live on the coast know that, ultimately, the sea will always win. Although many Members have rightly paid tribute to him today, not even the Minister would claim to be Canute. The sea will always win—I know that as an engineer, and everyone who lives on the coast does too. However, for perhaps the next 50 years, we have an opportunity to protect vital parts of our local economy, and support and protect residential areas in Scarborough. I urge the Minister to recognise that the partnerships that have evolved since 1997 between the local authority, Yorkshire Water, the ministerial team and engineers have failed to give due acknowledgement to the sentiment, affection and high regard that many of my constituents have for that fantastic part of our heritage on the Yorkshire coast.
The Minister was able to support with a 75 per cent. grant works to East pier, Castle headland and the Holms—a coastal protection scheme, the like of which Scarborough has never seen before. Work started in earnest in April 2002, but unfortunately a number of technical problems arose in the first season of operations. I hope that Members will recognise that it is difficult to do any work next to the sea because there are problems with the tide, weather and storms, which can inflict considerable damage as people try to achieve a technical solution. The problems on the coastline that the Government inherited demand considerable attention, technical understanding and lateral thinking. Above all, community members must feel that they are stakeholders in the solution that emerges.
The Minister knows that those works have run into considerable financial difficulty, and I believe that at the beginning of last week the Department received an application from Scarborough borough council, the main promoter or client in the contract for the works, for extra funding of £7.6 million. I hope that the Minister can confirm whether yesterday's ministerial statement on resources means that the consideration of that application can be expedited, or whether the community will have to wait and see whether the final estimated cost of the works will be fully funded by central Government and the Treasury. I trust that he will give a response in his winding-up speech.

509
Communities in Scarborough, Whitby and other parts of my constituency are waiting to find out whether they will have to use their council tax resources to fill the funding gap caused by the extra costs of those works. The Minister knows that locally we have a strong civic society and an internationally recognized environmental group, the Sons of Neptune. Indeed, he has met some of the individuals involved. They have strong reservations about a small aspect of the scheme, which I shall attempt to bring to the attention of the House and the Minister; otherwise the community in Scarborough will feel that its MP is failing them.
The document to which I referred earlier is available in the House of Commons Library. I hope that the House will consider using visual aids in the near future, so that hon. Members will be better able to consider complicated technical matters such as this.
The scheme involves reinforcing a lot of promenade masonry. Part of it is called a wave return wall, which will run for about 1,500 m along the promenade. The wall will be a considerable lump of concrete. It will replace some Victorian railings that are much loved by local people and the millions of visitors to Scarborough.
The Sons of Neptune and Scarborough's civic society have never been happy with the local authority's plan to replace an elegant sweep of Victorian cast-iron railing with a 3 ft-high lump of concrete around the whole of the town's bay area. They feel that it will blight the area and attract graffiti. They are also worried about health and safety aspects of the replacement wave return wall, and believe that the Minister is giving generous funding for dental work in the face of Scarborough that will never allow the city to smile again.
I hear that accusation regularly. People's affection for Scarborough has shown itself in a campaign of letters—to me, and to local newspapers and radio stations. Last Sunday, objectors to the proposal got local residents to tie ribbons to the railings. More than 1,000 ribbons were tied and, within two hours, almost 400 people had urged me, as their local MP, to ask the Minister to consider the matter.
The Minister must deal with the matter of costs. I know that he has great respect for the technical people involved. I hope that he will urge Scarborough borough council to sit down with the technical experts put up by the Sons of Neptune and the civic society. In that way, the experts and engineers might be able to find some way of restoring the smile to the face of Scarborough. That would reduce the overall cost of the works, and enhance the Minister's already considerable reputation. I hope that he will respond to the heartfelt plea of the people of Scarborough and Whitby when he responds to the debate.
5.28 pm
Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: I am delighted to know that the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) is a chartered engineer. I did not know that. I must say that my constituency is bigger than his—so there.
I want to bring some points to the Minister's attention. He knows that one problem in the south-west is that the Environment Agency sets river catchment areas. I have a unique problem in the Wessex catchment area, in that one end of my constituency creates the
510
rainfall that floods the other end. If the catchment area were slightly bigger, the agency would be able to deal with many more of the problems that it faces, as its funding would then be lumped together.
The Minister will not be surprised that I want to talk about the River Parrett catchment project. As he found out when he visited, many people are unhappy that their homes are being flooded. He will recall meeting a few homeowners who were a little upset. Also, the drainage board has threatened to keep the sluice gates shut. The Minister is aware that that would pose a threat to Taunton. Finally, some landowners are refusing to pay their precepts, because their land is to be used for inland waterways or water holding areas.
Given all that, has not the time come to look at the possibility of getting rid of the Parrett catchment project? The flood defence committees would disappear, but a committee covering the whole of Wessex would take care of rivers such as the Parrett—which in fact rises in Dorset, outside the present catchment project area.
I shall raise briefly one or two other problems. The Minister kindly alluded to the service sector. In Willaton, the water pipes run under the bridge, which has reduced the flow of the river by almost half. Is there any way that the Environment Agency can use its powers to inform statutory bodies, such as water, gas and electric, to move those pipes? In another village, Kilve, that has happened. As a result, once the river is blocked the volume cannot get any more, simply because of the concrete balustrades underneath the bridges.
There is the additional problem in our area with the drainage boards. I know that the Minister is aware of this. We have a lot of drainage boards across the levels. If he is looking to amalgamate the smaller ones with the larger ones, would he care to think about when a large one is large enough and a small one too small? The reams of Somerset are not ditches; they are quite wide. Many drainage boards have done a good job over many generations. The problem is that if they are too big, they cannot cope because the precepts are set by landowners under the Environment Agency. If the Environment Agency is judge, jury and executioner, we need the ability to say that a certain drainage board has done a very good job over a long period—I am thinking of King Sedgemore, which the Minister has been to see and which has done a remarkable job. Its problem is that the volume of water is now out of proportion to what the Stowey river, which goes between Taunton and Bridgewater, was ever capable of carrying. Could there not be some arbitrary figure—perhaps the Minister himself—who could take on these situations where drainage boards will be deeply upset with the changes that they will have to face?
Mr. Morley: In these proposed changes there is a possibility of a drainage board going to the ombudsman if it felt that it was being unfairly treated by the Environment Agency. Members can also come directly to me, although I do not have statutory duties in relation to any formal appeal. I will respond to individuals. As for the King Sedgemore drainage board, it threatened to flood the hon. Gentleman's colleague in Taunton. I was

511
deeply unimpressed by that. Given that that was in the middle of a review of the IDBs, it was not the best move either.
Mr. Liddell-Grainger: I could not agree more with the Minister. The reason why that happened was that the amount of water that the Parrett can carry because of the delay in the dredging meant that the Stowey had to be opened up, so the landowners felt that they were being used as water-holding areas. I accept that, as the Minister said, the middle of a review was not a good time to do that.
Finally I come to the massive problem of coastal erosion. The Minister is aware of the Steart peninsular. We must look at the concept of managed retreat. I have not seen any of that in this. We will have to talk about managed retreat because there is no way, unless we are given a massive amount of money, that we can defend the likes of Steart common. Then there is the problem of compensation for landowners and of a village on the end of a peninsular and what happens if the river Parrett changes its course. The costs will be astronomical. The lesser of evils would be not to lose the whole village, but to have major floods coming into Bridgewater because of the backing up of the water. The Environment Agency needs to look at coastal realignment much more closely. We have heard very little about it.
Another problem off Bridgewater bay, which is better known as the Bristol channel, is that the main sandbanks are now moving down from Weston. I know that the Minister is keen on wind turbines off the coast. We have looked at that in the Severn, including the Severn barrage. I urge the Minister, under the Environment Agency, which will be responsible for this, to look much more closely at the changes that could be done to the coast by the longer-term attributes of, for example, wind turbines or a barrage. The changes in the coastline along there, as the Minister is well aware because of what has been happening in certain parts of my constituency, have been much more profound in the past five years because of the enormous differentials in tide. We have one of the highest tidal races in the world. When it backs up with rain from Exmoor, we know perfectly well that we will have a flood, no matter what we do. If there are any blockages, the problems could be even greater in future.
In my area, we have much low-lying land and land at sea level. If the Met Office projections for the next 50 years are correct, and I have no reason to disbelieve them, Bridgwater could be a metre under water, regardless of what we do. The Environment Agency must be able to finance capital rather than environmental projects, so that we can hold back the river through dredging or higher banks. We need a much longer programme of defence, perhaps extending over 20 years. We should consider such projects under the EA and the proposed new drainage board system, as they could save homeowners and insurance companies from enormous anxiety in the years to come.
5.36 pm
Mr. Andrew Turner: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. Unlike the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie
512
Quinn), who is half landlocked, I am not landlocked at all, so I shall talk not about flooding, but about coastal protection.
We need to add to the Minister's statement yesterday by extending his observations that flood protection arrangements were too complex and needed streamlining to the arrangements for coastal protection. Does he agree that we need similar streamlining for coastal defence work?
I shall draw some conclusions from a particular case. I have always been told not to do that, but it is appropriate on this occasion. Nine years ago, in 1994, there was a large landslip in Castlehaven at Reeth Lodge, which is no longer seriously inhabitable. In 1996, the local authority lodged a planning application for coastal defence measures. English Nature objected on the ground that there would be short-term and long-term effects on "European features". However, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food agreed that the scheme was cost beneficial.
At that time, there was also a proposal that south Wight should be designated a special area of conservation. English Nature said that Government policy was
"evolving rapidly, especially in respect of biodiversity targets".
That is one of the complaints that I have passed on to the Minister. In 1998, south Wight's candidature for SAC was confirmed. In November 1999, MAFF set new high targets for flood and coastal defence.
The UK biodiversity action plan set five targets, one of which was that 4,000 km of maritime cliff and slope should be retained as unstable. I understand why the targets were needed, but how accountable to the House was the body that set them? Such changing targets were among the many within which my local authority had to operate.
In 2000, the special invertebrate interest group—I believe that means that its members are looking for invertebrates, not that they have no backbone—of the Hampshire Wildlife Trust made an exhaustive study of that cliff area and could find no rare invertebrates, yet in 1996 English Nature had objected to the planning application on the ground that the scheme would damage wildlife.
In early spring 2001, there was a landslip at Undercliff drive on the A3055. One of my constituents, Mr. Cyril Hobbs of Niton Undercliff, wrote to the Environment Agency to point out that the problem
"could have been delayed for some time, possibly indefinitely, if modern soil engineering skills had been applied … Your organisation had a lot to do with ensuring that this didn't happen".
That was because of English Nature's objections to the proposed defence scheme. Later in 2001, English Nature approved the scheme subject to certain conditions that it had set, but Hampshire Wildlife Trust did not withdraw its objection. That meant that there had to be a local hearing, which did not take place until July 2001, and the Minister was unable to announce his approval for the scheme—I thank him for doing so—until December 2001. So we are now seven and a half years from the time the landslip took place. One of the conditions of the scheme was that the local authority should purchase another site to mitigate the loss of the unstable land, but that was not achieved until earlier this

513
year. This month, tenders will go out for the work to be implemented, and it is hoped that it will start in early summer.
I should like to ask the Minister a few questions, and I hope that he will forgive me if I rush through them. First, what is mitigation? In other words, what is being mitigated? Just before the landslip took place, there was no unstable cliff to be mitigated. Since the landslip, other landslips have created new unstable cliff, yet the mitigation is still required to fulfil the conditions of the scheme. Why is it necessary to protect morphology rather than wildlife, and why do the diversity action plans talk about such and such a length or area of coastline rather than talking about the animals or other wildlife that live there? Is it not the case that English Nature has a stranglehold on the process, and is therefore acting as judge and jury? Most local authorities are loth to go to public inquiry where they see the danger of great cost and would prefer, if at all possible, to do a deal with English Nature.
I want to make one final point. DEFRA believes that natural river and coastal processes should not be disturbed until life or valuable natural or man-made assets are at risk. Yet it is only when something happens that it is possible to show that an asset is at risk, and if seven, eight or nine years are then added to the point at which it becomes clear that it is at risk, it is often too late to do anything to protect it. Will the Minister please do something about that?
5.42 pm
Mr. Andrew Lansley: It is a privilege to speak at the conclusion of this debate, during which we have heard much that is of great interest. I hope to sum it up by reference to my constituency. The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) reminded us of the floods of October 2001, which also flooded my constituency. Since then, I have had the benefit of being able to explore the detailed policy implications in my own Adjournment debate.
I am grateful to the Minister for the action that has flowed since then and to the Environment Agency for what it has done locally—for example, the study on the River Cam and the River Granta and the standards and protection studies in Bourn, Shelford and Stapleford. Several hon. Members described the difficulties involved in trying to bring agencies together and to explore the demarcations of responsibilities. Those are undoubtedly difficult issues, but they have been addressed in my area through co-operation between the Environment Agency, South Cambridgeshire district council, Cambridgeshire county council, Anglian Water, the parish councils, and flood action groups in villages such as Bourn and Elsworth. A series of villages had regular collective meetings with the agencies early in 2001, before the 2001 floods occurred.
It is remarkable what has been achieved in the space of two years in terms of enlightening parish councils and flood action groups about the resources that are available. For example, the county council organised an exhibition of flood protection equipment. I remember that when representatives of the Environment Agency attended the first meeting they said, "We're here, and we're willing to offer advice of a technical kind, but we haven't got any money." Two years later, we have
514
reached a situation whereby, as a result of those discussions and the work that has flowed from them, the Environment Agency will be instrumental in the delivery of some of the necessary measures. I look forward to that. Many questions cannot be answered today, but, as we go down the track, the test for my constituents will be whether the feasibility studies that have been carried out since 2001 have been turned into practical measures to remove flood risks in a reasonable time—and I think that they would consider two or three years a reasonable time. Whether that can be done will depend on the availability of resources and expertise.
Some things are still missing. One of them, which I have raised with the Minister before, is to do with riparian ownership. Parishes often have a problem in establishing who owns many of their watercourses. When there is a transfer of title, could the Land Registry be required to register the riparian ownership responsibilities alongside the registration of title? That would allow ownership to be more easily examined.
A number of hon. Members have spoken about soft protection measures and, for example, upstream storage reservoirs. In three places in my constituency—Bourn, Elsworth and Bin Brook—such measures could play a major part in the long-term resolution of problems. However, we do not necessarily know how to access resources for those measures. If they depend on Environment Agency grants, and on the prioritisation that goes with them, those places may find themselves way down the priority order. However, if we can find a mechanism for doing things on a small scale—in projects on, for example, watercourses that are not main rivers or are not critical—by accessing agricultural funds, we may move outside the requirements for Environment Agency grants and find a very effective way of combining agricultural and flood defence measures. Such a mechanism could allow us not to have to be at the top of the Environment Agency's priorities pile.
The Minister has published his response to the review. Part of his response was on the question of a development charge. That may be along the lines of the development connection charge, which, in my response to the consultation, I certainly supported. In the Cam catchment area in the Cambridge sub-region, about 2,800 homes will be built each year, and serious flood issues will arise. In Bourn, 47 properties were affected by the previous floods, yet Bourn will have 3,300 homes built pretty much on its doorstep. It does not take a genius to see that some part of the development connection charge should apply to the river catchment area, so that local people can say, "Yes, we accept local developments for economic reasons, but we will also secure some of the infrastructure benefits that will flow from those developments."
A number of hon. Members have spoken about insurance. It is not in the Minister's gift to decide what the insurance industry should do. However, the industry relies on the Environment Agency's data and maps, so they will have to be continuously updated to allow genuine assessments of risk to be made. It will not be justifiable, if corrective measures are put in place, to tell someone who asks about the indicative flood plain that blue areas on the map will incur high increases in premium and excess. It is also important to note that it was a one-in-200 years event that led to the flooding in

515
October 2001. The risks of flooding to some properties can be made very low indeed, which should result in low premiums. We need to be able to argue such points with the help of the Environment Agency's information.
Mr. Sayeed rose—
Norman Baker: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) to seek to catch your eye a second time, given that he was late for the opening of this debate, was absent for much of it, and spoke earlier for more than half an hour? Many hon. Members have raised constituency matters to which they wish the Minister to respond.
Madam Deputy Speaker: It is with the leave of the House that the hon. Member will make his response. I call Mr. Jonathan Sayeed.
5.49 pm
Mr. Sayeed: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This has been a valuable debate. Understandably, most hon. Members have concentrated on constituency concerns. Many of those concerns raise fundamental questions about policy and the practical effects of that policy. I do not intend to detain the House for long, because I want to hear the Minister's answers. However, bearing in mind how many questions of considerable interest there were, I hope that, if the Minister is not able to answer each of them specifically, he will agree, at the beginning of his speech, to write to hon. Members.
We have heard about everything from the Bombay duck in Salisbury to Scarborough's seaside accidental skate park. It has been a very useful debate; some very practical problems need to be addressed, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister. I am grateful to the House for giving me leave to make these remarks.
5.50 pm
Mr. Morley: With the leave of the House, I wish to respond to the debate.
We have heard contributions from the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr.Sayeed); my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley); the hon. Members for Lewes (Norman Baker) and for Wealden (Mr. Hendry); my hon. Friends the Members for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ) and Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn); the hon. Members for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) and for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner); my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster); the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key); my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright); the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond); my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean); the hon. Member for Wyre Forest; my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst); and, last but not least, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley)—not counting a few hon. Members who intervened at the beginning.
Hon. Members are rightly interested in flooding and coastal defence, and it is appropriate that this debate is taking in place in 2003—the 50th anniversary of the
516
devastating floods of 1953, as has been mentioned. Of course, those floods had a significant impact on my own county—Lincolnshire—and 307 people lost their lives in England and almost 1,800 in Holland lost their lives on the same night, but things have changed since those terrible and dramatic events.
When I attended the conference that the European Union and local authorities organised in Norwich to mark the 50th anniversary, I found it chilling that, in 1953, people were drowning in Lincolnshire while people on the Isle of Sheppey were going to bed that same night with no knowledge of the death and destruction that was coming south down the North sea. In fact, the same thing happened in the Netherlands: people were hit while going to bed in the early hours without the knowledge of the terror that was coming.
Of course that was before the days of mass communication and the huge investment that we now have in flood and tidal surge warning systems and weather forecasting systems, which are very important, as the hon. Member for Salisbury rightly stated. It is not likely that we would ever be caught so unawares again on the east coast of England, but there are no grounds for complacency. Successive Governments put huge amounts of money into improving flood defences post-1953, and, as we have heard today, we are determined to continue that investment.
Many very detailed, fair and sensible questions have been asked in the debate, and I shall try to go through them by distilling a combination of the points made by hon. Members. If I miss some of the points that can be identified separately, I will try to write to hon. Members. Of course hon. Members are free to write to me and to table parliamentary questions about points of interest to themselves.
Enhancing the environmental was mentioned, and we look for environmental gain in flood defence schemes. For example, in Malton and Norton, paths with attractive brickwork have been built, improving recreation facilities and the environment, as well as providing new flood defences for the area. We will always try to do that, and we will always be prepared to talk about such contributions if local councils want further to enhance fluvial and coastal schemes.
Climate change, forecasting, renewable energy are all issues, and we accept that there is a cross-Government responsibility and that there is also a case for strong international action. It is also true that some isolated properties and other properties are not likely to qualify for flood defence schemes for various technical or cost-benefit reasons. Insurance companies have agreed to assess those properties on their individual merits. Flood-proofing steps can be taken to minimise the damage done to properties, which may help those people to obtain insurance.
I can tell the hon. Member for Lewes that I understand that the property price issue is being reviewed in relation to the cost-benefit analysis, which may be beneficial. I also understand that there may have been an assumption in Sussex that there would be a 75 per cent. grant, but I am not at all sure that there was ever any promise about that, and the grant remains at 65 per cent. If we increase the grant in one area—we do so occasionally for various reasons—we have to accept that we may have to reduce the grant in another area, so that balance has to be struck.

517
I accept the case that a number of hon. Members made about upstream storage. The Environment Agency has the powers to include upstream storage as part of flood defence. It has to go through normal planning and land agreements. In relation to Uckfield, that was considered, but unfortunately it was not thought to be a viable option.
Roadworks can be considered for joint funding if there is a benefit in relation to flood defence. I am keen on co-operation with other Departments. I have been speaking to the Department for Transport about the potential for co-operation on schemes—for example, using reclaimed material for roads and removing flood obstacles in floodplains. Those are the kind of issues that we have been exploring with the Department for Transport.
With regard to internal drainage boards, the Environment Agency has a general supervisory duty to make sure that flood defence management operates efficiently. It can use the new subcontracting powers that we intend to give it to bring about changes. Some of those changes might mean amalgamation. Size and efficiency depend very much on local circumstances. We do not believe that if an IDB is bigger, it is automatically better. We need to consider how it operates and how effective it is. There are some good examples in the country, and we want the standard of the poorest to be brought up to the standard of the best.
Many hon. Members mentioned sewer flooding. I acknowledged that that was a serious issue. I am pleased that the sewer companies are taking action to deal with storm discharges and sewer flooding, and I have raised the matter with Ofwat.
On the Jubilee river, I repeat that I do not believe that it is to blame for the flooding of other communities on the Thames. It was subject to independent planning scrutiny as part of a public planning inquiry, and it is subject to independent scrutiny by our own DEFRA engineers, who are independent of the Environment Agency. Although I accept that hon. Members representing communities on the Thames have put their case in a fair and non-partisan way, I think that some communities and some individuals are engaged in a blame game, and I call on them to stop. All the information on the matter should be made available, and I will take steps to ensure that it is, so that there can be scrutiny by local communities.
As regards the invitation to contribute to an independent analysis, I have no objection to local authorities employing their own independent consultants, but for them to say to the Environment Agency, "We don't believe a word that you say, but give us your money anyway" is not a very attractive proposition. The agency has bent over backwards to try and examine the issue independently and make information available. People need to see that and reach the conclusion that the Jubilee river went through all the proper procedures and is not responsible for the flooding.
As a matter of routine, in every area that was flooded in the January incident there will be an examination of the causes of the flooding and the steps that can reasonably be taken to make sure that it does not happen again. That is part of the response to any flooding incident.
518
I agree that there is a need to raise flood awareness, including getting people on to automatic warning. PPG25 is to be revised in 2004. I agree that the issue of road closures needs to be considered. Bellwin can provide support. There is a definition of watercourses, which we are addressing in the review. I hope to take that further, as clarity is important. The Water Bill will deal with abstraction issues. I do not believe that Crown immunity is appropriate to try and avoid the implementation of the Bill.
The promotion of agri-environment schemes can address flood issues. We want an integrated approach. I support the involvement of parish councils; local authorities are responsible for taking that forward. Design and health and safety aspects of flood and defence schemes are matters for local councils. I recognise the almost unique skill of my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn). We understand his concerns. Additional funding is not automatic, but we will look at the case made to us by the local authority. I hope that he can reach agreement with his local authority, as he has raised some pertinent points. I am willing to continue the correspondence that I have had with him.
The Somerset levels are a special area. The Parret catchment area does a valuable job of bringing communities together. As we all know, there are diverse interests in the Somerset levels. The change in the one tier of flood defence committees may well be a possibility in considering a sort of Wessex approach. I shall certainly take that into consideration. I believe that the proposal for the treatment scheme at Steart point is very good. It is a very exciting scheme and I hope that it goes ahead. Offshore developments will be taken into account. Coastal schemes are very complex. English Nature is our statutory adviser and we take its views into account.
It being Six o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Flood and Coastal Defence Policy

  NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS BILL
  Ordered,
  That, in respect of the Northern Ireland Assembly Elections Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Mr. Heppell.]

  PETITIONS

    Fireworks
    6 pm
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: It is only a fortnight since the House agreed on a Friday morning to let through a Bill on firework misuse. Within about a fortnight, people in Coventry were able to collect about 5,000 signatures, which gives a snapshot of scale of the problem. Time is far too short to go into all the details; suffice it to say that many elderly people are experiencing a living nightmare in certain parts of Coventry because of firework abuse. The same applies

    519
    to pet owners and a large number of families, particularly as the fireworks are sometimes going off at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning.
    The petition states:
    To the House of Commons
    The Petition of the residents of Coventry
    Declares that firework misuse is a serious and growing cause of annoyance, distress, nuisance and danger to many people in Coventry; that residents and Councillors have made clear their belief that the existing legislation is inadequate and that an appropriate response is required at both local and national levels; that Category 3 fireworks should be available only to licensed display organisers and not to the general public and that Coventry Council believes that the current registration scheme to store and sell fireworks is inadequate and should be changed to a positive licensing scheme.
    The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons bring forward legislation to enable Coventry City Council to prohibit the use of fireworks between 11 pm and 7 am, and to give it the power to deny or revoke licences to firework retailers in cases where the retailer has a criminal record relating to the sale or storage of fireworks or in other cases where a restriction on the licensing of fireworks retailers would be in the best interests of the safety and wellbeing of Coventry residents; and furthermore enact legislation to prohibit the sale of Category 3 fireworks to the general public.
    And the Petitioners remain, etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

Local Pharmacies
6.3 pm
Bob Spink: Local chemists shops are not only retail outlets, but part of the very fabric of our communities. They are in the front line of primary health care, and they do much to take away from the burden on GPs, and can do much more in future. However, the recommendations of the Office of Fair Trading would result in the closure of many community pharmacies and hurt the most vulnerable people in our society. The residents of Thundersley value and seek to protect their local pharmacies and have raised a petition.
The petition states:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of Councillor Pam Challis, Beverley Egan and others of like disposition
Sheweth
That local communities are best served by pharmacies based in those communities and the OFT's recommendation to abolish the `control of entry' regulations would seriously damage local pharmacies.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House shall urge the Government to reject proposals that would allow unrestricted opening of pharmacies able to dispense NHS prescriptions and preserve local pharmacies and safeguard their continued services to local communities.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
To lie upon the Table.

Water Fluoridation
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heppell.]
6.4 pm
Andy Burnham: Many perceive water fluoridation as a political hot potato; a subject for the "too difficult" pile. I do not understand why that view has been allowed to take root. To me, the question is simple: do we want to give children in some of our most deprived communities a better quality of life through improved dental health? More to the point, is it morally right to allow children to go through the pain and discomfort of bad teeth and for some, the trauma of tooth extraction under general anaesthetic, when we know of a proven, safe public health measure that can alleviate their suffering?
The arguments against fluoridation do not stack up in the face of the overwhelming health and human benefits. I am therefore grateful for the chance to air a passionately held view. The timing of the debate is important because the House will soon have an opportunity to resolve the matter once and for all. My message is blunt: it is time to stop a vocal, letter-writing minority standing in the way of a progressive change that will benefit millions of people in Britain, especially in our most deprived communities.
Tooth decay is a class issue. The British Dental Association's excellent briefing for today's debate states:
"eighty per cent. of dental disease can be found in only twenty per cent. of the population."
That is the poorest 20 per cent., which the chief medical officer said in his 2001 annual report had not enjoyed the general health improvements of the rest of the population in the past 20 years.
Many of the health problems in poorer communities are deep and entrenched. They will take years to erode, if that ever happens. However, dental disease is different. Fluoridation is a known device, which could narrow the health divide at a stroke. It is scandalous that we are failing to use it. In 1998, Sir Donald Acheson's report, the "Independent Inquiry into Inequalities in Health" acknowledged that although overall dental health has improved, inequalities remain wide. He recommended water fluoridation to reduce them.
I shall spend a moment illustrating the inequalities with figures from the 1999–2000 survey by the British Association for the Study of Community Dentistry. It ranks all health authorities and boards in the United Kingdom by the average number of decayed, missing or filled teeth per five-year-old. The midlands are not used to dominating league tables in this country, as any football fan will readily admit. However, they are the undisputed kings of dental health.
Solihull is top of the league with 0.58—that is an average of half a decayed, missing or filled tooth per five-year-old. It is closely followed by Dudley, with 0.59. Walsall is tenth with 0.81, and Birmingham and Coventry are joint 21st with 0.97. In other words, the clear majority of children in those areas have no tooth decay. Let us compare those places with the worst areas. Greater Glasgow is at rock bottom. Five-year-old children there have, on average, three and a half missing,

521
filled or decayed teeth. Among the two thirds of children who have some tooth disease, the average is five decayed teeth.
In England, north-west health authorities, including Wigan and Bolton, account for seven of the bottom 10 places. I am referring to the former health authorities before they became primary care trusts. Manchester is worst, with an average of three decayed teeth per five-year-old.
Unlike league tables for other diseases, the dental health league does not follow the usual pattern of wealthy areas at the top and deprived areas at the bottom. Birmingham and Manchester, which have a similar social profile, are at opposite ends. Why? The explanation is water fluoridation. All the midlands areas that I mentioned have fluoridated water; Birmingham's supply was fluoridated in 1964.
I do not necessarily favour the imposition of blanket water fluoridation throughout the country. Perhaps it should initially be targeted where dental disease is worst and where communities want it. Only 10 per cent. of our water is fluoridated, even though most people believe that they have a fluoridated water supply. Experts predict that increasing that to 30 per cent. by fluoridating some of our main conurbations—Greater Manchester, Leeds, Bradford, Merseyside, Glasgow and inner London—would make a massive difference to combating dental disease.
Opposition to fluoridation often comes from non-urban areas or smaller towns, but no one is talking about imposing fluoridation on any area if there is no local support for it. If the issue causes controversy, it should be because of the utter scandal that we know about these problems yet the law cannot give people in the areas concerned the chance or the choice to do anything about them. There is an outcry from the opponents of fluoridation and it is growing again as we seek to address theissue in Parliament.
A variety of arguments against fluoridation are tossed about, but most revolve around two main strands: health risks and loss of civil liberties. Let us take them both head on. On the health risks, let us remember that we are talking about adding one part per million to water. Again, I quote the BDA's briefing:
"There is no scientific basis whatsoever to claims that fluoride in water is unsafe. All robust scientific research shows that fluoridation is still considered safe and effective."
Scientific opinion in the US and Australia is identical. If the health risks were real, why are the communities of Britain that have fluoridated water—both naturally and artificially—not calling for it to be removed forthwith? In the US, simultaneously the most health-conscious and litigious country on earth,47 of the 50 biggest cities have fluoridated water, and Los Angeles is about to come on stream.
In my view, the claimed health risks are a smokescreen to hide the real objection of the opponents of fluoridation, which is the enforced medication argument. Perhaps they are right. We could say that fluoridation is enforced medication, but I would ask, "What is wrong with that?" If the price of improving children's lives is everyone taking in a negligible amount of fluoride in water when it does them no harm, most reasonable people will conclude that it is well worth doing. It is because the opponents of fluoridation know
522
that the civil liberties argument is not strong enough to stand on its own two feet against the overpowering evidence of the health benefits that talk of spurious health risks is tossed around to muddy the waters.
The truth is that we do not need to re-run those arguments. They have already been debated in this House and Parliament has already spoken in favour of water fluoridation. In 1985, the House passed the Water (Fluoridation) Act. The only reason I am having to keep the Minister from the delights of Tottenham on a spring Thursday evening is that the House passed a flawed Act. Rightly, it determined that decisions to fluoridate should be determined by local communities. Wrongly, it said that, when presented by health authorities with a positive request to fluoridate, water companies "may" choose to do so. That word "may" is the crucial flaw that creates the legislative impasse that we have today, and which has led to Parliament's will being thwarted. It places the onus on the water companies to decide, but this is primarily a health issue. Water companies should not have an active decision and no legal liability but, because they do, about 60 requests for fluoridation, made on the back of local votes, have been turned down by water companies in the last 10 years. A judicial review upheld Northumbrian Water's decision not to fluoridate supplies despite the request of Newcastle and North Tyneside Health Authority, thereby confirming the legislation's flaws.
It is time to create a democratic framework in which communities, not water companies, take the final decision. Even if people oppose fluoridation, they cannot oppose democracy. Thankfully, we shall soon have an excellent opportunity to create such a framework. Last week, the Water Bill was introduced in another place. I believe that it is the last chance for a generation to bring about this change in the law and to see that Parliament's will is carried out. A private Member's Bill probably would not succeed, and when will we next get the chance to debate Government-inspired water legislation? Ten, 15 or 20 years hence? I am not prepared to wait that long, and I would ask how many children in Leigh would suffer unnecessarily in that time.
My specific purpose in raising this debate is to give notice to the Government that I shall seek to amend the Water Bill when it comes to this House, by changing that "may" to a "shall". Given the overwhelming health evidence, may I urge the Minister and his colleague, the Minister with responsibility for public health, to meet their ministerial colleagues from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs soon and to urge them that this sensible amendment should be debated and voted on?
I hope that the Minister will not mind if I am so presumptuous as to second-guess one of the points that he might raise in answer to this debate. I suspect that he may refer to research that the Department has commissioned on the recommendation from the Medical Research Council relating to research into the absorption of artificially added fluoride. That is important, but it is not an argument against taking this vital opportunity to get the legal framework right. It merely means that, once the research is completed, communities will have access to even better research when making their decisions.

523
A head of steam is now building around a successful amendment to the Water Bill, and 106 Members of all parties have signed early-day motion 247. I suspect that many more would sign if they were able to do so. It is strongly supported by the British Medical Association, the BDA and the Royal College of Nursing. Not surprisingly, it is also supported by the British Fluoridation Society. I should like to pay tribute to its chair, Professor Mike Lennon, Sheila Jones and others too numerous to mention for doggedly pursuing a cause they know to be morally right.
While neutral on the pros and cons of fluoridation, Water UK, the representative body for water companies, now supports clarification of the legal position and the transfer of the decision-making process from water companies to strategic health authorities. It has recently called for the fluoridation stalemate to be resolved.
It seems to me that everything is in place to introduce this change and let the House express its view. My plea to colleagues on both sides of the House and from all parts of the country is not to let this chance go by to improve dental health for children and adults in our deprived communities and in their constituencies. Fluoridation can bring improvements to dental health, even if it is good already. Most people will get the lifelong benefits of good teeth: the ability to eat, speak and drink without pain, discomfort or embarrassment, and savings on dentistry costs. Society will see an easing of pressure on dentistry services and savings for the NHS. At what price? There will be a small financial cost, and people will have to consume an additive too negligible for the vast majority ever to notice or even care about. I suggest that the tiny minority of the population who do care are well off enough to afford Evian.
The price of failing to act is far greater. I shall finish with an appalling statistic from the dental school at a Manchester hospital. Last year, 1,500 children mostly under 10 years of age had teeth removed under general anaesthetic. I thank my colleagues from Greater Manchester constituencies, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) and the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton), who are present to listen to this debate. We have a duty to represent those children. Think of the cost to the NHS in our area of those avoidable procedures. Most of all, think of what those 1,500 children have had to go through at such a young age, when we know that we could have spared many of them that trauma. If the communities of Greater Manchester decide to do something about those appalling figures, no one should stand in their way.
6.17 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. David Lammy): I congratulate my good friend the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) on securing a debate on such an important issue. If his football team, Everton, played with the commitment that he has shown on this issue, it might stand a chance of winning the premiership.
This subject provokes strong reactions from those who support fluoridation and those against it. People who argue about this matter would agree that tackling
524
inequalities in oral health is an important part of the overall public health programme, and that we should take action to help to reduce the significant inequalities that remain in the oral health of the population.
This country has seen dramatic improvements in health over the past 50 years, including in oral health. The dental profession has played a key role in reducing tooth decay. The addition of fluoride to toothpaste and water has also helped significantly to improve the oral health of the nation. However, with more than half the country's 15-year-olds experiencing decay in their permanent teeth, and more than one in three five-year-olds experiencing decay in their baby teeth, there is still a lot of work to be done.
As my hon. Friend said, there are still major inequalities in oral health. Unfortunately, the worst off in society still have the poorest oral health. The Government are determined to change that, and to narrow the health gap in accordance with the recommendations of Sir Donald Acheson's report, to which my hon. Friend referred.
The challenge for local health communities is to improve oral health generally and tackle the inequalities in health status. One way of meeting that challenge is, of course, to encourage people to visit the dentist. Today we published the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, which will provide a legislative framework for radical changes in the provision of dental services. In particular, it will move the focus of dental care to prevention rather than just treatment of oral disease. We hope that that will encourage more use of NHS dental services and persuade people to visit the dentist routinely, rather than just when they are in pain. We have also established the "brushing for life" campaign to promote regular brushing regimes with fluoride toothpaste, following the finding of a child dental health survey by the Department in 1993 that 5 per cent. of children brush their teeth less than once a day.
My hon. Friend has made an impassioned case for fluoridation. As he knows, York university's report "A Systematic Review of Water Fluoridation", commissioned by the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, concluded that fluoridation increased the number of children with no decayed teeth by 15 per cent.
About half a million people in this country receive water that is naturally fluoridated at about the optimum level of one part of fluoride per 1 million parts of water. A further 1 million receive water that is naturally fluoridated at a lower level, which still confers some dental benefit. The areas involved are generally found in a band running down the eastern side of the country, from Hartlepool in the north to parts of Essex. Some 5 million people receive water whose fluoride content has been artificially increased to one part per 1 million of water. Major schemes are operating in Birmingham, throughout the west midlands—as my hon. Friend said—and in Tyneside.
We are aware of the persuasive evidence that fluoridation is an important and effective method of protecting the population from tooth decay. The water supply in Sandwell, for example, was fluoridated in 1986; over the following 10 years, the amount of tooth decay in children more than halved. During the same

525
period, Wigan and Bolton—the area that contains my hon. Friend's constituency, with a comparable population mix—saw little change in children's oral health. Sadly, it is also true that where fluoridation schemes have been withdrawn, for instance in Anglesey and Kilmarnock, levels of tooth decay in children have risen, having fallen during the periods of fluoridation.
That may not sound too disturbing when expressed as cold statistics, but the personal experience underpinning those statistics is of children and young people in pain owing to avoidable toothache, children unable to get to sleep because of the pain, children taking time off school to go to the dentist and, worst of all, children having to go to hospital and be given general anaesthetics for the extraction of decayed teeth.
Obviously, when considering a public health measure such as fluoridation, we are concerned with safety above all else. We must therefore examine carefully any claims that risks as well as benefits may be involved. The majority of medical and scientific opinion throughout the world believe that fluoridation is safe, based on practical experience and research over the past 50 years.
Nevertheless, I fully respect some people's concerns about the scientific evidence on the safety of fluoride and the difficulty of defining exactly how excessive an intake of fluoride is necessary to pose any risk to health. On the overall question of safety, it is unfortunately true that virtually all medical and public health intervention carries risks as well as benefits. On fluoridation, it is for the scientists—specialists in toxicology and dentistry—to advise on the balance of those risks, for the Government to decide what is acceptable and for local people to be consulted and empowered throughout that process.
Within that context, the evidence that I mentioned earlier is encouraging. As I said, some 6 million people receive water that either has had its level of fluoride adjusted or is naturally fluoridated to around that level. In the United States of America, some 160 million people drink optimally fluoridated water. Before and during the past half-century of fluoridation, there have been extensive studies of the health of those populations and, apart from improved oral health, the health experience of those receiving the optimal concentration of fluoride is no different from that of the population at large.
York university's systematic review of water fluoridation not only found evidence that fluoridating water helps to reduce tooth decay, but no clear evidence of adverse effects on general health, other than dental fluorosis. However, York university was critical of the quality of that evidence, which is why the Government asked the Medical Research Council to advise on any further research priorities in the light of the York review findings. The MRC reported last September and we have already acted on the most fundamental of its recommendations on research into the absorption of fluoride. We expect to have the results of that study in September.
526
I emphasise that no water fluoridation scheme has been introduced without local consultations, and we intend to extend the range and content of those consultations before any further requests are made for a water company to fluoridate its water supply. The new style of consultation would need to cover questions of consent and the means by which people could opt out. Information would need to be available on the cost and specifications of water filters capable of removing fluoride from drinking water.
As my hon. Friend has said, the final decision on implementing fluoridation schemes rests with the water undertaker. The Water (Fluoridation) Act 1985 was consolidated in the Water Industry Act (1991), section 87(1) of which states:
"Where a District Health Authority have applied in writing to a water undertaker for the water supplied within an area specified in the application to be fluoridated, that undertaker may, while the application remains in force, increase the fluoride content of the water supplied by the undertaker within that area."
We realise that there are problems with legislation and that water companies, fearing a backlash from opponents, do not fluoridate water following requests from strategic health authorities, but we have been encouraged by the readiness with which the water industry has indicated its willingness to look again at both the legal and practical problems of fluoridation. What the water operators want, above anything else, is clarity of accountability.
Local communities need accessible, authoritative information on the effects of fluoridation and the opportunity to discuss the issues with both proponents of fluoridation and those sceptical about its effects. To enable that to happen, the chief medical officer and chief dental officer are reviewing their guidance to support the consultation.
Water operators have emphasised that their primary duty is to provide a sufficient and wholesome supply of water. They consider that the question of whether a water supply should also contribute to wider public health objectives should be for the health service to decide. Should a fluoridation scheme be approved, the health service should meet the operational costs and indemnify the water operator against any unforeseen cost consequences. There is little there that we would disagree with and, naturally, we will seek the water industry's views in reviewing our policies.
I realise that the need to resolve these issues is frustrating for my hon. Friend, who wishes to see improvements in the oral health of his constituents. As I said at the outset, fluoridation has always been controversial. I hear what he says and the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears)—the Minister with responsibility for public health—will continue a dialogue on this subject. Legislation is clearly an option, but we will have to show that we have made a thorough assessment of the scientific basis for fluoridation and provide a framework for informed consultations on whether it should be implemented locally.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Six o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. JOHN MCWILLIAM in the Chair]

Public Limited Companies (Financial Regulation)
[Relevant documents: Sixth report from the Treasury Committee, Session 2001 02, HC 758, and the Government's response thereto, Thirteenth Special Report from the Treasury Committee, Session 2001–02,HC 1219]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
2.30 pm
Mr. John McFall: It is a pleasure to open the debate on a report by the Select Committee on the Treasury into the financial regulation of public limited companies, which was published in February last year. I speak on behalf of the Committee, and it is gratifying to know that we were the first to look into such matters and that everything has flowed from that, although my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury may not see it exactly in those terms. We undertook the inquiry because of a remark made by the chairman of the Financial Services Authority in New York at the World Economic Development Forum, when he said that the only honest answer to whether an Enron could happen here was yes.
If an Enron could happen here, it is important that proper procedures are in place for corporate governance, accountancy, auditors and everything related to business. The Committee took oral evidence from the Accounting Standards Board, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Treasury and the Financial Services Authority. We are aware that since then the Government have set up various other relevant reviews, which include the co-ordinating group on auditing and accounting issues, which is chaired by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary and her counterpart at the Department of Trade and Industry, as well as the review of company law that had been under way since 1998, which reported in 2001.
We now have the Government's White Paper, "Modernising Company Law"—published in July 2002—which is concerned with the implementation of the review's proposals, and which, as a result of my Committee looking into the issue, could be best served by pre-legislative scrutiny. If my Committee could play a role in such matters, we would be happy. We need to put such company law on the statute book.
I was encouraged by the Government's response to my Committee's report, and by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she responded in January to the four main reports: the Higgs review, the Robert Smith report, the report of the co-ordinating group and the review of the regulated regime of the accountancy profession. We welcome the fact that the Government's response was mainly positive. One glaring element is that there are 23 regulatory bodies for the accounting
138WH
profession. If that is not a recipe for chaos, what is? Will the Financial Secretary simplify the procedure as much as possible, because it creates a fog which few people can see their way through?
The Treasury Committee considered the rotation of auditors. At the time, the knee-jerk reaction was that it should be mandatory that auditors should he rotated. My Committee did not advance that argument. We listened carefully to the views expressed and were aware of the good relationship that existed between several auditors and companies. In addition, the complexity of companies prevents an auditor from coming in for a year or two and then departing, because the baton would then have to be picked up by another auditor. We are suggesting auditor rotation and a role for the audit committee. It should look into the issue and make a statement in the annual report, thereby explaining itself to the public. That would be a way forward.
One thing that struck the Treasury Committee about the Enron debacle was that the audit committee was chaired by the professor of accounting at Texas university and one of its members was a British ex-Cabinet Minister who also happened to be an accountant. There is still an awful lot of work to do with regard to audit committees, and the Select Committee considered transparency and publicity a good way forward.
Dr. Nick Palmer: Does my hon. Friend agree that although the Select Committee was unanimous it was to some extent putting the auditing profession on notice? If we continue to experience events such as what happened with Enron, the pressure for compulsory rotation may become irresistible.
Mr. McFall: I entirely agree. Only today, The Times business section carries an article by Chris Quick, the finance and accountancy correspondent, who is also the editor of Accountancy magazine. He states:
"In a recent survey carried out by Accountancy magazine, we found that 53 of the 59 chartered accountant finance directors of the FTSE 100 are alumni of the big four accountancy firms—PricewaterhouseCoopors, Deloitte and Touche, KPMG and Ernst and Young. The survey also found that 18 FTSE 100 companies used the old firm of a chartered accountant director as their auditor."
The notion of old boy networks, as the article calls them, is alive and kicking in spite of the new rules. Those companies have to come up to scratch, and if they do not, legislation should be introduced.
The Committee looked at the big four firms. The chief executive of the Financial Services Authority, Sir Howard Davies, said that certain specialised work is left to one or two of the big firms, the result of which is that there is no competition in the industry. The Minister will note that in our report we ask the Government to refer the big four to the Competition Commission. I fear that that sent a shiver down Ministers' spines, but they should stiffen them. There is insufficient competition in the industry, which does not serve it well.
Sir David Tweedie, who is the president of the International Accounting Standards Board, gave evidence to the Committee. My colleagues and I commend Sir David for his expertise, competence and honesty. He stated that a review of accountancy on the issue of stock options was being held back in the United

139WH
States by a number of chief executives. He gave us a stark warning: the chief executives of 70 per cent. of the listed companies in America use stock options, largely to inflate share prices so that they, their sons and daughters and their grandchildren can live a life of luxury. Stock options are used at the expense of the company. Those are not my words, but those of Sir David Tweedie—hon. Members can read them in the transcript of the Committee. He suggests that the issue of stock options should be firmly addressed in the United Kingdom. Stock options should be written down as an expense; if they are not, the well-being and long-term future of companies will be at risk. Such a warning to the Minister from someone so eminent is important.
The Select Committee also touched on corporate governance. Sir John Bourn, the Comptroller and Auditor General, suggested that non-executive directors should report on a range of matters relating to the audit. He added that
"the external auditor should know that this discussion with the non-executive directors is an important part of his work, and that his ability to satisfy the non-executive directors is crucial in the determination of whether he stays the external auditor."
Sir John's comments take us into the wider area of corporate governance and the Higgs report. Derek Higgs opens his report by quoting from what Walter Bagehot said in 1867.
"We must not let daylight in upon the magic".
Higgs continues:
"In the corporate boardroom, the importance of non-executive directors should be recognised, but their role, perhaps like that of the monarchy of old, is largely invisible and poorly understood."
That should be the starting point for our Committee. Perhaps the role of non-executive directors is largely invisible and poorly understood.
Warren Buffet, the second richest man in the world, made some critical remarks the other day. During the past 37 years, Warren Buffet's company has delivered an annual return of 22.6 per cent., and its book value has increased by 194,000 per cent., He is someone in the financial markets who knows what he is talking about. He was very scathing about the broad sweep of boardroom behaviour, saying:
"It is almost impossible in a boardroom populated by well-mannered people to raise the question of whether the CEO should be replaced. It's equally awkward to question a proposed acquisition that has been endorsed by the CEO, particularly when his inside staff and outside advisers are present and unanimously support his decision. (They wouldn't be in the room if they didn't.) Finally, when the compensation committee, armed, as always, with support from a high-paid consultant reports on a mega-grant of options to the CEO, it would be like belching at the dinner table for a director to suggest that the committee reconsider."
When Warren Buffet says that directors should be independent, but far too few are business-savvy, interested and shareholder orientated, it is time for reflection, which is where Higgs comes in. He advocates that FTSE 100 executives should not hold more than one additional non-executive position, that chief executives should not step up to being chairman of the same company, that a new post of senior independent director should be established—a non-executive director who would be readily available to meet shareholders—and that more than half of the board should be independent.
140WH
Higgs mentions several other areas of concern and asks British business to take this opportunity to change voluntarily. That is the key. His suggestions are not mandatory, but come from an individual who has spent a lifetime in business. Sadly, the business community does not seem to have taken the opportunity. I picked up my copy of The Sunday Telegraph a few weeks ago, and read the headlines: "FTSE 100 chairmen fight back against Higgs" and "The revolting chairmen". A survey in The Sunday Telegraph found that 90 per cent. of chairmen did not want their senior non-executive directors to play an increased role in liaising with shareholders.
I was interested to see a quote by Gerry Robinson, the chairman of Allied Domecq, a whisky company based in my constituency. I have served the company's interests well in my 16 years in Parliament, working alongside its management and workers and the surrounding community. Gerry Robinson is quoted as saying:
"Higgs increases the separation and isolation of non-execs and execs on a board. I don't believe for one moment it stops those people determined to feather their own nests or behave improperly. The whole issue of trying to get corporate governance bolted down is illusory."
That comment comes from the eminent chairman of a FTSE 100 company, so goodness help us. We need corporate governance to be bolted down for the sake of the economy, business and our prosperity. It makes me think that some of these chief executives live in a world of their own. That reminded me of the opposition from business, which echoed previous criticisms of Cadbury, Greenbury and Hampel's reviews of corporate governance. Those reviews led to reforms that are now widely accepted and are in practice. There is no problem with them.
In order to find out Gerry Robinson's full views on the issue, I wrote to him on 17 September. I included a copy of our report and asked for his comments. On 7 March, I asked my secretary whether she had had any reply, and she said no. I told her to telephone him again, so she called the head office in London, and was told that she would have to direct anything through a Mrs. Vivian Kray, the secretary to the chief executive, Philip Bowman. No one would give us a contact number or address for the chairman of the company. Realising that Mr. Robinson was, in his own words, both "separated and isolated", I asked my secretary to give him my London address and my e-mail address, but sadly I have had no response from the FTSE 100 company chairman. I will send him a copy of today's Hansard and see whether that elicits a response. I have here a newspaper article in which FTSE 100 chairmen are being vitriolic about the voluntary system and say that they cannot engage in the debate. That ain't fair play. We need to ensure that they can.
Certainly, Mr. Digby Jones of the Confederation of British Industry tried to engage in the debate; he sent around a questionnaire that involved box-ticking. By the way, he once commented that as the Higgs report was all about box-ticking, he did not want it. However, I have the CBI survey here, and it involves fully coloured box-ticking, as hon. Members can see. Digby sometimes reminds me of something we say in Scotland—sometimes he lets his belly rumble, and then he talks. This is a classic example of that.

141WH
Martin Dickson, in the Financial Times, said that the value of the CBI survey was undermined by the fact that Digby Jones was either misreading what Higgs proposed or, God forbid, mischievously twisting it for his own political ammunition. Where does the balance lie with Higgs, and what is it that the CBI and the FTSE 100 directors fear? Martin Dickson says that Mr. Jones thundered that
"only in exceptional circumstances, when normal channels of communication have broken down, should the Sid"—
that is, a senior director
"be available privately for shareholders to voice concerns."
The message for Digby is:
"This is how the governance of modern major companies already operates",
and that is how Higgs proposes that it should continue.
The report says that the senior director should be available to shareholders
"if they have reason for concern that contact through the normal channels of chairman or chief executive has failed to resolve".
In other words, the senior director post remains a long stop. Digby Jones says that the senior director
"should not open up a separate and potentially divisive channel of communication with shareholders or have responsibility for reporting back to the other non executives on an exclusive basis"
but the Higgs report does not suggest that senior directors should be a separate channel. He merely proposes that they attend enough management meetings with shareholders to understand their concerns. The role is clearly passive and involves listening; that is eminently sensible. That is the point of the senior director, both now and as stated in the Higgs framework.
The senior director's other two proposed functions are hardly revolutionary. One function is to chair a meeting of independent directors without the chairman once a year, and the other is to report to other non-executive directors on what shareholders are thinking. Some CBI members fear that that could undermine the chairman, but there is a perfectly respectable view that some chairmen are undermining their own companies because of the present lack of scrutiny. We need not think further back than Marconi. Lord Simpson and John Mayo took nearly £4 million when they left, and both later challenged Marconi for increased pension rights. Those individuals—and Lord Simpson was chief executive of Marconi—went on a spending spree of £4 billion and ended up reducing the value of the company from £34 billion to £66 million, a fall equivalent to a pukka blue-chip company turning into a scrap yard. That is what happened to Marconi, yet its executives left with enhanced pay. That is now a big issue, and perhaps it is what the FTSE 100 directors are afraid of. However, they should express their concerns much more explicitly. The issue of executive pay and fair remuneration is at the heart of the debate.
I have taken a look at the statistics for top executives' pay. In 2001 it rose by 17 per cent., which was six times the national average. That followed increases of 28 per cent. in 2000, and 16.5 per cent. the previous year. Those directors could validly be charged with living in a world of their own, divorced from the rest of society.
That explosion of top pay has social effects. The message that it sends is that one gets handsomely compensated for failing as well as for succeeding,
142WH
because during the period when top executive pay increased to that extent, the FTSE 100 index lost nearly one third of its value and inflation and earnings growth were running at an all-time low. Earnings growth fell from 5 per cent. in December 2000 to 3.4 per cent. a year later, which was the lowest figure for 35 years.
Dr. Palmer: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the key problems is that the directorships of FTSE 100 companies constitute a very small market and that the salaries involved are a relatively small proportion of the turnover of the companies? For that reason, there is always a temptation for the managing boards to say, "Let's try to outbid our competitors so that we can get this person whom we have heard is good," and that process amounts simply to bidding up demand for a small pool of people who have not been particularly successful. Perhaps companies should recruit talent from a wider pool rather than simply paying more for people whom they already know.
Mr. McFall: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, and his contribution leads me on to the next part of my speech. Last year more than 130 FTSE 100 directors were paid more than £1 million. The average chief executive salary was £933,000 in 2001. Chief executives earn 15 to 20 times more than a Member of Parliament and 10 times more than the Prime Minister—and they do not want non-executive directors to talk to their shareholders in case it undermines them. If Members of Parliament could prevent people from talking to us and complaining when we go back to our constituencies, what a lovely life it would be.
When we write to chief executives—as I have done over the past few weeks—we cannot reach them. I said to my secretary, "Could you ask for the Pope's telephone number?"—we might have had a better chance of getting that than the number of a chief executive. They live in fairyland, and they must be taken out of it. We must get them out of "Sesame Street" and into "Westminster Street" and the high street.
Mr. Mark Field: The hon. Gentleman is confusing the role of the chief executive with that of the chairman. The objection—which in my view is right—is that if there is a problem in a company that is riven by disputes, a senior non-executive director who is in a high profile position involving news in the press could have the opportunity of having a direct link with shareholders. That could undermine the chairman's role, rather than that of the chief executive, as the hon. Gentleman suggested when he compared the large salaries. It is also only fair to draw a distinction between the very high salaries of chief executives and the relatively modest remuneration of many chairmen of FTSE 100 companies.
Mr. McFall: I would not say that the issue is the remuneration of chairmen. Why should talking to shareholders undermine the chairman's role? I have sought high and low for the answer to that question and cannot find it.
Mr. Field: In a high-profile, Marconi-type situation—although Marconi is no longer in the FTSE 100—in which the press are keen to find out the exact problems

143WH
in a company, one quickly sees a massive division between on one side the chairman and executive directors, and on the other the senior non-executive director, who has souped-up, post-Higgs rights and responsibilities. That would not be an ideal battleground on which a company could continue to thrive. In such large companies, tens of thousands of jobs could be at stake if a company's fortunes were undermined in such a way.
Mr. McFall: I cannot fully understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I shall be happy to listen to him at a later date. His intervention raises this fundamental question: who owns companies? It s not the chairman or the chief executive; thousands of us indirectly own companies through our pension funds and savings.
Many years ago, people were appointed, not elected, to Parliament. They did not fancy having people come in and question them in public. Now questioning is a natural part of our disposition. We are questioned on everything because we are elected by thousands of people who have a link with us. The same is true of companies. Thousands of us indirectly own those companies, and it is correct for chairmen and chief executives to open channels with shareholders.
As for non-executive directors, I would not take such a post unless I had access to independent advice to balance the advice that the chief executive and chairman gave me. The chief executive, the chairman and I would want to arrive at the same end point, but perhaps we would have different starting points. Increased scrutiny and transparency are extremely important.
We need to find more non-executive directors because we have been bad at finding good ones. When I looked up the statistics on non-executive directors, I found that more than half of them never receive a formal appraisal of their work. When they were asked, more than two thirds said that they would want such an appraisal. Half the current non-executives were recruited through friendship rather than assessment, which means that we have not got it right. When only 4 per cent. of them have had a formal interview, there is a long way to go on the other 96 per cent.
Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: The hon. Gentleman refers to people being appointed through friendship, which is slightly misleading. In my experience, rather than friendship in the normal sense, the connection is an acquaintance through the industry. You therefore tend to get people being appointed within an industry. There may be an argument for widening those appointments, but at the same time to use the word "friendship" in a derogatory way is misleading.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. I presume that the hon. Gentleman received the same letter from Mr. Speaker that I did. When he uses the word "you", he is referring to me, and I have done no such thing.
Mr. McFall: I can use an analogy involving the Conservative party. At the time of Sir Alec Douglas-Home, Macmillan and others, men in grey suits
144WH
appointed Prime Ministers. When someone left the post, a new man took over when a man in a grey suit said, "Go!" The Conservative party has changed its practice, and I assume that the hon. Gentleman himself would not have been selected without a formal interview. Why can chief executives not have formal interviews? Only 4 per cent. of them have formal interviews. Let us get into the real world. The Conservatives have started to get into the real world—I am not saying that they have fully got there. I say to business, "Get yourselves into reality. Come into the 21st century."
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) referred to executive pay and efficiency. I shall refer to some of the directors of FTSE 100 companies who were paid more than £1 million last year. Ken Berry was fired from EMI with £6.1 million for failing to find new acts. I would love to fail to find new acts if I could he given £6.1 million. British Sky Broadcasting was the fifth worst performer in the survey to which I referred, but Tony Ball received £7.8 million. Sir Peter Bonfield left BT as a failure and received £3.74 million. The link between executive pay and efficiency is important when considering not only fairness but efficiency, because we want good, well managed companies with better growth and a better standard of living for our citizens. We do not get that because the interests of consumers and society are not best served by the present situation.
I suggest to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary that what we have done is helpful to the Government. We are asking her and her fellow Ministers to stand firm because the proposals are sensible and voluntary, not mandatory. I am the first to agree that some of the proposals made by Higgs, although sensible, are hardly perfect—for example, the chairman being unable to take part in the nomination committee—but such matters could be reconsidered.
First, non-executive directors could constructively challenge company strategy for the medium and long term. That must be good. Secondly, they could scrutinise performance of the board and the company as a whole. Thirdly, post-Enron and mindful of Sir Howard Davies' rhetorical question, they could ensure accurate financial information. Finally, they could ensure that executives were paid appropriate rewards, which would be good for companies and society.
I finish by referring to the world's second richest man, Warren Buffet. He castigated the boardroom bad apples in his letter a few days ago and stated that those otherwise decent people simply followed the career path of Mae West, who said:
"I used to be Snow White … but I drifted."
Let us put down an anchor to ensure that there is no further drift, to improve corporate governance and to make a better City, a better economy and a better future.
3.2 pm
Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: I am grateful to have been called to participate in this debate on an important issue for companies, their corporate governance and public confidence in corporate financial regulation.
In general, much of the report is worthy of consideration. It adds to what should be an ongoing review of corporate governance procedures. However, I stress that the process has long been ongoing. It has not

145WH
been started and it will not end with this report. Therefore, I take issue with the warning in the report against dangerous complacency, and with the Financial Secretary's warning about complacency in her speech to the National Association of Pension Funds yesterday. I have advised boards on corporate governance issues for more than a decade, and I declare an interest as noted in the Register of Members' Interests. I have seen an enormous change in the whole area of corporate reporting, independence and accountability, not least through the Cadbury, Greenbury and Hampel reports and the guidelines of the NAPF, Hermes Pensions Management and the Pensions and Investments Research Consultants. Therefore, I, among others, suggest that the use of the word "complacency" is clearly inappropriate.
Furthermore, I do not wish to rubbish many of the valuable points made in the Smith and Higgs reports, and I acknowledge that we have had no UK Enron, but I have been somewhat surprised at the amount of time spent so far, not only in the House but by the professions and the business community, on the overall question of corporate governance in recent months. Other much more directly relevant issues, such as the weakness of the Government's manufacturing strategy and the impact of tax and regulations on British companies, are hardly ever mentioned. Those issues have much more to do with the success of UK companies than the subject considered in the report.
Why are the Government now being so forthright on corporate governance? Perhaps we could have a debate on that. Is it to keep up with the Joneses in America, who have started from a much weaker position than we have in this country, or is it to divert attention from the Government's failings? Some Members might see the irony when I recall that the Government were recently seen kicking and screaming against Conservative proposals to split the chief executive and chairman roles on the new UK Competition Commission under the Enterprise Act 2002.
In that regard, however, as the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) made clear, the report made one very important recommendation in paragraphs 42 to 44 in its section on "Other Matters". It highlighted the lack of progress on implementation of the company law review, which was launched as far back as 1998. A thorough rewrite of the Companies Acts is more urgently required than an update of the combined code on corporate governance.
Dr. Palmer: I want to establish how much complacency the hon. Gentleman is advocating. Is he saying that there is no need for a change in corporate governance, or that there is a need for change but that it is not very urgent?
Mr. Djanogly: It is a question of priorities. I did not say that there was no need to examine corporate governance; I specifically said that it has evolved, is evolving and will evolve in the future. It is not something that we need not consider, but I suggest that the Government's priorities are currently wrong. If we look at what is happening in the stock markets in this country and around the world at the moment, we see that chief executives and chairmen have other things on their minds than dealing with corporate governance. The
146WH
Government are clearly taking the alternative view. They will deal with corporate governance and then start to look at the Companies Acts. They have got it the wrong way round.
I note that the Government's response to the report says that the precise timing of Companies Acts legislation will depend on the parliamentary timetable. I suggest to the Financial Secretary that that is not an acceptable response to every company in this country that is affected by those Acts and that, for the most part, will be assisted by new legislation. I ask her again: when will we have the Bill?
Paragraph 31 of the report states that the Committee is
"generally opposed to the use of share options as a significant source of remuneration in public companies."
However, I was somewhat bemused that the hon. Member for Dumbarton equated stock options with a life of luxury, because the rate of remuneration is dependent on the success or otherwise of the company concerned. I note that the Government response did not address that point.
Mr. McFall: On stock options, I used the words of Sir David Tweedie, the president of the International Accounting Standards Board. They were not my words. He said that stock options were used by executives, who get a cheap price, inflate the share option and profit themselves while the health and welfare of the company is disadvantaged in the medium and longer term. He warned us that that practice is widespread in the United States, and that we should not have it in the United Kingdom. I quoted an eminent authority.
Mr. Djanogly: Sir David may well have said that, but I doubt that he meant it to apply to every single company that issues stock options. Of course, like any other aspect of corporate governance, share options can be abused, and I admit that they have been abused in certain cases. That does not mean that stock options are, per se, the wrong means of remuneration. I note, however, that the Government did not respond to the report's point about that.
Mr. Mark Field: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a very important role for stock options, both to incentivise staff at all levels—not just directors—and as a means of growing a business? The small and medium-sized business sector will be the main vehicle for jobs growth in the decades ahead. In such companies, stock options can be a very good way of keeping valuable and innovative young employees on board for the long term.
Mr. Djanogly: My hon. Friend makes an important point, with which I totally agree. There have been many surveys over the years on alternatives to stock options. None came up with a scheme as flexible or as consistently useful as the issuing of stock options.
The only evidence in the report for the position that stock options are a bad idea is the statement that in the United States
"people could get most of their remuneration in share payments 'and even pay suppliers in share options—".

147WH
However, those points simply do riot follow. Paying directors in shares is an established practice in this country. It is completely different from issuing stock options to directors and has even been recommended as good practice in previous corporate governance reviews.
Existing statutes ban directors from buying tradeable options in their own companies, and existing corporate governance rules disapprove of non-executive directors holding stock options in their own companies. Will the Financial Secretary tell us whether there are any proposals to change current practice as a result of the report? I have not heard of any such proposals, but I would be interested to know whether there are any.
It is important to keep in mind that the size of companies may be very relevant. My hon. Friend alluded to that in his intervention. As a non-executive in an alternative investment market company—I accept that such companies are not subject to the combined code on corporate governance—you can be issued with stock options, as they are often offered as part of the overall reward for becoming involved in what may be a much riskier type of company.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have never in my life been offered stock options. The hon. Member is again using the word "you".
Mr. Djanogly: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
In that instance, the company may prefer to promise future shares rather than give up its cash. Finally, there is sometimes an assumption that share options are some sort of cheap giveaway. The hon. Member for Dumbarton alluded to that in his contribution.
Mr. McFall: Stock options are part of aggressive earnings management and must be stamped out, although I take the hon. Gentleman's point that they may be useful for some companies. I quote Sir David Tweedie:
"The whole question of aggressive earnings management is one of the big problems we are facing. If you can hold the share price for three or four years so you will be so rich that your family will be taken care of for generations to come, you can see what the temptations are going to be of just ramping the profit figures. That is why we are absolutely convinced that the way to deal with this sort of situation is to be pretty brutal … share options should be charged, if you control a special purpose entity you should consolidate it. Let us forget the exceptions, that is it. We will hear special pleading, 'We're different' but you soon learn that the world is a special case after a while in this job."
We must knock down such aggressive management and charge stock options as expenses.
Mr. Djanogly: With the greatest respect, I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that Sir David Tweedie was referring to the tax treatment of share options. He was not discussing whether they should be issued. Indeed, their tax position is being addressed.
Mr. Howard Flight: May I put it to my hon. Friend that the problem with Sir David Tweedie's proposals is that they are intended to stop the abuse of share option schemes such as no doubt occurred in the United States? The tragedy is that the
148WH
proposals would also kill off the highly beneficial and widely spread employee share schemes, which have been a great success in this country in spreading wealth, encouraging employee participation and improving productivity. Companies issue shares at a discount under the employee share schemes introduced by previous Governments and this Government. The companies would be forced to account for them in the profit and loss statement, and that would be wholly inappropriate in principle. The main objection to the proposal is that it has taken a draconian stance towards abuse and forgotten about the good things that it would also kill off.
Mr. Djanogly: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful contribution, with which I absolutely agree. It is also important to make the point that, historically, stock options in America have been issued in a very different way from those in the United Kingdom—most specifically in relation to the time for which such options can be exercised, and the conditions of issue. I shall finish my remarks on stock options on that point.
Mr. Nigel Beard: Let me return to the quotation from Sir David Tweedie cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall). Sir David Tweedie was talking about the perverse financial incentives that can be obtained. He was not talking about tax, but about the corruption of the purposes of people who receive such stock options. I heard the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) say that they were used widely for ordinary employees. Employee share schemes are used widely, but not stock options. Those are a different kettle of fish altogether.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have had some interventions that are bordering on becoming mini-speeches. Can we keep interventions short?
Mr. Djanogly: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have to say that I welcome interventions. They make for an interesting debate.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. So do I, but they should be interventions.
Mr. Djanogly: I take the point, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. McFall: I shall be very brief, and this is my last word on the subject. Sir David Tweedie was speaking about the accounting treatment of stock options. That is the issue. In reference to the point made by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), it is interesting to note that many US companies, including those with all-employee schemes, such as Wal-Mart, are moving to expense share options. That is the trend that Sir David Tweedie was considering when saying that there are lessons for the UK.
Mr. Djanogly: Indeed, that is so, and this country is moving in that direction. I have no problem with that point, but it is very different from saying that issuing share options is wrong.

The other key issue regarding share options is the conditions which they are issued. That process can be carried out responsibly or irresponsibly. An effective

149WH
remuneration committee will carefully consider the conditions under which share options are to be issued, which will normally be directly related to the future success of the company, the individual's performance, or indeed, a combination of the two. As with the other issues that we are discussing, that process can be handled in a responsible or an irresponsible manner.
Mr. Mark Field: Although I take on board the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), there is a risk that if we berate stock options—the press would inevitably make that into a big issue—we would encourage the short-termism that would blight smaller, growing companies. Although I recognise the abuses, I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that we need to encourage stock options in the general sense, particularly for relatively low-paid employees and middle management staff who aspire to a long-term career with a company.
Mr. Djanogly: I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution, and I absolutely agree with him. Stock options will be used in different companies for different purposes. Larger companies will be concerned that executives do not have as large a financial stake in the company as in the capital. The companies will therefore want to incentivise their managers and make them feel part of the future success of the company. On the other hand, smaller companies may not be able to afford to pay the significant salaries that will enable them to recruit competitive staff, who will otherwise go to large companies. The use of stock options can be an effective way of binding such people in. It is difficult to say that one size fits all, and that is the beauty of the use of stock options. As things stand, stock options are probably the most adaptable way of incentivising staff.
Paragraphs 38 to 41 of the Select Committee's report deal with the implications for directors. I was somewhat surprised at how little time the report gave to that issue, even though the hon. Member for Dumbarton made it the centrepiece of his speech. Unfortunately, the report to some extent justified the Government's response by saying little about the implications for directors. Following the Higgs report, more will come out and I have a feeling that we will discuss the subject again. I will not dwell too much on that issue at present; instead, I will address the content of the report and particularly recommendation (q), which states:
"there is a good case for an audit committee composed of non-executive directors, rather than the board as a whole, to be responsible, in the case of quoted companies"—
I assume that that means fully listed quoted companies—
"for selecting the firm of auditors…and for fixing the auditors' remuneration."
The Government did not respond to that part of the report and I would be interested to hear the Financial Secretary's views on the matter.
The proposals should be treated with caution. They tie in directly with one of the main problems that has been identified with the Higgs report,which the hon. Member for Dumbarton addressed. Taken together, the proposals will create a split between executives and non-executives on a board. Not only does the Higgs report
150WH
say that non-executives should not sit on an audit committee, but it says that the chairman should not sit on it either because, by way of that appointment, he is deemed to be non-independent. I see good reason for audit committees tc review who is the right auditor and how much the auditor is to be paid, and to question boards' decisions if they feel that those decisions are wrong. However, the final decision should be a full board decision, with the board acting and answerable as one.
As with several other proposed measures coming out of Higgs and Smith, there are serious implications for non-executives. They will bear a greater responsibility and there could be negative implications, which could go against Higgs's desire to encourage people and to have a wider pool of non-executives. There could also be higher cost implications for the companies, which may have to pay more to those who are prepared to take on the extra responsibilities.
Finally, I support the Select Committee's findings that considerable improvements in the governance of companies can be brought about by greater shareholder interest in their affairs. More to the point, much more emphasis should be placed on that issue, which relates to matters such as how information is disseminated to the market, how brokers' reports are produced, how banks market their client shares and how institutions vote their shares and involve themselves in the corporate governance of the companies in which they have invested. That issue has been much more thoroughly reviewed in the Untied States, and we could usefully take a closer look at it in the UK. However, since the report was produced, the institutional shareholders committee has produced welcome new guidelines on institutional activism. That is a move in the right direction, but it is a matter on which we should concentrate further.
3.24 pm
Mr. Nigel Beard: The failure of Enron and WorldCom has been a disaster, and not only for their shareholders and employees. Such dramatic examples of malfeasance have triggered a crisis of confidence among all investors in equity shares in all public limited companies. They have contributed to an avalanche fall in share prices over the past two years, with baleful consequences for people's pensions, life insurance and savings. We heard evidence in the Treasury Select Committee that Enron and WorldCom were operating to American standards and practices, and that the same could not happen in Britain. I completely reject that—it has happened here. The reports of the Select Committee on the crisis in Equitable Life and on split capital investment trusts demonstrate that.
The companies involved here are not exact replicas of Enron and WorldCom, but they operate in the same culture of concealing rather than revealing their true financial state; they display irresponsible recklessness in not adequately assessing the risks to which others' savings are exposed. Those trusted by investors focused their attention on extravagant personal rewards that

151WH
immunised them from the risks to which they exposed others. It amounted to contempt for the investing public who had trusted those responsible.
Mr. Field: Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that there is an inevitable element of risk involved in buying shares, whether in a pension fund or individually? Does he believe that it is the role of Government to ensure a risk-free environment for every investor?
Mr. Beard: Of course I do not believe that. There is a reasonable risk involved in the market. However, in the two cases to which I have referred there was reckless risk taking far beyond what would normally be expected. That is the issue that I raise. The hon. Gentleman trivialises it by suggesting that I believe that people can have a risk-free existence. I am surprised that he felt his intervention to be worth while.
Mr. Field: The simple point is that the matter has been extremely problematic. It is entirely different from the fraud allegations about Enron and WorldCom. However, the proposals are wide-reaching and apply to all companies, not only to companies that are guilty of fraud or near-fraud. It is of great concern to many in large companies, particularly in FTSE 100 companies, that this one-size-fits-all approach is not an appropriate way of ensuring good corporate governance for the protection of investors.
Mr. Beard: I have already given a ltst of the issues that arose from the two crises that I mentioned in Britain. Those issues are very similar to those that arose in Enron and WorldCom. I do not suggest for one moment that all joint-stock companies are subject to them; however, they can be found in several of them.
This is not only a matter of deficiencies in accounting standards and auditing practice. Those technical issues are important; they are the main theme of the Treasury Committee's report. I wholly support the report's recommendations and I am pleased to see that in the main the Government have endorsed them. However, the fault does not lie solely with the financial maintenance of public companies. There is a deeper malaise in the culture of some public companies—I emphasise the word "some"—that has led to these deficiencies. I do not wish to ta-7 the boards and management of all public companies with those strictures. However, such observations have parallels and echoes in the wider policies of some public companies. The ever increasing rewards of chief executives and directors do not establish a fair differential between themselves and other managers and staff; they accelerate increases in the differential year after year after year without apparent justification.
There are rewards through share option schemes that create perverse incentives in financial reporting. There is a contrast between all that and the way in which occupational pension schemes have been closed or diminished recently, even where the company took pension provision holidays in good years. There is accumulating evidence of people at board level in major companies behaving as if they were a caste apart, which
152WH
does not need to abide by the same rules of fairness and ethics that apply to everyone else. Much of the evidence that we received concentrates on the deficiencies in accounting and auditing procedures. That, however, does not excuse the responsibilities of executive and non-executive directors, who are actually responsible for preparing the accounts. Theirs is the responsibility for ensuring that a true and fair picture of the state of a company is presented to shareholders. Accountants are advisers. Auditors give a final objective check. If accounting rules are weak and auditors inattentive, the defects need to be remedied, but the fault begins with the members of a board in whose name the accounts are presented.
The question of the ethical behaviour of directors is inescapable when reviewing the question of the financial control of public limited companies, but the ethics become disguised and laundered by some of the language used. Off-balance-sheet accounting too often means keeping relevant information from public scrutiny and so giving a distorted picture of a company's profits and liabilities. Aggressive accounting means sailing as near to the legal limits as possible without actually being illegal.
What is missing from all this cunning is the concept that all commerce—every commercial deal—depends on trust. That is why many of the great merchant families in Britain in the 19th century were Quakers or Methodists; because of their strict ethics, they could be trusted and so their businesses grew. In simple terms, it is trust that lies behind the issues that have given rise to the Treasury Select Committee's inquiry. The root of the problem is the breakdown of trust and the routine acceptance of a culture of institutionalised deception.
There are three dimensions to dealing with the problem, and our report is one of them. It deals with various ways of ensuring good accounting practice and the independence of auditors. The other two dimensions are the modernisation of company law, as mentioned in paragraph 44 of our report, and corporate governance, which is referred to in paragraphs 38 to 41. The chairman of the Financial Services Authority has also drawn attention to the need to modernise company law in the light of the prospective European Union directive. According to its response to our report, it is disappointing that the Government will not be able to introduce a draft companies Bill in this Session. It would be highly desirable for one to be included in the next Queen's Speech. Such a Bill would seem to be a good candidate for pre-legislative scrutiny by the Treasury Select Committee and the Trade and Industry Select Committee. Alternatively, it might be scrutinised by a Joint Committee, a procedure that proved successful in dealing with the complexities of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.
Corporate governance has been the subject of a review by Mr. Derek Higgs, whose excellent report, which complements the recommendations of the 'Treasury Select Committee, was published since our inquiry. It presents a radical but reasoned approach, which is what is needed. It sets out the role and responsibilities of the board and chairman, from which flow ethical guidelines. The emphasis on the board having at least 50 per cent. of non-executive directors is an evolutionary way of ensuring that issues are lifted from the internal concerns of executive directors and

153WH
dealt with objectively and transparently. The formation of an audit committee from among the non-executive directors will ensure independence in the appointment of and subsequent dealings with auditors, and will promote objectivity in the auditing process and in the presentation of information.
It is also much to be commended that non-executive directors should be responsible for non-executive appointments to the board, so that the chance of the chairman appointing cronies or the 'quiet and persuadable' is eliminated. The idea of one senior non-executive director having a special relationship with shareholders seems to be less obviously beneficial. It may cut across the role of the chairman and create a high risk of unproductive friction. The proposal to limit the number of non-executive directorships to be held by one person is a way of concentrating attention on duties in the company. The days of the non-executive sinecure, with one person holding half a dozen or more directorships, should be over, and quite rightly.
All these sound proposals and others go a long way towards addressing the introspective malaise which can become a conspiracy against the outside world, and it is sad that the vast majority of the chairmen of the FTSE 100 companies, and the Institute of Directors, object to the proposals. The objections are perhaps a confirmation that introspective and cosy arrangements have become too much of a habit. It is as though those chairmen do not recognise the issues that the proposals address. Theirs is not the first—and no doubt will not be the last—vested interest that needs to be overruled for its own good.
In conclusion, I urge the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to implement the proposals of the Higgs review as soon as possible and to take such steps as are necessary to implement the recommendations of the Treasury Committee report. Company law reform complements those measures and should be dealt with expeditiously. Let us not hear from sections of business or from the CBI the ritualised parrot cry that all this is another imposition of red tape. What is proposed will underpin and enhance public trust in business enterprises, which are a vital part of our society and must act within it, not be detached from it. Nobody gains if business enterprise is widely considered to be a conspiracy against everybody else. Without public trust and understanding of business activities, business will be the poorer and so shall we all.
3.37 pm
Mr. David Ruffley rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. I cannot prevent the hon. Gentleman from speaking, but given that he has missed a third of the debate, I have to tell him that it is a matter that is deplored by the Chair.
Mr. Ruffley: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I put in to speak and have since been unavoidably detained, but I take your strictures on board.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), the Chairman of the Treasury Committee, on helping to secure this important debate. He leads a Committee that, for the most part, avoids and eschews
154WH
party political debate and concentrates on scrutiny. All its members are to be congratulated on raising in a Committee for the first time in the aftermath of Enron issues relating to accounting, auditing and, more generally, corporate governance. We announced our inquiry on 5 February, and much has flowed since we began. We took a great deal of evidence, and that in the documents in front of us should give a large measure of reassurance to the British public, whom we all know are not awfully enamoured of financial services at present, especially in terms of split capital trusts, the collapse of Equitable Life, and so on.
I am more concerned about the response from the Government, particularly to the Higgs report. Our inquiries envisioned the report as an important contribution to the corporate governance debate. The Financial Secretary has made some comments about the Higgs report, and I want to turn to those in the latter part of my speech.
On the reassurance of which I spoke, I believe that we have been able to show in the report that it was the shortcomings of US accounting practice that led directly to the Enron collapse—principally the inability properly to account for special purpose vehicles. That could not really happen in this country, because we have a principles-based approach to auditing. An auditor signing off must be satisfied that the accounts represent a true and fair view. The US system is much more narrow and makes it much easier to evade a general judgment. The box ticking and rules-based approach in the US were direct contributors to the problems that Enron and WorldCom experienced. That should be a source of reassurance to those in this country who legitimately ask whether an Enron could happen here. The answer is that that is unlikely.
We considered various aspects of the auditor's role, particularly in relation to that old chestnut of audit firm rotation. Lord Sharman, who gave evidence on the matter, could find no evidence that a regime of enforced statutory audit firm rotation—five years, seven years or whatever the period was—was helpful or worked. However, we considered the proposition that audit partners should be rotated, although not on the industry standard of a seven-year basis, but rather on a five-year basis. We went further than that though, and considered the suggestion—I think that this is the central proposal of the report—that there be a requirement on a board to consider both the retendering of audit work and the audit rotation of partners rather than rotating firms on a five-year, rather than a seven-year, basis. These are sensible suggestions. Why are they needed? Quite simply, the answer is that there is always the concern that there will be too much cosiness between corporate management and an audit firm.
We also examined how audit work has been used in a low-balling way—using loss-leading audit work to secure much more lucrative consultancy. I did not share the view that that was a huge problem. We must be careful, not least because there are definitional problems with regard to what pure audit work is on the one hand, and what consultancy work done by the consultancy arm of an audit firm is on the other. It is difficult to delineate which is which. The report flags up that difficulty and asks the Government to examine more

155WH
closely that definitional problem. That is a sensible proposition and is evidence based, which is the great strength of the report.
The issue of corporate governance was touched on tangentially in the report. We argued that it was important for audit committees to be much more alive to the role of audit firms and the work that they do. That was a direct lesson from Enron that we can apply to this country. Audit committees are much more important than we perhaps thought they were before. That has alerted us to a problem, and is one way in which the Higgs proposals support what the Committee flagged up. However, that is where my support for Higgs ends. So that you are absolutely sure that I am in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I point out that although the central proposals of Higgs are not referred to in the report because the report came out before Higgs, nevertheless we were acutely aware of the issues that Higgs would raise. Now that the Financial Secretary, who is responsible for responding to Higgs, is in front of us, it is apposite to address some of the concerns that have been set out.
Mr. Ken Rushton, who is the head of the UK listing authority in the Financial Services Authority and not a man known to rush into rash judgments, responded by remarking that the Higgs proposals on corporate governance could lead to a "one size fits all" rule book if wrongly enforced. He went on to say:
"It has the look and the feel of a more prescriptive framework. If intelligently applied by all parties this would be okay, but some companies are concerned that they might be shoe-horned into an orthodoxy that could not and should not be applied to them."
He said that there was a danger that companies who did not subscribe to all the requirements of the Higgs review, even though it is meant to be a voluntary set of proposals, might be considered "heretics".
The level of consultation on the Higgs review carried out by the Financial Reporting Council was also criticised by Mr. Rushton. The consultations, which are due to be completed by 14 April are an unconscionably short period of time for a full consultation on such critically important corporate governance changes.
It is a matter of regret that the FRC will be consulting only on what it considers "fatal flaws" in the Higgs review.
Mr. Beard: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that some of the complaints fulfil George Bernard Shaw's aphorism that there is nothing more indignant than a vested interest masquerading as a moral principle?
Mr. Ruffley: I always enjoy that quotation when I hear it, but I am not entirely sure that it is appropriate to my point. This is not some self-interested defence by a company chairman; we will get to that in a minute. It is from the head of the UK listings authority, a paid official from the FSA who polices the listing requirements of public limited listed companies. I quoted him for the reason that he is likely to be more dispassionate than the average company chairman.
There is a point with which I am sure that the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford will agree. Miss Famish of the National Association of Pension Funds
156WH
expressed a countervailing view that the Higgs review will be seen to be pretty much like the Cadbury, Greenbury and Hampel reports—in other words, they will be seen as a bit controversial at the time but will soon effortlessly become an orthodoxy and down the road we will wonder what all the fuss was about. However, I am not so sure about that, for reasons that I will describe.
Sir Nigel Rudd, chairman of Pilkington plc and a very experienced industrialist, described the proposals as "absolutely barmy". An interesting survey conducted by the CBI reported that 82 per cent. of FTSE 100 chairmen believe that one of the key proposals in Higgs, that a senior independent director—or SID—would undercut the authority of the chairman, was not to be welcomed and could lead to confusion. For that reason Mr. Digby Jones, director general of the CBI, said that a
"one-size-fits-all approach will not be good for British business or British wealth creation."
Mr. Jones went on to say that the proposed code was too prescriptive and that there was a danger that the "explain" element of Higgs would be forgotten over time. That is that the benchmarking of corporate governance relating to SIDs and their ability to head nominations committees for the appointment of new members to boards would, although voluntary at the outset, lead to a "comply or else" philosophy rather than, as Higgs now asserts, a "comply and explain if you do not comply" philosophy.
These views of the CBI should be taken seriously. The CBI's approach is not a headbangers' approach. It talks about the fear of the application of the law of unintended consequences. Higgs is not trying to do in British business, but is acting from the best motives. However, the problem, in the words of the CBI, is that it could
"stifle the creativity and drive that characterises so much of what is good about UK business".
Dr. Palmer: I understand that the hon. Gentleman favours the relatively moderate changes in corporate governance that we proposed, but he resists some of the further-reaching ones suggested by Higgs. Does he agree that our recommendations should be a reasonably high priority for the Government?
Mr. Ruffley: The proposals about which I spoke in my opening remarks are sensible and should be taken on hoard. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who spoke about the necessity for clear indications from the Government about the next companies Bill, the primary legislation that will flow from it, and in which Session it will be introduced. I therefore agree with the hon. Gentleman to that extent. However, I have a problem with Higgs. As Mr. Jones of the CBI says:
"Chairmen have got to be able to run an effective, unified board. The senior independent director should not open up a separate and potentially divisive channel of communication with shareholders or have responsibility for reporting back to the other non-executives on an exclusive basis."
That is the crux of the issue. These proposals seem to have caused the most difficulty in corporate Britain.
The first part of the proposal is that the senior independent director should have an exclusive channel of communication with shareholders. That is not too

157WH
offensive. In a sense, he would not differ much from the investor relations office: reporting to the chairman of the board and having a chat with the shareholders and the institutional investors. There is no great difference between that and an SID talking to institutional shareholders.
The problem arises in the second part of the proposal. According to Higgs, the non-executives will be able to get into a huddle and chew over what the shareholders are saying and thinking. They should have regular meetings—a claque, as it were—of non-executives. That seems to be a recipe for disaster and for the disunity that the CBI hinted at in its analysis. Even if one accepts, as one will probably have to, that chairman and chief executive roles should be split as a matter of course, there appear to be at least two competing centres of authority already in Higgs's proposal. If one were to add a third centre of authority—the SID—one can imagine him corralling a group of his fellow non-executives. Incidentally, Higgs suggests that half the board should comprise non-executives. That could be a third fount of power, which would not make for especially efficient management decisions. In that sense, corporate Britain has a legitimate gripe in saying that it is not happy with that proposal.
Let me say one or two things about Higgs, which the Financial Reporting Council can address. Before mid-April, the FRC is allowed to tweak the Higgs proposal in some ways. I hope that it will take some of my points on board. First, Higgs believes that the advantages of introducing the proposal that a non-executive director should head the nominations committee were marginal. He did not think that it was a deal-break; he did not think that it was make or break. The overwhelming body of opinion, and the responses, suggest that it is odd for a non-executive who is unfamiliar with the sector to decide what the shape and architecture of a board should be. That person would have the power of life and death over nominees to the board, which is more properly the province of somebody other than a non-executive director. If what I read in the press is accurate, it would be useful if the FRC were to take that criticism on board and not implement the proposal. It was the most unpopular measure in the CBI survey. Nearly 90 per cent. said that it was bad news, or words to that effect.
Higgs should not promise too much. There is a danger that that will happen, because Higgs has asked Laura Tyson, the dean of The London business school, to provide a list of 100 top-notch non-executives, drawn from the public sector, charities and professional services. I fear that we are in danger of political correctness creep. I am not convinced—marvellously qualified in charities law and dedicated to the public services for which they work so diligently though they might be—that some of those individuals can necessarily read a balance sheet very well or go in to bat with some slick city auditor who is trying to pull the wool over their eyes. I urge Higgs and the FRC, when they are putting together the combined code, not to be seduced by the idea that the quality of non-executives in corporate Britain can be improved by such tinkering. A pool of 100 drawn from the public sector is a start, but it is not going to prevent Enrons from happening.
Mr. Beard: Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise the nature of the problem that Higgs addresses? That is
158WH
that far too narrow and inbred a group of people occupy the posts of non-executive directors, many of them enjoying as many as eight such positions. They cannot possibly be giving ad equate scrutiny to any one of them. The proposal to put the matter in the hands of a non-executive director has been made in order to prevent it from going to cronies and to broaden the pool. Nobody can pretend that there are not enough wise, sensible people in Britain beyond the 1,600 whose names appear—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I suggested earlier that interventions should be just that. That was going on a bit.
Mr. Ruffley: There is a certain amount of truth in what the hon. Gentleman says. We agree that the quality of non-executive directors in corporate Britain should be improved. I see from research done by Deloitte and Touche that if Higgs's proposal that half of each board should be non-executives were applied to the top 350 FTSE companies, 500 new non-executives would be needed quickly. Like the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford, I should have thought that there were enough clever, financially literate and tough-minded men and women in the country to fill those posts. However, it is not clear that those people exist or want to come forward. I agree that chumminess and cosiness in boardrooms does not help public confidence.
The Committee's inquiry into split capital trusts demonstrated that there was a great deal not only of cross-share holding but of cross-directorship holding. We wait with interest to learn whether any impropriety arose as a result of the arrangements for people to sit on several boards of split capital investment trust companies, but the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point.
I wonder, however, whether Higgs goes far enough in addressing the problem of the quality of non-executive directors. I do not believe that the main proposition that Higgs puts forward—to get the dean of the London business school to trawl round the voluntary, non-corporate part of Britain—is the answer to our problems. Nor do I believe that that is likely to secure the greater confidence in the way in which companies are run that the British public needs.
I again thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your indulgence in allowing me the time to contribute to the debate, notwithstanding my delay in getting to the Chamber. I will make one point to the Minister, to which I hope that she will respond.
The piece of work undertaken by Higgs is substantial. If even half of it is implemented—I am sure that more than that will be implemented—it will have a great effect on corporate Britain. I bet my bottom dollar that the combined code, which will be modified as a result of what the Financial Reporting Council says, will be a document that says, "Comply or else" rather than "Comply or explain."
Why is that important, and why does it worry me? Every working day since 1997, 15 new pieces of red tape have been imposed on British business. As a result, management people need to be lighter on their feet, more nimble and more flexible. There should be less need for them to look over their shoulders—they should be able to make decisions unburdened by regulatory

159WH
clutter. Will the Minister tell us whether, in the consultation period that remains between now and 14 April, she will give any thought to cutting back on the more prescriptive parts of Higgs? Does she believe that the remaining consultation period is long enough? The Financial Services Authority appears to believe that it should be longer.
I wonder why the consultation seems to be taking place in haste. I hope that that is not because the Treasury wants a good headline. I have the utmost respect for the Minister, and I know that she would not try to get cheap headlines and follow the principle of, "Let's show the public that we are doing something." The issue should be taken more seriously than that. Will the Minister address my concerns about the over-prescriptive nature of Higgs and the speed with which that over-prescription will be applied?
Mr. Djanogly: On the last point that my hon. Friend made about complying or explaining, does he agree that the problem is that even if companies explain, the institutional shareholder committees will often put a cross in the box? That means that there will be a vote against at the general meeting. Even under the current system, "comply or explain" often does not work. It has led to box-ticking, and that will get worse under the Higgs proposals.
Mr. Ruffley: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point for my peroration. He is right to say that the combined code already leads to a certain amount of box-ticking. It has been argued that Higgs, if fully implemented—the Government seem to be bent on that—will be a box-tickers' charter. It will be box-tickers' heaven, because any advisers going through the process will go down the box-ticking route, as a back-stop against negligence and as a way of showing that they have done everything right. If in doubt, such advisers will not look at the specific circumstances of a particular company and why that company might, for perfectly good reasons, have deviated from the combined code. For a simple life and as a back-stop against negligence, they will say that the company does not fulfil the requirements of the combined code in its corporate governance regime, will not tick the appropriate box, and, as my hon. Friend pointed out, cause trouble for that company. We are opening ourselves up to such a rules-based approach, which will make a growing problem significantly worse.
4.4 pm
Norman Lamb: I congratulate the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) on securing the debate. Unlike other members of the Treasury Committee, I can be objective in saying how good the report is, because I was not on the Select Committee when it was produced. The report makes a valuable contribution to kick-starting the post-Enron debate. As the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) said, the fact that it is based on evidence heard by the Committee makes the report a particularly strong document.
Other hon. Members have spoken about the impact across the world of Enron's collapse and of the shock waves that it caused on global financial markets. It
160WH
produced—not just in the United States, but throughout the world—a collapse of confidence in corporate governance and in the role of accountants and auditors, so we should devote our attention to rebuilding confidence in them.
As the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford ( Mr. Beard) explained, the implications of a collapse of a company such as Enron are widespread and affect, both directly and indirectly, the livelihoods of many people. It is an issue of supreme importance, but I noticed an element of complacency from Conservative Members, particularly in the speech of the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly). It reminded me of my views on nuclear power: everything is fine as long as power stations operate without difficulty, but as soon as something goes wrong, it is rather disastrous. We saw that with Enron, and it could happen again. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds argued that it was probably less likely to happen in this country, but it could. Sir Howard Davies made that very point to the Select Committee, so we must approach the subject with urgency and accord it the priority that it deserves.
In shaping our response to the implications of Enron, key points must be recognised.
Mr. Djanogly: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that fraud, criminal activity and so forth present quite distinct problems and are unlikely, other than in non-extreme cases, to be dealt with through best practice corporate governance? Whatever corporate governance practices had been in place, it is unlikely that Enron would have been stopped.
Norman Lamb: I accept that, but I shall explain in a few moments that a loose framework can be responsible for things going wrong.
I was arguing that the traditional regulatory framework in this country is clearly different from that in the United States. We should acknowledge much that is good in this country, both in respect of corporate governance and the principles-based approach of auditors to which the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds referred. We need evolution, not revolution: we should build on the framework already in place, not destroy it. We must not, however, be led into complacency: reform is clearly needed. As the Government have acknowledged in their responses to various reports, the world does not stand still. There is a need to recognise and understand the rapidly developing global economy and its implications.
In shaping reform, the UK cannot act in isolation. There is a real need to try to develop common and consistent standards without that resulting in an acceptance of the lowest common denominator. We must never allow a dumbing down of standards, but the aim to achieve common consistent standards across financial markets is a massive challenge. With the benefit of hindsight, many have seen the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation in America as an ill-considered, knee-jerk reaction to the Enron collapse. I applaud the Government for having adopted a deliberative approach in this country. They have listened to plenty of evidence and taken their time in shaping proposals. We must also take into account the EU proposals to be put in place by 2005. All those elements could go in radically different directions, and we must try to achieve uniformity.

161WH
Reform must be based on the following principles. The first is transparency and openness in the way in which companies and boardrooms operate. Secondly, it is important to avoid conflicts of interest, particularly in auditing. Thirdly, we must achieve the highest possible standards of financial reporting, accountancy and auditing. Fourthly, we must tackle a boardroom culture that is too often—although not always—cosy, incestuous and lacking in independence.
I turn to some specific issues. On corporate governance, we welcome the Higgs report. As the hon. Member for Dumbarton and others have already made clear, the response of the FTSE 100 chairmen is disturbing, disappointing and complacent. The heading of the leading article of the Financial Times on Monday this week was, "Higgs' critics have failed to grasp why change is needed". The response of the Financial Times, in criticising the chairmen of the FTSE 100 companies, seems very sound.
In contrast to what seems to be a very head-in-thesand, ostrich-like response from those chairmen, Warren Buffet, the United States investor to whom the hon. Member for Dumbarton has already referred, takes a very different view. He thinks that US reforms have not gone far enough and specifically refers to the cosy boardroom atmosphere that in his view has caused the lax supervision of US companies.
On moves to strengthen independence by enhancing the roles of non-executive directors, a divide is clearly developing between those who argue for unified boards—which Digby Jones argued for this week in response to the CBI survey—and those who see the case for, and the value of, dissent and independence on the board. Surely, the latter must be the way forward. Dissent can shake up and tackle complacency, whereas unity can lead to complacency and weakness.
Buffet also argues that independent directors must be supported by active owners. Institutional investors need to play a much more active, engaged role than they have played hitherto. Too often, there is a tendency for them to stand by and do nothing, but then complain after the event. It is also important that the culture of the non-executive director is effectively challenged. Non-executive directors have too often been appointed because of friendships. The hon. Member for Huntingdon referred to that instead as "acquaintances" and people within the industry, but there is no doubt that the old boy network is alive and kicking. There is no transparency in the appointment of non-executive directors.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds suggested that tightening up and improving the transparency of the appointment of non-executive directors and increasing the independence of the board of directors could affect the competitiveness of British industry. It could, however, have an opposite effect. If we improve the transparency and openness of the system of appointing non-executive directors and widen the pool of people who could be appointed, we might improve their quality and their input into the boards and companies that they represent.
Too many non-executive directors are on good little earners. They are on too many boards of directors and are unable to focus on the professional supervision that a company needs. The Government must ensure that
162WH
effective steps are taken to widen the pool of non-executive directors I should welcome the Financial Secretary's comments on how they intend to achieve that.
On auditing, the danger of conflict of interest has been clearly demonstrated by the development of a culture in which large accountancy firms carry out a wide range of consultancy functions in addition to auditing—it is bound to end in tears. The independence of the auditor is inevitably compromised if their accountancy firm earns substantial income by undertaking other work for their clients, because there is a risk that punches will be pulled. Apart from regulatory reform, market pressure has already had a dramatic effect. Inside the big four accountancy firms, marketing for new work for consultancy services has shifted away from the companies for which they carry out audits and has been directed at companies for which they do not provide audit services. However, we must recognise that that process needs to go further and should be enshrined in regulatory controls.
From their marketing shift, those companies have clearly recognised that it is no longer acceptable to continue in that way and that they could be destroyed, as happened to Arthur Andersen, by conflict of interest. That is encouraging, but they have not gone far enough. There needs to be an effective regulatory framework to stop a slippage back into the old ways.
Another encouraging trend, which is continuing at some pace, involves floating off the consultancy arms of accountancy firms. I favour enshrining a clear divide in regulation between audit work and other work. Lord Sharman, the former chairman of KPMG, made it clear that auditors are watchdogs:
"they are supposed to be the ones who exemplify independence, objectivity and probity".
It cannot be right that those firms are touting for other business from the same company, which potentially compromises their position in their primary role as auditors.
On the rotation of audit firms, several expert analysts have highlighted the potential problems with the compulsory rotation of firms. For example, problems can often occur in the first year of a new appointment because the people involved are all new to a company and have no knowledge of its background. I am not sure whether the Government's recommendations go far enough. The Select Committee took the view that requiring the audit committee to look at possible rotation every five years was appropriate.
In its report, the Committee drew an analogy with the re-tendering exercise in public sector appointments. The old law firm in which I was a partner before my election to Parliament provided legal services to a number of local authorities. We had to be involved in a re-tendering exercise after a specified number of years. It focused the mind and improved performance, because one knew that the tendering had to be gone through again at the end of the contract period. Forcing the audit committee to consider re-tendering and whether it should change, rather than requiring it to change, seems a wholly sensible recommendation. The Treasury Committee made the point that it was presented with no evidence that re-tendering of public sector contracts caused a problem. We support the model proposed by the Committee.

163WH
The rotation of personnel involved in an audit has been tightened, as the Government made clear. The lead partner must now be rotated every five rather than every seven years. However, there is a risk of incestuous relationships going much further than just the lead partner; others can also do damage. The principle of rotation needs to apply to other partners and senior employees involved in the audit process. I am pleased with the Government's recommendation to prohibit for two years an auditor's being employed by a company that they have audited. The Government go further than the Committee, which I think recommended one year, so that is good news.
I have not dealt with the whole range of reforms dealt with in the report and envisaged by the Government. The agenda is substantial. We broadly welcome the deliberative approach that the Government have taken. It seems measured and avoids a knee-jerk reaction, but none the less it attaches to the subject the priority and importance that it deserves.
I welcome the suggestion by the Chairman of the Select Committee of pre-legislative scrutiny of the company law reform proposals. I hope that the Minister will confirm that she will want that when the proposals are introduced. Clearly, the Committee would perform a central role in any such scrutiny. It is important to modernise the regulatory framework to rebuild trust and confidence, to ensure openness and to drive up standards, while not undermining competitiveness.
4.22 pm
Mr. Howard Flight: I congratulate the Treasury Committee and its Chairman, the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), on its report. I have read it in full and very little of it cannot be agreed with by a broad cross-section of hon. Members—and, indeed, of the nation as a whole. It was particularly important that the Committee recognised the changes and improvements that had been made to the accounting profession in the United Kingdom since the Maxwell scandal. The Committee also recognised that rules are not the answer—indeed, rules were very much the cause of the problems in the United States of America—and that principles are of acute importance.
The only territory where I express some dissent, and to which I have referred, is Sir David Tweedie's proposal about how to deal with the excessive use of share options in the US. There is no doubt that that occurred and was often quite ridiculous. Shares were given out like confetti. Students would suddenly find themselves worth $1 million because a high-tech company had boomed, and then it would disappear. Sir David Tweedie recommends in respect of all granting of options or shares at a discount to market value that that difference should be charged to the profit and loss account. That is undesirable as it will create great volatility in the profit and loss and a charge to it—in a cash sense, it is not a charge. When times are good in respect of options and discounts, there will be large charges, and when times are bad and options are out of the money, there will not be charges. That will provide a further complication in understanding accounts.
It has always been clear that shares at a discount dilute earnings per share, and as a shareholder I want to know what the earnings-per-share dilution is and what
164WH
is the effect of the dilution of my equity. Just having a charge to the profit and loss will not tell me that. For starters, the most important thing is to require the fullest description of the earnings-per-share dilution impact in the notes to the accounts.
Secondly, Proshare is the main campaigner for widespread employee share schemes, which will be affected. As the Minister told the hon. Member for Dumbarton in a note, the only way around that will be for companies not to apply any discount to shares that they issue under widespread employee share schemes.
The big corporate problem is disappearing profitability. It is pretty likely, if companies are faced with this accounting problem, that the result will be a major contraction in broadly based employee share schemes. Indeed, that is precisely what Proshare found from its soundings of the FTSE 100 companies. It would be a mistake to think that this change to accounting standards, international and domestic, will not carry a very heavy price in terms of restricting, if not stopping, broadly based employee share schemes, and I think we all agree that their impact has been excellent. They improve productivity and bring communal effort to businesses. There are famous examples such as John Lewis, and measurements of company performance show that those with widespread employee share schemes have a significant impact: they outperform others by a factor of 40 per cent.
It would be a great economic loss to this country if the likely change in the accounting standard ended widely based employee share schemes, as I and many others, including Proshare and many Members of Parliament, fear will happen.
There was pretty widespread agreement with what was contained in the reports of the co-ordinating groups on accounting and auditing issues, and on 29 January, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced a review of the regulatory structures for the accountancy profession. As others have said, the UK would undoubtedly benefit from a companies Bill to introduce the modern company law framework outlined in the company law review, and the sooner the better. It is a little disappointing that more progress has not been made in that respect.
The company law review contained two other important measures—the introduction of a mandatory operating and financial review to provide, in narrative form, an outline of the company's business strategy and the risks and opportunities inherent therein, and secondly, the removal of statutory provisions preventing auditors from limiting their liability, together with a proposal to establish an informal framework for liability capping.
Some hon. Members have suggested that the proposals to date do not go far enough. I think that they are measured and appropriate. If anything, the danger is going too far as a gut reaction to the problems that have occurred in the United States. No one wants to be complacent, but to date there have not been problems of the same magnitude on the accountancy front here.
The Select Committee report drew attention to the warnings that Sir Howard Davies, the head of the Financial Services Authority, has given about the impact of increasing European Union financial regulation, which appears not to have received the same

165WH
consideration as was given to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, and which could be a major threat to what is left of the financial services industry in this country. The report particularly referred to the listing directive.
Let me now turn to Higgs. As others have pointed out, time has passed. Higgs represents the Government's response to further proposals on corporate governance. I felt that the hon. Members for Dumbarton and for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard) were somewhat unfair in attributing the reason for their criticisms of the CBI, the Institute of Directors and the overwhelming majority of chairmen purely to self-interest. I accept that what I have always called the great and the good of the 100 FTSE companies are too narrow a group of people and that they are often motivated to vote generous pay increases for each other. That is a perfectly fair point. I am concerned that Higgs may not necessarily address that.
The concerns that have been raised about Higgs are genuine, and the Government should listen to them before proceeding with implementation of the proposals. There have been three general complaints, which have largely been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley). First, the report is misguided, in that the proposals could make boards less rather than more effective and could undermine the position of the chairman by reintroducing the senior independent director, whose powers seem to run parallel with, and compete with, what many would consider the proper role of an independent chairman.
Secondly, there is a view that the proposals are too prescriptive and rule-based. Although they are supposed to be voluntary, there is a probability that they will be institutionalised in code and that trying to explain why a company has not followed them will be seen as a not particularly pukka or proper position. At the least, there will be a very strong, if not regulatory, pressure to fit into the code.
The third general criticism is the lack of time for consultation before implementation. I do not know whether it is true, but I have heard that the Government are giving consideration to extending the consultation. I hope that the Financial Secretary will be able to confirm that.
There have also been specific criticisms. The first, which I think is fairly valid, is that while such an overly prescriptive regime may not be a huge burden for very large companies, there is the question of those that are not FTSE 100 companies. The regime is too expensive and is not particularly suitable for them. Where do they stand? I should initially have declared an interest, incidentally, in that I am a non-executive director of a company. It has decided to follow Higgs, although it is manifestly inappropriate for what is actually a small company. The decision was based on exactly the type of mentality to which I have referred. A good case can be made for the argument that the success of smaller businesses depends on powerful leadership.
Warren Buffet speaks with two voices because in his companies he pays little regard to the rest of the board and thrives on being able to dominate a weak board. His perspective as an investor in other companies reflects what he says, but that is not so in his practice, nor is it
166WH
the reason for his considerable success, which has been the robust, individual, all-powerful leadership of a business. It is strange that even large boards will be controlled by non-executive directors. As with the other proposals, their ability to know and understand a large company is perhaps not as great as many may think.
Dr. Palmer: The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) referred to Marconi, which operates in my constituency. I understand that its share price collapsed by 99 per cent. as a result of the current arrangements. Does he believe that the outcome would have been worse if it had been subject to challenge by independent non-executive directors?
Mr. Flight: I was a shareholder in Marconi and know the history well. I would say the reverse—a compliant board broadly agreed with unrealistic and overambitious schemes. The previous leader of the old GEC company—hon. Members will remember that he died not long after Marconi's collapse and was almost heartbroken about the demise of the business that he had built up over 30 years—had run that business with a rod of iron, taking little notice of the rest of his board. I would say that it was more of a Higgs board that led to the Marconi collapse than an old-fashioned type of business led by a strong character.
That leads to another major point. It is dangerous to lead the public to think that Higgs would be a solution for companies that are badly run and making bad decisions. It has been a great mistake to lead the public to believe that regulation means that they need not take responsibility for their own investment decisions, and there are dangers in theoretical panaceas to address problems that cannot be effective in practice.
I see no logic for suggesting that a chief executive cannot mature to become chairman. A company that I would have thought was greatly admired and liked by the Government—Unilever—has thrived on that principle for many years. It is useful and important that the chairman knows and understands such a large business, and I see no impropriety in principle in that. Indeed, there has often been a problem for companies when chairmen and chief executives have come in from outside without knowing the business and one has presided over the other making a mess of it.
I want to pose a question. What happens if a retiring chief executive becomes chairman of a rival company? It is a serious practical risk that if someone retires at 55 and knows an industry well but cannot naturally become chairman of his old company, he will be an attractive recruit to a rival company.
The suggestion that non-executive directors should serve only six years is a mistake. It may make sense for boards to be able l o get rid of them, but that can be arranged contractually. Many non-executive directors will not have got to grips with a company for two or three years, and I do not see the logic of a six-year term.
Finally, I support the principle that the posts of chief executive and chairman should be split. That is a longstanding recommendation, but I note that the Competition Commission did not want to do it, and Sir Howard Davies of the FSA was determined not to do it. However, the Bank of England is set up so that the two roles are effectively combined in the governorship. The

167WH
public sector should follow the same rules, and I repeat that although I broadly support it, it does not always make sense, certainly for a small business, for the two rules to be combined. What are the Government's proposals for those other than FTSE companies? There have been suggestions that the costly and cumbersome structure would not apply to listed companies, but from a practical point of view, large FTSE companies could probably cope with it. That could be positively damaging for smaller companies.
My worry, and something that I have seen happen here and in other parts of the world, is that a board controlled by non-executives would end up going through the motions rather than running the business. The business would instead be run by an informal committee of the senior management, and the net effect of the proposals would be contrary to the intention. That results in what I call an unofficial running of the business, not a transparent system recorded in the minutes, and that is one of the biggest dangers. It is a practice that occurs a lot outside the United Kingdom, and it is a mistake to require a majority of non-executives because it tends to tip the balance that way.
Although the report is about public limited companies and the private sector, the highest standards of accounting and propriety in management should also exist in the public sector. The hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford rightly referred to improper practices of off-balance-sheet financing that have taken place in the United States and, to some extent, here, and I draw the Chamber's attention to the continuing disagreement of principle between Sir John Bourn and the Chancellor.
Sir John Bourn is adamant that the Strategic Rail Authority and Network Rail, under accounting standard FRS 2, should be consolidated into Department for Transport accounts when we move to whole of Government accounting. The result will be, in the words of the National Audit Office, to blow out of the water the mythology that control rests with the business's directors. Sir John is clear that equity control rests with the Government, and each organisation should appear in the Red Book and national accounts with its debt as part of the public borrowings and public borrowing ratios. As hon. Members will have seen, he went as far as to say that he would not sign off the accounts unless that happened. We have the present nonsense that the Treasury has accepted that the SRA and Network Rail will be consolidated into whole of Government accounts, but not into the Department for Transport accounts, which is the key issue in whether the debt is included in the Red Book figure.
I urge the Chancellor to abide by the high standards of accountancy by which we are urging the private sector to abide, and to cut back on off-balance-sheet accounting. The Government have moved to consult not just two accountants, but, as the Minister will undoubtedly confirm, the Treasury is now in discussions with Allen and Overy, which is known to be the sharpest law firm in structuring private sector off-balance-sheet accounting. Let us not have one rule for the public sector and another for the private sector.
Mr. Beard: The situation, which we on the Treasury Committee looked into, is not exactly as the hon.
168WH
Gentleman represents it. Sir John Bourn believes that the Railtrack debt should be a contingent liability. It should not therefore be added to normal Government debt, or be considered against the golden rule or national debt. That is quite different from off-balancesheet accounting.
Mr. Flight: With the greatest of respect, I do not think that the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford is up to date. It is quite correct that, as far as this year's accounts are concerned, Sir John Bourn has ruled that, as non-departmental public bodies are not consolidated, Network Rail should be consolidated into the Strategic Rail Authority, although there is no need to consolidate the SRA into the Department for Transport's accounts. The Department should have full notes of the contingent liability. That is the position for this year.
However, when we move to the whole of Government accounts—I confirmed the details with the National Audit Office just two days ago—the position changes. The rule then is that non-departmental public bodies should, in principle, be consolidated, particularly if they meet the FRS 2 test. That test is about equity control in relation to subsidiaries. On that basis, Sir John Bourn has made it quite clear that the debt should be consolidated into the Department for Transport's accounts. As he pointed out, if that is so, the ruling of FRS 2 is that the Government have equity control. That blows out of the window the mythology that the Government do not have that control and that it rests with the directors.
It is on the basis of that mythology that the national statistician has sought to argue that, for EUROSTAT purposes, the liability does not have to be included in the Red Book borrowings. We are dealing with obscure but classic examples of the sort of clever stuff that people have got up to with off-balance-sheet accounting in the private sector.
Dr. Palmer: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his simulacrum—it could not possibly have been him—said earlier that the off-balance-sheet accounting of share options was quite satisfactorily covered by a note in the accounts? That speaker did not think that it was important to include it in the balance sheet.
Mr. Flight: I am surprised that a Member of Parliament of the hon. Gentleman's intelligence should not have heard what I said. My point was that dealing with the issuing of shares or options for discount in the profit and loss account creates a false profit figure, because profits go up and down inversely to share prices. That is unhelpful to a general shareholder because it distorts the profit record. What a shareholder needs to know, resulting from option schemes and even employee-wide share schemes, is how much his shareholding will be diluted if that option is exercised and when the general employees take up their share options. The task of explaining and setting out the dilution factor requires some space; indeed, that explanation can only be set out as a note to the accounts. That is a pretty straightforward common-sense issue, and the matter is entirely different from the accounting principles, for which Sir John Bourn is responsible, that apply to how public sector bodies' debts should be treated within the national accounts.
4.48 pm
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): I start by congratulating the Treasury Select Committee on its report, and its Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), on the way he which he introduced this important debate—and, indeed, on securing it. He asked whether we would stand firm on our proposals, and I assure hon. Members that we will. There is no room for complacency on this issue.
I certainly take issue with the comments of the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly), which I thought were extraordinary. The United Kingdom must remain at the forefront of international best practice in auditing and accounting standards and corporate governance. Indeed, our commitment to those issues is widely recognised internationally. It is also widely seen as one of the strengths of the United Kingdom system—one that enhances the efficiency of capital markets.
I welcome the commitment that my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard) and the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) have shown on this issue. We must give it priority, which is why my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry set up the co-ordinating group on audit and accounting issues, which I chaired with the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), who has responsibility for competition, consumers and markets. Our final report was published on 29 January, and we had valuable input from a wide range of sources, including the Treasury Committee report on the financial regulation of plcs.
Good systems of financial reporting and audit regulation are vital to underpinning confidence in the efficient and effective operation of capital markets. Establishing those conditions requires us to have timely, true and fair financial reporting, underpinned by high accounting and audit standards; effective arrangements for the enforcement of those standards; the independent audit of financial statements; effective corporate governance arrangements; and independent and transparent regulation of the accountancy profession.
As the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) noted, standards and regulation, although important, can never be a complete defence against individuals who are determined to do wrong. Nor can they wholly protect us against a culture of corporate greed and loose ethics. A zero-failure regime is not a desirable option, but we owe it to savers, investors, employees and all the honest business people whose reputations have been tarnished by these scandals to ensure that our defences are as robust as they can sensibly be.
The package of reforms announced on 29 January will raise standards of corporate governance for listed companies, strengthen our accountancy and audit professions and provide for a more effective system to regulate the profession. Taken together, those reforms are comprehensive and mutually reinforcing. The package is tough where it must be, but measured and proportionate throughout. We have sought to achieve better regulation, not just more regulation. Our approach will ensure that our corporate governance
170WH
structures remain among the best in the world, and that must be in the interests of the millions of pensioners, savers and businesses that depend on them.
Let me turn now to some of the specific points that were raised. I should probably start with the Higgs report, because that is where the interest of most hon. Members seemed to lie. The first line of responsibility for ensuring honesty and probity must rest with companies and their boards of directors. In the light of the report's proposals on the role and effectiveness of non-executive directors, the combined code on corporate governance will be strengthened to provide that at least half the board, including the chairman, should be independent. Similarly, all the members of the audit and remuneration committees, and a majority of the nomination committee, should be independent. Furthermore, the definition of an independent director should be strengthened and clarified, the separation of the roles of chairman and chief executive should be reinforced, and new descriptions should be given to the roles of the board, the chairman and non-executives.
Derek Higgs's report also contains proposals to improve the way in which top-level appointments are handled. They should promote meritocracy through an open, fair and rigorous appointments process, rather than encourage appointment through personal contacts and friendships. As part of the follow-up, a group led by Laura Tyson of the London business school will study ways of bringing candidates from the non-commercial sector to greater prominence. It will report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in May.
There has been a good deal of comment about the Higgs proposals. The Financial Reporting Council is currently consulting on revisions to the combined code. It has stated that the consultation is intended not to reopen debate about the substance of the recommended changes but to get the detail right and to examine the best way of implementing the changes.
I note the comments of the hon. Members for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffiey) and for Arundel and South Downs about the consultation process, but I urge Members to remember that Derek Higgs consulted extensively. He undertook a great many interviews and a great deal of research, all of which has been published on the web. He sounded out the main representative organisations, including the CBI, about his proposals. His recommendations on the combined code are not drawn out of thin air.
I am confident that the Financial Reporting Council will still consider all responses received from business, investors and others, but the issues should be considered carefully rather than through megaphone diplomacy. That is exactly what the FRC will do. The consultation runs through until mid-April and the FRC, as an independent body, is fully responsible for that consultation.
I completely agree with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton, the Chairman of the Treasury Committee, who said that the proposals represent the opportunity to change voluntarily. The Higgs proposals are intended to be a statement of best practice, based on the principle of comply or explain. They are not rigid rules. Indeed, they are specifically designed to leave room for judgment, and we believe

171WH
that such judgment is best exercised by shareholders. In laying out his approach, he has deliberately avoided the rule-based approach of the United States. I believe that that is a great merit of our current system, and one that will continue. We may not have seen an Enron in the United Kingdom, but we have not been immune to numerous home-grown cases of corporate scandal or destruction either. There is no ground for complacency in that regard.
Certain myths have sprung up in relation to the Higgs proposals. One is that somehow the role of senior non-executive director is a new role, but that is not the case at all. The role of senior non-executive director is embedded in the current combined code. It works very well already in many large companies. The intention of the proposals is not to undermine in any way the spirit of a unitary board. The role of chairman rightly remains central, both in managing the board and in the relations with shareholders. Derek Higgs's proposals would complement that role with better communication to the non-executive directors of shareholder views. That opinion was forcefully expressed by shareholders to the Government, and to Derek Higgs when he carried out his review.
The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs asked how the proposals should apply to smaller companies. In his review, Derek Higgs specifically considered whether there should be a difference in best practice rules between large and small companies. The view that came loud and clear from small companies was that they did not wish that to be the case. They did not wish to be considered in any way as having a second-tier system of corporate governance.
All publicly listed companies have responsibilities to their shareholders. As a matter of principle, Higgs was wary of promoting different sets of standards. That does not mean that he assumed that in all cases all principles would necessarily be appropriate. In fact, he specifically recognised that many small companies may wish to explain rather than to comply. There are no deadlines for the implementation of his proposals; it is up to the individual company to explain to its shareholders the principles that it decides to follow. That comment was reflected in the debate on Higgs that took place after the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry earlier this year. She said:
"Let me stress and develop … the need to avoid one size fits all."
She explained that the proposals did not apply to alternative investment market listed companies. She added that
"the circumstances of companies, especially smaller companies, that fall within the scope of the combined code will be different. It is important for the FRC to reflect that in the wording of the revised code and explain why we rely on comply or explain."—[Official Report, 29 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 887.]
The report of the co-ordinating group on auditing and accounting emphasised the importance of the audit committee in overseeing the financial reporting of the audit processes of listed companies. We believe that effective audit committees are central to restoring
172WH
confidence in capital markets and that their role and membership need to be strengthened. In that respect, we welcome the work of the FRC group, chaired by Sir Robert Smith. The group has developed the existing combined code guidance for audit committees.
The Financial Reporting Council's proposed revisions to the combined code will also implement the recommendations of the Smith group that the audit committee should consist of entirely independent members, at least one of which should have relevant financial experience, monitor the auditor's performance, especially on independence and objectivity, and develop and implement policy on the purchase of non-audit services from the auditor, with reference to tough new ethical guidance. Following well established practice, listed companies will be required either to comply with those provisions or to explain to their shareholders why they are not doing so. The comply or explain approach is one of the great strengths of the UK system.
A second major aspect of the reforms concerns tougher measures to underpin auditor independence. Following the recommendations of the co-ordinating group, the Government have announced that, as well as an enhanced role for audit committees and a tightening of the provision of non-audit services by auditors, the professional bodies have already changed their regulations so that the lead audit partner must be rotated within five years, and partners and senior employees of audit firms will not be able to take up employment with the company that they audit within two years of leaving the audit firm.
Norman Lamb: Will the Minister respond specifically to the Treasury Committee's recommendation relating to a compulsory re-tendering exercise—not a requirement to change audit firms, but to examine the possibility? The Minister said that a change every five years for the lead audit partner would he required, but what about the others? I note that the final report of the co-ordinating group refers to change for other key audit partners every seven years. Is that still part of the Government's recommendations?
Ruth Kelly: Yes. We will consider those issues further as these proposals are developed. The issue of mandatory rotation is raised time and again. It was considered in great depth by the co-ordinating group, which concluded that the balance of advantage was against such a mandatory requirement. That is partly because we accepted the view that there were sensible and workable alternatives and that mandatory rotation itself had not been proven as an effective way of ensuring auditor independence.
Indeed, the key elements of the package of measures that we announced as an alternative to mandatory rotation include an enhanced role for the audit committee in the appointment and oversight of the relationship between the company and its auditor, the audit partner rotation requirements, greater transparency by audit firms, and a greater emphasis on independence when monitoring auditors with longstanding relationships with client companies.
The co-ordinating group also considered the Treasury Committee's proposal to set a precise periodic requirement for audit committees to consider the

173WH
relationship, and decided that that would cut across the enhanced role for the audit committee envisaged by the report. The proposal was influenced by the fact that the enhanced role and the role for judgment should be made as coherent as possible throughout the report. That would provide the effective check that the hon. Gentleman is seeking.
The Chairman of the Treasury Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton, also asked why we were not referring auditors to the Competition Commission. The co-ordinating group also examined that matter. Indeed, the Office of Fair Trading considered the question in detail and announced in November that it did not consider there to be a case for referral. Although the market was dominated by four large companies, it did not show evidence of being uncompetitive. The Office of Fair Trading concluded that it should keep the market under review, particularly in light of Andersen's demise.
My hon. Friend also raised the importance of streamlining the regulation of the accountancy profession. Following a DTI review of regulation, the whole package of measures will be underpinned by a much more streamlined process and a better structure for regulating the accountancy profession. The FRC will assume the functions of the Accountancy Foundation, creating a unified independent UK regulator with three clear roles: setting accounting and auditing standards; proactively enforcing and monitoring them; and overseeing the self-regulatory
174WH
professional bodies. All those steps will be taken forward alongside the Government's long-standing programme of company law reform.
I could not fail to note the interest in the publication of a Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny. The Government fully accept that such a Bill would benefit from pre-legislative scrutiny. The Government have shown evidence of their commitment to consultation with the publication of 225 draft clauses, but ultimately—I shall inject a caveat here—the decision depends on the parliamentary timetable, the views of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, and the evidence given to it during the company law review by the Department of Trade and Industry. However, we accept that a Bill on this issue would benefit from a pre-legislative process.
In conclusion, the debate has been valuable and well informed. Member; are right to take a close interest in accounting, auditing and corporate governance. I congratulate the Treasury Select Committee on being the first off the mark in considering in depth the issues contained in its report. It is absolutely right that we should give those issues our full attention. The approach that the Government have taken will ensure that our corporate governance structures remain among the best in the world, and that must be in the interests of the millions of pensioners, savers and businesses that depend on them.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Five o'clock.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  AIDS
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what meetings she has had with pharmaceutical companies to discuss AIDS in developing countries. [102738]

  Clare Short
  My Department continues to give greater priority to prevention, but we also place great emphasis on reducing the personal, social and economic impact of illness and disease caused by HIV/AIDS. The fight against HIV/AIDS has to incorporate effective public health responses that engage in education, prevention, care and support, impact mitigation and related development concurrently. For any of these programmes to be successfully implemented, broad multi-sectoral approaches are crucial.

  I have regularly met representatives of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), AstraZeneca and Association of British Pharmaceutical Industries (ABPI), as a result of their involvement in the high level working group on increasing access to essential medicines for AIDS, TB and Malaria.

  Officials from my Department have been in extensive dialogue with representatives of these companies and MERCK, a member of the US PHARMA industry association, around taking forward the reports' recommendations in a number of initial countries. We will continue to have a dialogue with them and other key actors in the pharmaceutical industry in the lead up to the G8 summit in Evian later this year.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her Department's strategy is for tackling AIDS. [102812]

  Clare Short
  My Department's HIV/AIDS strategy focuses on the following key areas:

  building political leadership;

  building national capacity;

  tackling the underlying causes of vulnerability;

  maximising the contribution of all sectors;

  supporting work across the prevention, treatment, care and impact mitigation continuum;

  supporting the development of knowledge generation.

  A copy of our HIV/AIDS strategy is available in the Library of the House.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her Department is doing to co-ordinate an international strategy for tackling AIDS in the developing world. [102813]
  354W
  Clare Short
  The Declaration of Commitment adopted by 189 delegations at the twenty-sixth Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly in June 2001 sets out a global consensus on action necessary to tackle the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Within this framework, my Department is working in partnership with governments, international agencies, the private sector, NGOs and others to achieve the Millennium Development Goal of combating HIV/AIDS.

  Ethiopia
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on food security in Ethiopia; and what assessment her Department has made of the number of people who have died as a result of food shortages in Ethiopia in the last 12 months. [102748]

  Clare Short
  The overall response to the humanitarian crisis has so far averted mortality that could be directly attributed to levels of starvation. However, low levels of nutrition predispose people to disease, which can raise mortality rates. For this reason, we are working with the Ethiopian Government and other donors to provide assistance with health, water and sanitation in addition to food.

  Forestry (Africa)
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the UK position on the Africa Forest Law Enforcement and Governance Ministerial Conference in April. [101325]

  Clare Short
  The Under-Secretary of State for International Development will make a statement of the UK position at the Africa Law Enforcement and Governance Ministerial in April.

  Global Health Fund
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the(a) performance and (b) future funding of the Global Health Fund. [102814]

  Clare Short
  The primary role of the fund is to provide drugs and commodities for the prevention and treatment of AIDS, TB and Malaria. Wherever possible the Global Fund should be providing support behind strategies that help deliver sustainable improvements in health care. The fund has strong founding principles in this regard, but performance to date to this end has been mixed.

  The UK Government have pledged $200 million over five years to the fund, $80 million of which has been disbursed. In addition we have committed over £1.5 billion since 1997 to support the development of health systems in poorer countries. Strengthening such systems is vital if drugs are to be safely and sustainably supplied to the poor. Our future support for the Global Fund will depend on its effectiveness. It is one of several possible instruments designed to improve basic health care in poor countries.

  International Organisation for Migration
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what plans her Department has to increase its funding to the International Organisation for Migration. [101715]

  Clare Short
  My Department has no current plans to increase funding to the International Organisation for Migration (IOM). To date, DFID's funding of IOM has principally been for practical programmes aimed at improving IOM's capacity in the area of emergency response and preparedness. We will continue to consider any proposals put to us in this or other areas of mutual interest such as research in the field of migration and development. In addition, DFID is responsible for paying half of the UK's annual subscription to IOM. This will continue.

  Uganda
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the reports of a ceasefire by the Lord's Resistance Army. [102808]

  Clare Short
  Both Government and Donors have greeted this announcement with cautious optimism. President Museveni has responded by ordering the Ugandan Army to pull back from frontline positions in one area for a period of five days so that religious leaders, traditional leaders, and a Government peace team can hold face-to-face talks wit h the LRA. It is too early to say what will come out of this process but we are hoping for positive developments so that this terrible conflict might be brought to an end.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of reports by the UN WFP on malnutrition in children in Anaka and Pabbo refugee camps in northern Uganda; and how much aid she is giving in response. [102809]

  Clare Short
  An estimated 800,000 people have been displaced by this conflict in northern Uganda. Access to these groups is often difficult due to insecurity, but we are aware that the malnutrition rates in Anaka and Pabbo displaced persons camps are of grave concern. To date DFID has provided £2.5m for humanitarian needs including £.1.6m to the World Foocl Programme for the emergency purchase and distribution of food supplies. This food, along with other donor contributions, is now being distributed in Pabbo and An aka as well as other camps in northern Uganda. The DFID office in Uganda remains in close touch with agencies working in the area and is continually re-assessing the situation.

  Uzbekistan
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she will make to the Government of Uzbekistan on its human rights record when she chairs the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development meeting in Tashkent. [102191]

  Clare Short
  The EBRD's new strategy for Uzbekistan clearly states the concerns about the situation in Uzbekistan and the need for progress 356W
  with economic and political (including human rights) reforms. The strategy also sets out seven key benchmarks for political (including human rights) and economic progress, and states that the bank will monitor progress towards these benchmarks after one year.

  At the annual meeting I will seek to ensure these messages are delivered strongly, so as to encourage the Uzbek authorities to undertake essential economic and political reforms, which will enhance the country's economic growth, attract investment and reduce poverty.

  Central Asia is a region of desperate poverty, of high levels of debt and corruption, and of deteriorating infrastructure and public services. We hope that the EBRD Annual Meeting will focus international attention on the region, and will provide a forum for a full and open discussion of the need for progress in achieving economic and political transition, tackling poverty, strengthening the investment climate, increasing regional co-operation and improving human rights.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development regarding human rights in Uzbekistan. [102247]

  Clare Short
  EBRD's new two-year strategy for Uzbekistan clearly states the need for improvements in the human rights situation. Encouraging progress with economic and political (including human rights) reform is a central part of the bank's work and the UK Delegation at EBRD has been closely involved in the bank's discussions on Uzbekistan. In addition I have met EBRD's President Lemierre twice in the last six months to discuss the EBRD Annual Meeting, and conditions in Uzbekistan and Central Asia more widely.

TRANSPORT

  Beddingham Level Crossing
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the decision-making process and timescale involved in the proposal to install a double barrier at the level crossing at Beddingham on the A27; what weight is being given to the views of the(a) local county and district councils and (b) the constituency hon. Member; what assessment is being made of the traffic conjunction implications of the proposal; whether the proposal is being considered in conjunction with the separate proposal to construct a flyover over this crossing; and if he will make a statement. [102819]

  Mr. Jamieson
  An application for an Order has been made under the Level Crossing Act 1983 for a full barrier crossing at Beddingham. In accordance with the legislation the draft Order has been sent to all affected local authorities, including the highways authority. The Secretary of State for Transport will consider all representations made against this draft Orde—including the impact on road traffic—before making a decision on the way forward. The consultation period
  357W
  closes on 1 April but the likely timeframe for decisions will be dependent on the level and content of the representations received. Careful consideration will be needed before any final decision on the way forward is made. Decisions related to the long-term future of the crossing will be taken within the context of decisions on the south coast multi-modal study. There is in any case a need to consider the short-term safety issues at Beddingham, which is the purpose of the consultation relating to the draft Order.

  London Transport Schemes
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much his Department and its predecessors spent on transport in London in each of the last five years; and what plans he has to finance new London transport schemes in 2003 to 2008. [100895]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The figures show the Treasury's analysis of public expenditure on Road and Transport in London taken from the annual Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses (PESA).

  £ million

  1997–98

  1,394

  1998–99

  1,436

  1999–2000

  1,366

  2000–01

  1,396

  From 2001/02 onwards, the Government's spending on transport in London, and its plans for the future are laid out in Table A1.1 of Annexe 1 to "Delivering Better Transport: Progress Report", published in December 2002. These are shown as follows:

  £ million

  2001–02

  1,597

  2002–03

  2,189

  2003–04

  2,716

  2004–05

  2,579

  2005–06

  2,504

  2006–07

  2,616

  2007–08

  2,690

  Decisions on individual schemes in London are a matter for the Mayor and Transport for London (TfL). London will also benefit from improvements to the National Rail network.

  Ministerial Speeches
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what rules govern the placing of(a) speeches and (b) notes for speeches by Ministers of his Department (i) on his Department's website and (ii) in the Library. [102193]

  Mr. Spellar
  Ministers address a very wide range of audiences in the course of business.

  Key speeches, such as mark a significant development in, or are significant new statements of policy, are placed on the departmental website. Copies of such speeches will be placed in the Library of the House on request.

  Notes for speeches are not placed on the website or in the Library.
  358W
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 24 February 2003,Official Report, column 290W, on ministerial speeches, if he will place a copy of the notes from which he spoke in the Library. [102340]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have not kept a copy.

  Motorways
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his estimate is of the annual maintenance costs of English motorways in each year from 1985–86 to 2005–06 (planned); if he will provide such estimates, broken down for each such motorway; and if he will make a statement. [101533]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Separate totals for maintenance for years 1985–86 to 1990–91 are not available because accounts for those years were not published at that level of detail. Maintenance costs for 1991–92 onwards are available, but the costs are not split between motorways and other trunk roads, or by individual motorway. Listed in the table is the overall maintenance expenditure by the Highways Agency and its predecessor for each year since 1991–92.

  £ million

  Financial year

  Total cash maintenance expenditure

  1991–92

  482

  1992–93

  539

  1993–94

  584

  1994–95

  595

  1995–96

  615

  1996–97

  550

  1997–98

  582

  1998–99

  641

  1999–2000

  726

  2000–01

  736

  2001–02

  711

  2002–03

  1740

  2003–04

  2748

  2004–05

  2822

  2005–06

  2824

  1 Budget.

  2 Planned.

  Railways
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many train carriages have been ordered in the last four years; how many carriages are expected to be ordered before 2010; and if he will make a statement. [100296]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Since 1999, 2,832 vehicles have been ordered. Over 1,500 have already entered passenger service and the rest are expected to do so by 2005. Future orders are primarily a matter for train operating and rolling stock leasing companies. However, the Strategic Rail Authority's rolling stock strategy, now being developed, aims to assess future rolling stock needs and co-ordinate the ordering process.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment has been made by his Department in the last year of the security arrangements at railway stations; and which have been assessed, listed by station operator. [102198]
  359W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department for Transport's security inspectors regularly monitor the security arrangements at railway stations to ensure that the requisite standards are being met.

  For obvious reasons, it will not be appropriate to detail the assessments carried out at particular stations.

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he plans to take to improve perceptions of safety among users of railway transport. [102228]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department is currently looking at good practice to improve personal security on trains. Part of this work includes considering the perceptions of passengers.

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assessment he has made of the performance of Silverlink train services from Hatch End and Headstone Lane stations into Euston(a) before 1997 and (b) since 1997; and if he will make a statement; [102285]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the performance of the Chiltern Line services from Sudbury Hill and Northolt Park into central London since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [102286]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority publish performance statistics for all train operating companies in their quarterly National Rail Trends publication and their six-monthly "On Track" publication. The figures for each operator are not broken down to route level, but reflect the performance of their services in aggregate. The latest edition of "National Rail Trends" was published on Wednesday 12 March and copies are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Road Safety
  Bob Russell
  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 in other parts of his Department. [102217]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The road safety research programme takes account of research conducted overseas through literature reviews and collaborative projects under the EU Framework programme. Our vehicle standards research feeds into international collaborative agreements where the combined research effort of all participants is used. Every attempt is made not to duplicate research unnecessarily, but the validity of results from research in other countries needs to be assessed to ensure that they are relevant in British road conditions and under our legal and regulatory system. A similar approach is taken in other parts of the Department.

  London Underground
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the Metronet contract will be signed; and when the Mayor of London will take over responsibility for the London Underground. [102392]
  360W
  Mr. Jamieson
  London Underground Ltd. has agreed final commercial terms with Metronet for the remaining two public-private partnership transactions, and expects final completion of the transactions to take place this spring.

  The Government intend to transfer London Underground Ltd. to Transport for London as soon as possible after completion of those transactions.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Nuclear Reactors (North Korea)
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether BNFL remains contracted to build two nuclear reactors for North Korea; and if she will make a statement. [100984]

  Mr. Wilson
  BNFL has no contractual commitments to provide two nuclear reactors for North Korea.

  However, Westinghouse Electric Company LLC, a BNFL subsidiary, has provided technology and supplied components for a number of nuclear plants in South Korea. Westinghouse is under contract with companies in South Korea to manufacture components and to provide system design consulting, in respect of the light-water reactors to be supplied to North Korea by the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organisation (KEDO).

  KEDO is an international organisation formed and funded by the Governments of the United States, South Korea, Japan, the European Union and others. The organisation is responsible for supplying two light-water reactors under the 1994 agreed framework negotiated between the US Government and the North Korean Government.

  Equipment being supplied by Westinghouse for the KEDO projects is subject to US export controls and requires US Government authorisations prior to export.

  British Energy
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will place in the Library a copy of the British Energy restructuring plan at the same time as it is submitted to the European Commission under state aid rules. [101996]

  Mr. Wilson
  No. The submission to the European Commission of the restructuring plan relating to British Energy, which was made on 7 March, contains commercially sensitive information. As such, it is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 13—Third Party Commercial Confidences of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the(a) safety and (b) operational performance of British Energy, following the report of the World Association of Nuclear Operators. [102164]

  Mr. Wilson
  I understand the World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO) review was requested by British Energy, and like all such reviews is confidential
  361W
  between the company and WANO. The Health and Safety Executive's Nuclear Installations' Inspectorate (HSE/NII) welcomes and supports any critical self-examination of health and safety performance by nuclear licensees. The HSE/NII respect the fact that these WANO peer assessments are confidential, although I understand British Energy have briefed the HSE/NII on the main recommendations of the report. The HSE/NII would expect to be informed of any initiatives of relevance to the safe operation of its sites being taken in response to the WANO recommendations.

  Car Batteries
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what guidance she gives on the disposal of motor car batteries; and if she will make a statement. [102399]

  Mr. Wilson
  The UK has an excellent record for recycling automotive batteries and it is estimated that close to 90 per cent. are currently recycled, with the vast majority going to the lead smelters at H.J. Enthoven in Derbyshire and Britannia Refined Metals in Kent.

  Many local authority civic amenity sites offer collection facilities for automotive batteries and some garages and vehicle accessory stores also participate in collection schemes. Consumers facing difficulties in finding out about the nearest collection point for automotive batteries should contact their local authority. In no circumstances should automotive batteries be disposed of with household waste.

  Coal Miners' Compensation
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the liability of licensed small coal mines to contribute to coal health compensation claims. [101836]

  Mr. Wilson
  Licensed small mines have liability together with British Coal for respiratory disease and vibration white finger. The Small Mines Federation is negotiating with the Department and the claimants' solicitors about accession to the claims handling agreement for respiratory disease. Discussions are ongoing with regard to appropriate tortuous dust levels, job dust factors and respirator factors. The issues involved are complex, but a good measure of progress has been made and the Department is pressing for a further meeting on 19 March. Small mines already contribute to compensation under the separate claims handling agreement for vibration white finger.

  Compulsory Purchase
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many properties have been compulsorily purchased by(a) the UK Atomic Energy Authority and (b) the Coal Authority in each year since 1999. [101828]

  Mr. Wilson
  The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority has not undertaken any compulsory purchases in this period. For its part the Coal Authority does not have compulsory purchase powers.

  Electricity
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will estimate the transmission losses of electricity in the UK in 2002, broken down by supplier; and what percentage of total electricity supplied this represents. [101690]

  Mr. Wilson
  Data on electricity losses in 2002 are not yet available. In 2001 total losses of electricity were 30,900 GWh. It is estimated that about 5,600 GWh of this were lost from the high voltage transmission systems and 25,300 GWh (just under 7 per cent. of supply) between the grid supply points an customers meters. As part of its consultation paper on electricity distribution losses OFGEM have published the following figures for losses as a percentage of electricity supplied for each distribution network operator (DNO) in 2000–01. OFGEM have commented that there are many inherent differences in the design and load characteristics of each DNO. Nevertheless, it is not clear that these differences are sufficient to account for the variable performance of distribution companies.

  Distribution network operator

  2000–01(%)

  Eastern

  7.1

  East Midlands

  6.0

  London

  7.3

  Manweb

  9.1

  Midlands

  5.4

  Northern

  6.6

  Norweb

  6.2

  Seeboard

  7.6

  Southern

  7.2

  South Wales

  7.2

  South Western

  7.9

  Yorkshire

  6.6

  Scottish Power

  7.2

  Hydro Electric

  9.1

  Average

  9.1

  Employers' Liability Insurance
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what her estimate is of the number of construction and roofing companies working without employers' liability insurance; [102322]

  (2) what information she has given to members of the public about the risks of exposure to the activities of construction companies that are involved in accidents without employers' liability insurance. [102324]

  Mr. Wilson
  The HSE is responsible for ensuring compliance with ELI rules. Non-compliance is monitored by means of periodic checks undertaken by Workplace Contacts and HSE's Health and Safety Inspectors. Their estimate for non-compliance based on the level of notices to produce and prosecutions for all employers, not just construction and roofing contractors, under employers' liability compulsory insurance HELC—is low, less than 1 per cent. A breakdown of this figure for construction and roofing firms is not available.

  Employers' liability insurance relates to the cost of compensating workers for injury or illness which their employer is liable for. It has no direct relevance to third parties such as members of the public.

  Export Licences
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what export licences were given to UHDE Ltd. of Hounslow to export equipment for the Falluja II chlorine plant mentioned in the Government dossier on Iraq's military programmes of September 2002. [102729]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I deeply regret that previous Administrations have not considered it appropriate to publish information on individual licensing decisions. Information on export licences issued prior to May 1997, where the end users were in Iraq, is not held centrally and a manual search of all the case files would incur disproportionate cost. Details of all relevant export licences since 2 May 1997 are published in the Government's annual reports on strategic export controls. Copies of the 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 annual reports are available in the Libraries of the House. The 2002 annual report will be published in due course.

  The details of this particular case were, however, published in the 1996 report of the inquiry into the export of defence equipment and dual-use goods to Iraq and related prosecutions. The then Vice Chancellor, the right hon. Sir Richard Scott (now the noble Lord Scott of Foscote) concluded that
  "Such equipment as would need, under the contract, to be exported from the UK was not export licensable".
  A copy of the 1996 Scott report is available from the Libraries of the House.

  Nuclear Liabilities
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what resources have been committed in support of her Department's Liabilities Management Unit; what developments have taken place towards the creation of a nuclear liabilities management authority; and if she will make a statement. [101998]

  Mr. Wilson
  By the end of the current financial year, the Department will have spent approximately £9.5 million in support of the Liabilities Management Unit (LMU).

  As announced in the Queen's Speech, the Government will publish draft legislation later this year. This will set out the legal basis for creating the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (formerly the Liabilities Management Authority—the new name better reflects the Authority's role but its remit remains the same). We will also publish at the same time draft memoranda of understanding between the NDA and the nuclear regulators and a draft NDA management statement, setting out the basis of the relationship between the NDA and the Government.

  In the meantime, I can report that good progress is being made in preparing the ground for the NDA. The LMU is developing a comprehensive understanding of the liabilities on legacy sites and working closely with BNFL and UKAEA and the nuclear regulators in a number of important areas including the development of comprehensive long term decommissioning plans for all the legacy sites. My officials are also actively seeking out and talking to relevant and interested stakeholders, in particular through regular meetings with
  364W
  stakeholders at regional level. The first round of these meetings is focusing on explaining progress to date and identifying the issues which stakeholders want to discuss. The second round, in the summer, will focus on how the NDA might work with stakeholders with a view to developing a draft stakeholder engagement framework that the NDA can build on once it is in place.

  Offshore Industry (TUPE Regulations)
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to secure protection under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employees) Regulations 1981 for those engaged in the offshore industry who are employed on the UK continental shelf; and if she will make a statement. [102842]

  Alan Johnson
  The offshore industry is not explicitly excluded from the coverage of the regulations. The regulations implement the EC Acquired Rights Directive, which states that it shall apply where and in so far as the undertaking, business or part to be transferred is situated within the territorial scope of the Treaty.

  The Government have been considering possibilities for the reform of the TUPE Regulations, but has no plans to make further provision specifically in relation to the continental shelf. We announced on 14 February 2003 that a public consultation will be launched in the first half of this year on draft revised regulations. All representations received in that consultation will be taken into account. The new regulations are expected to be in effect by April 2004.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Advertising Costs (Scotland)
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much the Department spent on advertising in Scotland in each year since 1999 on(a) television, (b) newspapers, (c) radio, (d) magazines, (e) billboards and (f) sporting events. [102329]

  Alun Michael
  The Department has incurred no advertising expenditure in Scotland since its formation in June 2001.

  An analysis of the expenditure for each agency and non-departmental body sponsored by the Department could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Animal Movement
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what plans she has to grant an exemption in relation to the six-day rule for animal movements for agricultural shows; [102569]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the potential loss of marketing opportunities for major breeders unable to move from show to show without an exemption for on-farm isolation. [102568]
  365W
  Mr. Morley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in a written statement on 23 January 2003,Official Report, columns 20–23WS, that the standstill would be reduced to six days for cattle, sheep and goats with effect from 4 March, but with far fewer exemptions.

  The removal of most of the exemptions is a counter-balance to the increased risk created by the reduction in the standstill period. The much shorter standstill should make it possible for show organisers to arrange events so that breeders and others wishing to exhibit at shows can plan their movements to comply with the rules.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the proposal to restrict cattle movements to a 96-mile radius; and what impact this will have on those farmers who move animals for finishing purposes. [102793]

  Mr. Morley
  In a written statement on 23 January 2003,Official Report, columns 20–24WS, announcing the Government's decision to reduce the 20-day standstill to six days, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, stated that Defra would commission further work into the possibility of imposing a distance limit on the movement of animals through markets or making such moves subject to special licences. A figure of 150 kilometres was suggested.

  We will discuss this suggestion further with livestock auctioneers and the farming industry in order to obtain more information about the pattern of movements through markets and the likely impact of such a restriction before we reach a view on its merits.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the new arrangements for the restrictions upon animal movements, following the replacement of the 20-day rule, will be fully in place. [102794]

  Mr. Morley
  The Disease Control (Interim Measures) (England) Order 2003 and the Disease Control (Interim Measures) (Wales) Order 2003 both came into effect on 4 March 2003. The Orders reduced the 20-day standstill to six days for cattle, sheep and goats, and removed most of the previous exemptions from the standst

  We intend to consult soon on a number of further proposals aimed at improving biosecurity and disease detection, for possible introduction later this year.

  Avian Influenza
  Mr. Wiggin
  To> ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what compensation her Department will make available to farmers affected by avian influenza. [102363]

  Mr. Morley
  Schedule 3 to the Animal Health Act 1981 provides that, where the Secretary of State causes birds to be slaughtered, compensation for poultry that are not diseased shall be their value immediately before slaughter. No compensation is paid for diseased poultry.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which vectors carry avian influenza. [102364]
  366W
  Mr. Morley
  There are no known insect vectors of avian influenza. Avian influenza spreads by the movement of infected birds, products of infected birds and contaminated materials.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what symptoms are shown by poultry with avian influenza. [102365]

  Mr. Morley
  The clinical signs of avian influenza are variable and depend greatly on the characteristics of the particular virus involved, and on the species and age of the infected poultry.

  Infection of chickens with a highly pathogenic avian influenza virus typically causes severe respiratory signs, swelling of the head, blue discoloration of the wattles and comb and diarrhoea. Death may occur between one and seven days after first appearance of clinical signs.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which countries had outbreaks of avian influenza in(a) 2000, (b) 2001 and (c) 2002. [102369]

  Mr. Morley
  The Office International des Epizooties (World Animal Health Organisation) records that the countries that had outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza in the relevant years are as follows:

  2000

  Italy

  Pakistan

  2001

  Hong Kong

  Saudi Arabia

  2002

  Chile

  Senegal.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent research into avian influenza she has commissioned. [102371]

  Mr. Morley
  The Veterinary Laboratories Agency undertakes on-going research into avian influenza. The main aims of this research are to:

  i) provide a rapid realistic diagnostic service for statutory tests;

  ii) provide an international reference laboratory service;

  iii) improve diagnostic methods of virus detection and characterisation;

  iv) improve our understanding of virus virulence, host range, host adaptation and disease pathogenicity; and

  v) improve our under standing of avian influenza epidemiology.

  The Veterinary Laboratories Agency is also about to co-ordinate a survey for avian influenza viruses in poultry and wild birds. All EU members states are being asked to carry out surveys in accordance with Commission Decision 2002/649/EC to provide information on the incidence strains of low pathogenicity, some of which may have the potential to mutate to high pathogenicity.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many veterinarians are available from the Government's veterinary service to deal with the outbreak of avian influenza. [102373]
  367W
  Mr. Morley
  At the present time, there is not an outbreak of avian influenza in Great Britain.

  There are currently 211 State Veterinary Service permanent Veterinary Officers (VOs) and 48 casual VOs (full-time equivalents) located throughout GB. These would be deployed to eradicate the disease as necessary. Additional veterinary resources could be commissioned in a similar manner to that set out in Defra's Foot and Mouth Contingency Plan, which is scheduled to be laid before Parliament in late March 2003.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what guidance she gives on the treatment of chickens which do not die from avian influenza, but which are on infected farms. [102402]

  Mr. Morley
  EU Council Directive 92/40 lays down that once the presence of avian influenza has been officially confirmed on a holding, all poultry on that holding shall be killed without delay.

  Bathing Waters
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list those bathing waters where bathing water meets the EU mandatory standards, but do nor meet the advisory guidelines. [99253]

  Mr. Morley
  The bathing water compliance results in England for the 2002 bathing season were published on 11 November 2002. The News Release can be found on the Defra website at www.defra.gov.uk/news/2002/021111a.htm. This release provides a link to a list of all the bathing waters in England that met the EU mandatory standards last year and those that also passed the more stringent guideline standards.

  Bird Registration Scheme
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the progress being made on the Bird Registration scheme. [102435]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 12 March 2003]Our consultation on the future of the Bird Registration scheme in autumn 2002 attracted over 400 responses from individuals; from groups and organisations known to have an interest in the scheme from central and local government organisations; and from police forces and other enforcement agencies.

  These responses have been carefully analysed and I intend to make an announcement shortly.

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what(a) research she has collated and (b) guidance she has given on the susceptibility of red deer to bovine tuberculosis; and what assessment she has made of the likely impact of bovine tuberculosis on the red deer herd on Exmoor. [102147]

  Mr. Morley
  The information is as follows.
  368W
  (a) Defra is funding the Central Science Laboratory to carry out research into the risk to cattle from wildlife species other than badgers in areas of high herd breakdown. The research project is proceeding according to plan and the findings will be published in due course.

  (b) Mycobacterium bovis is isolated almost every year from wild red deer specimens submitted to the Veterinary Laboratories Agency as part of the statutory requirement to notify suspect lesions in deer carcases. In 2002 there was one positive isolate from a red deer from Exmoor. There has been no formal assessment of the effect of bovine tuberculosis on wild deer populations.

  Statutory controls are in place to deal with bovine tuberculosis in farmed deer.

  Bushmeat
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of bushmeat seizures at UK ports over the past 12 months have resulted in a prosecution. [101351]

  Mr. Morley
  We are not aware of any prosecutions resulting from seizures of bushmeat at UK ports over the past 12 months.

  Prosecutions for offences relating to bushmeat can be brought under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species by HM Customs, and under the Products of Animal Origin (Third Country Imports) (England) regulations by local authorities.

  Bushmeat forms only a very small proportion of reported seizures of products of animal origin—less than 2.5 per cent. Seizures are confiscated and destroyed.

  Domestic Abuse
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to ensure the provision of facilities and services for victims of domestic abuse in remote rural areas. [97754]

  Alun Michael
  Policy responsibility for domestic violence, including provision of services for victims, lies outside my Department. However, the Government are committed to "rural-proofing" all their policies. The Department and the Countryside Agency work with other Government Departments to ensure that rural aspects of policies are addressed and to improve service delivery in rural areas.

  The Countryside Agency is working on two pilot initiatives. One is with Crime Concern and their local partners to quantify the nature and extent of domestic violence in rural Wiltshire and to implement innovative methods of early intervention, and the other with Save the Children UK to examine the impact of domestic violence on rural children in the West Midlands region.

  Rural Development
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many grants
  369W
  have been approved under the land-based schemes of the England Rural Development Programme since its inception; and what proportion of the total available budget this represented in each year. [102404]

  Scheme

  Total number of agreements

  Number of agreements approved between 2000–021,2

  Scheme budget 2000–06 (£ million)

  Countryside Stewardship Scheme

  13,858

  6,290

  481

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas

  12,300

  1,677

  330

  Organic Farming Scheme

  n/a

  1,085

  141

  Woodland Grant Scheme

  32,748

  7,058

  139

  Farm Woodland Premium Scheme/Farm Woodland Scheme

  10,059

  2,389

  77

  Energy Crops Scheme

  n/a

  31

  32

  Hill Farm Allowance2

  n/a

  9,953

  254

  1 Figures for number of approved agreements are provisional as some agreements for 2002 remain to be processed. Agreements entered into before 2000 are excluded.

  2 For Hill Farm Allowance, figure relates to number of payments made on claims received in 2002 rather than agreements approved over the years 2000 to 2002.

  It is not possible to compare the value of approved agreements in a given year directly with the budget for that year, because (a) the majority of agreements under the land based schemes are for commitments lasting 10 years or more and with payments made annually; (b) first payments under individual agreements may not always be made in the same year as the agreement is approved; and (c) much of the current budget for land based schemes is expended on commitments entered into before the ERDP began in 2000.

  In financial year 2000–01, 83 per cent. of the total budget available for the ERDP land-based schemes was spent, and in financial year 2001–02, 89 per cent. of the total budget available for the ERDP land-based schemes was spent.

  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to(a) encourage the take-up and (b) speed up the processing of grants for land-based schemes of the England Rural Development Programme. [102405]

  Alun Michael
  All ERDP schemes are being promoted both at national and regional level through joint working with partner organisations, at events such as agricultural shows and other public events, news releases and local publicity, and workshops for potential applicants.

  Alun Michael
  In addition, a number of initiatives are in place to encourage uptake of particular ERDP land-based schemes. For example, the opening of the 2003 Countryside Stewardship Scheme (CSS) application window was announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment on 7 November 2002 and applications have been encouraged through advertisements in the national farming press. In order to increase the number of farmers converting to organic production methods, the Organic Farming Scheme (OFS) will be relaunched from May 2003 with a new option that allows payments to be made (over a five year agreement) for the management of organically farmed land in an environmentally beneficial way. In addition, steps are under way to improve the take up of the Energy Crops Scheme (ECS), which supports the establishment of short rotation coppice and miscanthus as renewable energy sources. The Government have allocated
  370W
  The following table shows the number of ERDP agreements approved under the land based schemes since the Programme began in 2000, and the total programme budget for each scheme.

  £66 million to the development of end markets for such crops, and £3.5 million for improvements to the fuels supply infrastructure. We will also be reviewing the rules in respect of the co-firing of energy crops with coal.

  The payment of some claims has recently been delayed due to the need under EU regulations to cross-check land-based scheme agreements against the IACS database. Steps have now been taken to speed up the processing of applications and payments through the streamlining of administrative procedures. In addition, a simplified claim form for CSS payments was introduced last year, to significantly ease the burden on beneficiaries. Also, to allow more time for the preparation of CSS applications, the application window has been opened two months earlier than in previous years. Over the longer term, major reviews of both the agri-environment and forestry schemes are considering ways of rationalising and simplifying existing arrangements. To this end a pilot of the Entry Level Scheme, which is designed to encourage a large number of farmers across a wide area of farmland to deliver simple yet effective environmental management on their farms, was launched on 27 February. Together with the introduction of new IT systems in Defra, the Rural Payments Agency and the Forestry Commission, these developments should lead to significant improvements in the speed and efficiency of land-based scheme administration.

  Forestry Commission Disposals
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many disposals of land(a) under 100 acres and (b) over 100 acres have been completed by the Forestry Commission in (i) Scotland, (ii) England and (iii) Wales. [101739]

  Mr. Morley
  The subject of the question relates to matters undertaken by Forest Enterprise. I asked its Chief Executive, Dr. Bob McIntosh, to arrange a written response.

  Letter from Bob McIntosh to Mr. Peter Duncan, dated March 2003:
  I refer to your question asking the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for details of sales of Forestry Commission land.
  371W
  I set out below details of the number of cases of forestry land sold this financial year.

  (40 hectares)

  Country

  Under 100 acres

  Over 100 acres

  Scotland

  15

  5

  England

  6

  1

  Wales

  1

  1

  I hope that you will find this helpful.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her policy towards Forestry Commission disposals of land to(a) community purchase and (b) smallholding farmers. [101742]

  Mr. Morley
  The Forestry Commission operates a sponsorship scheme by which bodies with environmental responsibilities or interests and local communities may be given a preferential opportunity to acquire surplus property which has been identified for sale and which has either a recreational, conservation or amenity interest or is of interest to a local community for their social and economic development.

  Communities may purchase such surplus on condition that they gain sponsorship from the relevant Government Department or Agency. The sponsorship is, in effect, a statement from the Department or Agency certifying that a sale direct to the community would be more in the public interest than selling the land on the open market. The District Valuer determines the sale price.

  There is no specific policy in respect of sales of land to Smallholding Farmers. However, the Commission usually sells surplus agricultural land on the open market. Where the land is tenanted, the farmer would be given a prior opportunity to purchase.

  GM Crops
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what consultations with Government the Food Standards Agency undertook before embarking on the GM public debate. [100864]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Food Standards Agency announced its plans to involve consumers in debating issues related to GM food last July and has kept both Government and the Public Debate Steering Board fully informed of progress since then.

  Dairy Products (Imports)
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list dairy products which if brought into the UK by international travellers are considered to be a health risk by the "Don't Bring Back More Than You Bargained For" campaign; and what risks are associated with each. [101268]

  Mr. Morley
  Passengers entering the United Kingdom from third countries are prohibited by EU and domestic law from bringing in for their personal consumption, milk and milk products.
  372W
  These prohibited products include, milk, cheese, butter, yoghurt, ghee, and milk powder.

  In terms of animal health, exotic viral diseases that can be transmitted in milk include Foot and Mouth Disease, Rinderpest and Peste des Petits Ruminants. Heat treatment or other processing could destroy some or all of the virus present in the product but there remains the possibility of recontamination after production.

  In terms of human health, there is no definitive list of dairy products that may be considered to be a health risk. All food products that are not subject to stringent health and hygiene controls may be contaminated with bacteria or undesirable chemicals. The Food Standards Agency has responsibility for human food safety matters.

  Uncontrolled animal products (including dairy products) pose an increased risk to human and animal health in general terms primarily due to their perishable nature and association as vectors of both animal disease and human pathogens.

  Light Pollution
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action her Department is taking to curb light pollution; and if she will make a statement. [101186]

  Alun Michael
  We included nuisance lighting options in our "Living Places—Powers, Rights, Responsibilities" consultation paper. That consultation exercise closed on 14 February. We are in the process of analysing the responses received in order to decide how to proceed.

  Poultry Meat imports (Brazil)
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether she has made representations concerning the non-compliance of Brazil with EU residue testing and veterinary certification requirements. [101571]

  Mr. Morley
  Following the detection of nitrofurans in poultry meat imported from Brazil, the EU has introduced legislation requiring all consignments of poultry meat from Brazil to be tested to ensure that the products concerned do not present a hazard to human health. No poultry meat from Brazil is permitted to enter the community unless the results of these checks are favourable. Any poultry meat that tests positive for nitrofurans or their metabolites will be destroyed.

  The UK has implemented the provisions of this decision. The European Commission is engaged in discussions with the Brazilian authorities and my Department is monitoring the situation.

  All meat imported into the UK from third countries must enter at designated UK Border Inspection Posts (BIPs) where it is subject to veterinary inspections. All consignments are subject to documentary and identity checks and at least 20 per cent. of consignments undergo physical checks. These ensure import conditions are met and that the products remain in a satisfactory condition during transport.
  373W
  If during the documentary check, a problem is found with the accompanying veterinary certification, appropriate action will be taken.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received concerning the import into the UK of whole turkeys from Brazil at below production cost. [101573]

  Mr. Morley
  My colleagues and I, and the Department, have received two letters on this subject, and the broader question of imports of poultry meat from third countries has been discussed with several stakeholders in recent weeks.

  Noise Emissions
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the EU Directive relating to noise emissions from outdoor equipment. [102475]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The EC noise emission in the environment by equipment for use outdoors Directive was adopted by the European Parliament and Council on 3 July 2000 as Directive 2000/14/EC. Its purpose is to harmonise national laws of member states regarding noise emission limits and labelling requirements at the manufacturing stage.

  The Directive was implemented into UK law by The Noise Emission in the Environment by Equipment for use Outdoors Regulations 2001 (SI 2001/1701) made under the European Communities Act 1972.

  The Directive and implementing UK Regulations apply to 57 types of equipment for use outdoors ranging from construction machinery to lawnmowers that require noise emission measurements to be taken and to fix labels showing the "guaranteed" noise levels of each machine. In addition the Directive and implementing UK Regulations set noise limits for 22 of the 57 types of equipment that are intended to be first placed on the market or taken into service as an entire unit.

  Equipment is subject to conformity assessment, as with other European Directives of this type. Certain types of equipment, is subject to third party assessment by a Notified Body. In the UK these organisations are appointed by the Secretary of State, according to certain minimum criteria laid down in the Directive and Regulations, following an assessment by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service. A manufacturer or his authorised representative established in the Community may use the services of Notified Bodies in any of the other member states.

  Once conformity assessment has been completed and provided that the equipment subsequently complies with the provisions of the Directive and any other applicable Regulations, the manufacturer will be required to affix the CE marking together with the indication of the guaranteed sound power level.

  Enforcement of the UK Regulations is carried out by the Vehicle Certification Agency. The penalties for non-compliance range from the issuing of suspension notices to imprisonment or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the
  374W
  standard scale. It should be noted, however, that the VCA are seeking to work with manufacturers to help them comply properly, as well as taking enforcement action in justifiable cases.

  Non-Bovine Carcases
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans he has to support farmers with the cost of collection of non-bovine animal carcases from 1 April. [101768]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 7 March 2003]: The Government are already voluntarily contributing nearly £30 million annually for the collection and disposal of fallen stock for TSE testing purposes. The Government have been discussing with the livestock industry how we can build on the arrangements that are already in place to develop a wider service for collecting fallen stock when the new animal by-products regulation banning burial comes into force from 1 May. Any further progress is dependent upon the willingness of the livestock industry to make a financial contribution to a national scheme.

  Pesticides
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many pesticides are(a) approved for use in the UK, (b) approved for use in the UK but not for use in the European Union and (c) manufactured in the UK and approved for use in third countries but not in the UK or the EU; and when each was approved for use in (i) the UK, (ii) the EU and (iii) third countries. [101270]

  Mr. Morley
  At present there are approvals for 4,112 individual pesticide products in the UK. The number of active substances for which there are one or more approved products is currently 336.

  There are two active substances that are approved for agricultural use in the UK but not for use in other member states. Differences in approvals between countries can arise because different approval conditions are applied or because commercial approvals are not sought in all countries. A spreadsheet (named the 'Indicative list') giving details of pesticides approved in each member state can be found on the Commission's website at: http://europa.euant/comm/food/fs/ph_ps/pro/eva/existinq/index_en.htm

  The Government do not hold this information, as the UK's pesticide legislation does not extend to the manufacture of pesticides or to those pesticides intended solely for exportation from the UK. Neither do the Government have information on the details of pesticides approved for use in the third countries or information on when each pesticide was approved for use in the EU and third countries. Within the UK pesticides have been approved for use under the Control of Pesticides Regulations (COPR) since October 1986.

  Raptor Protection
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to deregulate raptor protection. [99616]
  375W
  Mr. Morley
  There are no plans to deregulate raptor protection. All wild birds, including raptors are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. However, I recognise the problems presented by birds of prey to game bird managers and pigeon fanciers, and believe the recommendations from the Raptor Working Group's final report, published in 2000, will provide an integrated solution to the problems presented by birds of prey in these particular sectors.

  Work is already being taken forward by the country conservation agencies, and other organisations, and includes research in Scotland examining levels of pigeon predation, at lofts and release sites and during races, and testing the feasibility of using radio tags to follow pigeons when training or racing, I look forward to hearing the results. In addition, English Nature has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Moorland Association on addressing the issue of raptor predation in the uplands.

  Implementation of the Working Group's report's recommendations in Scotland and Wales is of course a matter for the devolved Administrations. Nevertheless, I have asked the Joint Nature Conservation Committee to report generally on progress.

  Copies of the Raptor Working Group report are available from the Library of the House.

  Regional Government
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the administrative cost of the Countryside Agency to each Government Office of the Region was in(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01, (c) 2001–02 and (d) 2002–03. [103016]

  Alun Michael
  The Countryside Agency is a Non-Departmental Public Body funded directly by Defra and it does not impose any costs on the Government Offices.

  Ducks
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her Written Ministerial Statement on 3 March 2003,Official Report, column 71WS, how much additional money she will be spending on future research work into the ruddy and white-headed duck populations. [101381]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 March 2003]The Department has completed the ruddy duck control trial and will spend an additional £100,000 this financial year on research work into refining control methods for the ruddy duck. Further research will be undertaken in 2003–04. Final decisions have not yet been taken on the allocation of the research budget, but the expected expenditure is around £250,000. We also propose to participate in a white-headed duck workshop to be held later this year in Morocco. The workshop will consider various control methods used on ruddy ducks throughout Europe and North Africa.

  Illegal Meat Imports
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many sniffer dogs are being used to detect illegal meat imports at UK airports and ports; and where they are used. [102157]
  376W
  Mr. Morley
  We are running a six-month pilot with two detector dogs, based at Heathrow airport. They are working in baggage, cargo and mail areas, and have been tested in a number of locations.

  Noise Mapping Project
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the national noise mapping project, launched on 12 December 2002, will include the regular sounding of horns by trains at particular points on rail lines. [102530]

  Alun Michael
  The information being collected for the noise mapping project considers the level of noise on the basis of the 16 hour day, 4 hour evening and 8 hour night period, when averaged over a year.

  The initial stage of the project does not consider short-term noise events such as the regular sounding of horns by trains.

  Train drivers are required to sound their horns at level crossings and on the approaches to tunnels to give extra warning of the approach of trains to those who may wish to cross or are working on the track. This is done on the grounds of safety.

  Trees
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to increase plantation of trees to boost the supply of wood available as fuel in the UK; and if she will make a statement. [101291]

  Mr. Morley
  Forestry is a devolved matter, and the policies for tree planting in Scotland and Wales are therefore the responsibility of the Scottish Executive and the Welsh Assembly Government respectively.

  We are committed to increasing the use of renewable energy. This includes the use of woodfuel from both traditional woodland and short rotation coppice. There is already considerable scope for increased sustainable harvesting for woodfuel in existing woodland in England, and we also expect the area of woodland to continue to increase at its current rate of around 5,000 hectares per year. Support for woodland creation is provided by the Woodland Grant Scheme and Farm Woodland Premium Scheme, while the Energy Crops Scheme offers financial incentives for the establishment of short rotation coppice as woodfuel. A review of the support for woodland creation has been carried out, and the results will be published in the spring.

  Turkey Meat
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research her Department has commissioned in the last two years into the UK turkey meat market. [101570]

  Mr. Morley
  None. However, digests summarising technical research in the poultry sector were published by ADAS in November 2001 and April 2002. The aim of the review was to publish poultry research findings of interest to the poultry industry. The reports cover turkey production, marketing, nutrition, welfare and
  377W
  meat quality, and are available on the Defra website at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodrin/poultry/techtransfer/index.htm

  Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received regarding the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive. [101975]

  Mr. Meacher
  We have received representations from numerous stakeholders including local authorities, dismantlers, retailers, manufacturers and small businesses.

TREASURY

  Working Hours
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in(a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Northern Ireland and (d) Wales work less than 16 hours a week. [102780]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Nigel Evans, dated 13 March 2003:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about people who work less than 16 hours a week by country of residence. (102780)
  The attached table gives the information requested for the three-month period ending November 2002. These estimates are from the Labour Force Survey (LFS). They are not seasonally adjusted.

  People who work less than 16 hours a week by country of residence1—United Kingdom—September to November 2002

  Thousands, not seasonally adjusted

  UK

  2,422

  England

  2,084

  Wales

  98

  Scotland

  190

  Northern Ireland

  50

  1 Total usual weekly hours worked in main job, including paid and unpaid overtime.

  Note:

  These Labour Force Survey (LFS) estimates are Not Seasonally Adjusted (NSA) and have not yet been adjusted to take account of the Census 2001 results.

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey

  Accountancy Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total cost to his Department was for accountancy services in 2002. [101568]

  Ruth Kelly
  This information is not held in the format required, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Advertising Costs (Scotland)
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much the Department spent on advertising in Scotland in each year since 1999 on(a) television, (b) newspapers, (c) radio, (d) magazines, (e) billboards and (f) sporting events. [102335]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information is as follows:

  Customs and Excise

  HMCE spends 1999–2002 by Media Scotland only

  £

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Total

  TV

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Newspapers

  —

  26,966.00

  45,466

  11,716.61

  84,148.61

  Radio

  —

  —

  20,128.95

  7,897.45

  28,026.40

  Magazines

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Billboards

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sporting events

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  —

  26,966.00

  65,594.95

  19,614.06

  112,175.01

  Valuation Office Agency

  The detailed breakdown requested is not available. However, the total amount spent on advertising in Scotland was as follows:

  £

  Total spent on advertising

  19991–2000

  35

  2000–01

  0

  2001–02

  0

  2002–03

  1146.87

  1 To date

  Inland Revenue

  It is not possible to separate out costs for all media as this is generally bought on a UK wide basis. Where this is possible separating out spending for Scotland would incur disproportionate costs.

  National Savings and Investments

  National Savings and Investments spends 1999–2002 by Media Scotland only

  £

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Total

  TV

  218,466

  —

  —

  —

  218,466

  Press

  13,245

  3,510

  6,107

  18,183

  41,045

  Billboards

  —

  —

  —

  38,316

  38,316

  Radio

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  TOTAL

  231,711

  3,510

  6,107

  56,499

  297,827

  Source:

  DDS, Outdoor Connection

  The figures for press relate only to Scottish newspapers.

  Royal Mint

  The Royal Mint advertises in the UK media but does not currently break down spend geographically below this level.

  No expenditure was incurred by the Treasury, the Office for National Statistics, the Office of Government Commerce, the Debt Management Office and the Government's Actuary's Department.

  Economic Instruments
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his policy is on the selective use by the EU of economic instruments where the aim is to influence environmental behaviour. [102473]

  John Healey
  Economic and market-based instruments are one of the range of instruments that can be used to influence environmental behaviour. As stated in the European Economic Reform White Paper 'Realising Europe's Potential', published in February 2002, the Government are in favour of the use of such instruments at Community level where these are most appropriate.

  The voluntary agreements with car manufacturers on carbon dioxide emissions from new cars and the forthcoming EU Emission Trading Scheme are good examples of the community, with the Government's support, developing economic and market-based instruments where these are most appropriate to address environmental issues with a strong trans-boundary or single market dimension.

  Generally, the Government will only allow departures from member states' freedom to set tax rates and bases where there are strong, specific reasons for the UK to do so which would otherwise be undermined by a lack of community level action. For example, the Government recognise that there are strong and specific reasons to agree common approaches to tackle climate change. Otherwise, for example, businesses could relocate within the EU to member states that did not tax the causes of climate change—thereby not reducing climate change at all.

  For this reason, the Government are prepared to agree to the proposed EU energy products directive that would increase the minimum rates of duty on road fuels within the EU and introduce minimum rates on some other energy products. This proposal is currently being discussed in Brussels and the Government expect that agreement will be reached on it shortly. However, the Government believe that member states should be free to tax more than the minimum rates if they wish to do so.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he takes to ensure that his use of economic instruments is consistent with sound environmental practice; if proposals for tax changes are always subject to prior environmental impact assessment; and if he will make a statement. [102474]

  John Healey
  The Chancellor takes account of all relevant social, economic and environmental factors when deciding taxation policy. The environmental impacts of Budget measures are taken into account in the Budget decision-making process. The impacts of any measures which have a significant environmental effect are published in the Budget and pre-Budget report documents.

  The document 'Tax and the environment: using economic instruments', published with the 2002 pre-Budget report, sets out how the Government use an evidence-based approach based on an assessment of costs and benefits when developing environmental policy measures.

  Founation Hospitals
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what request he has recently made to the Office of National Statistics in relation to confirming the correct accounting treatment for the classification of the borrowings of foundation hospitals; and if he will make a statement. [101620]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 10 March 2003]Treasury officials consult ONS about the national accounts treatment of new institutions as a matter of routine. Treasury officials sent a letter to ONS on the 3 February 2003 with the full involvement of DH officials. This was a routine inquiry and not undertaken by Ministers.

  Fuel Tax
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what account he has taken of the trends in relative transport costs of(a) car, (b) bus and (c) train over the last 30 years in determining his policy on fuel tax for private vehicles. [102480]

  John Healey
  The Chancellor takes into account all relevant social, environmental and economic factors when setting road fuel duty rates.

  IT Projects
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list each information technology project being undertaken by his Department and its agencies including(a) the start date, (b) the planned completion date, (c) the current expected completion date, (d) the planned cost and (e) the current estimated cost; and if he will make a statement. [98223]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information has been placed in the Library.

  Landfill Tax
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps are being taken to enable the administration of the new landfill tax credit scheme. [102343]

  John Healey
  From 1 April 2003 the landfill tax credit scheme will be capped at a value of around £47 million per year for spending on local community environmental projects, ensuring that the current level of support for these projects is maintained. The Government have been considering the detailed administration and criteria for the successor scheme in consultation with stakeholders and are considering how the management of the scheme might be improved to ensure greater transparency and accountability, more attention to value for money, and better evaluation of projects. The Government will set out their plans for reform on a Budget timetable.

  Pension Funds (Tax Treatment)
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the proposal in his consultation document on the tax treatment of pension funds for a £1.4 million limit on tax exempt pension in savings includes(a) funded public sector schemes and (b) unfunded public sector schemes. [100795]
  381W
  Ruth Kelly
  The Government consultation paper, "Simplifying the Taxation of Pensions: Increasing Choice and Flexibility for All", proposes a framework of benefit rules that would apply, from the date of its introduction, to any pension scheme, whether in the public or private sector, that wished to utilise pension tax privileges. The consultation period allows people to put forward their views before final decisions are taken.

  Waste Management
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is his policy that revenue from landfill tax be recycled to business to improve waste management performance. [102730]

  John Healey
  As announced in the 2002 pre-Budget report, the Government are consulting with stakeholders on a revenue-neutral proposal to increase the landfill tax escalator to £3 per tonne in 2005–06 and to increase the rate of the tax by at least £3 per tonne in future years, on the way to a medium to long term rate of £35 per tonne. It is the Government's intention that these increases will be introduced in a way that is revenue neutral to business as whole. Decisions on how to achieve this will announced as part of the Budget process, taking account of views from stakeholders.

DEFENCE

  International Military Services
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what evidence he has examined with regard to the claim by the Government of Iraq that International Military Services supplied(a) materials, (b) expertise and (c) other types of support for the development of (i) missiles and (ii) rocketry. [98869]

  Mr. Hoon
  International Military Services ceased trading on 31 July 1991. Any transactions prior to that date will have been governed by our arms export policy at the time.

  A400M
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the expected unit price is of each A400M aircraft; and what effect on that price the withdrawal of Portugal from the project involves. [102574]

  Mr. Ingram
  I am withholding the unit price information in accordance with Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, which relates to third party's commercial confidences. The withdrawal of Portugal had no effect on the unit price.

  Al Yamamah Deal
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 12 February 2003,Official Report, column 737W, on the Al Yamamah deal, when he estimates that the Al Yamamah programme will cease to have a significant impact on British jobs and exports. [101924]
  382W
  Mr. Ingram
  Al Yamamah is an on-going programme with no specific end point. Because of its importance for British jobs and exports, we look forward to providing continuing and long-term support for the equipment already delivered.

  AWACS
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the(a) establishment and (b) strength is of weapons controller personnel on the E3D AWACS fleet. [102575]

  Mr. Ingram
  The establishment for weapons controllers on the E3D AWACS fleet on 1 March 2003 was 33. The trained strength on the same date was 23. The shortfall of 10 being recently established posts that have still to be filled.

  Biological/Chemical Warfare
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what communications he has had with his United States counterparts since 5 February in respect of the United Kingdom opposition to(a) incapacitants and (b) irritant chemical agents in warfare. [102074]

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has made to the United States administration about the British Government's policy on the use by British armed forces of incapacitant and calmative weapons, and irritant chemical agents during wartime. [102414]

  Mr. Hoon
  None.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the compatibility of disabling nerve agents with international obligations governing chemical weapons. [101941]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 10 March 2003]The Chemical Weapons Convention prohibits the development, production and use of all toxic chemicals (both lethal and incapacitating) and their precursors, except where they are intended for purposes not prohibited under the Convention, as long as the type and quantities are consistent with such purposes.

  Council Tax Rebates
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether members of the Armed Forces on deployment are entitled to council tax rebates; and if he will make a statement. [102516]

  Dr. Moonie
  All Service personnel who own a private property remain liable to pay council tax on their own property to the local authority concerned. Council tax rebates are a matter for local authorities and it is for them to interpret the regulations concerning "sole or main residence". In reaching their decision they consider case law arising from earlier council tax appeals, which takes various factors into account including the amount of time spent at a property, whether it is the family home, and security of tenure.

  Foreign Warships
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what foreign warships have been involved in Royal Naval training exercises in UK domestic waters in the past two years. [102572]

  Mr. Ingram
  Royal Navy operational sea training, is recognised as a world leader. In the past two years, 129 warships from 15 nations undertook training with or were trained by the Royal Navy in UK domestic waters. Details are as follows.

  Nationality

  Name Of Unit

  Type of training

  Year

  Bangladesh

  Kapatappa

  OST1

  2002

  Belgium

  Westdiep

  OST

  2001

  Belgium

  Lobelia

  JMC2

  2001

  Belgium

  Godetia

  JMC

  2001

  Belgium

  Crocus

  JMC

  2001

  Belgium

  Wielingen

  JMC

  2001

  Belgium

  Westdiep

  JMC

  2001

  Canada

  Halifax

  JMC

  2001

  Canada

  Ursula

  OST

  2001

  Denmark

  Saelen

  JMC

  2001

  Denmark

  Skaden

  JMC

  2001

  Denmark

  Viben

  JMC

  2001

  Denmark

  Hvidbjornen

  JMC

  2002

  Finland

  Rubis

  JMC

  2002

  France

  La Fayette

  OST

  2002

  France

  Cdr Blaison

  JMC

  2001

  France

  De Grasse

  JMC

  2001

  France

  Marne

  JMC

  2001

  France

  S M Le Bihan

  JMC

  2001

  France

  Siroco

  JMC

  2001

  France

  Croix Du Sud

  JMC

  2001

  France

  Latouche Treville

  JMC

  2002

  France

  Primauguet

  JMC

  2002

  France

  Le Henaff

  JMC

  2002

  France

  Orion

  JMC

  2002

  France

  Styx

  JMC

  2002

  France

  Le Henaff

  JMC

  2002

  France

  Com L'herminier

  JMC

  2002

  Germany

  Augsburg

  OST

  2002

  Germany

  Brandenburg

  OST

  2002

  Germany

  Bremen

  OST

  2002

  Germany

  Emden

  OST

  2001

  Germany

  Frankfurt Am Main

  OST

  2002

  Germany

  Freiburg

  OST

  2001

  Germany

  Karlsruhe

  OST

  2001

  Germany

  Luetjens

  OST

  2001

  Germany

  Mecklenburg

  OST

  2001

  Germany

  Vorpommern

  OST

  2002

  Germany

  Schleswig Holstein

  OST

  2001

  Germany

  Lubeck

  JMC

  2001

  Germany

  Augsburg

  JMC

  2001

  Germany

  Bremen

  JMC

  2001

  Germany

  Rhon

  JMC

  2001

  Germany

  Fulda

  JMC

  2001

  Germany

  Rhein

  JMC

  2001

  Germany

  Bad Bevensen

  JMC

  2001

  Germany

  Walchensee

  JMC

  2001

  Germany

  Greif

  JMC

  2001

  Germany

  Kondor

  JMC

  2001

  Germany

  Habicht

  JMC

  2001

  Germany

  Hermelin

  JMC

  2001

  Germany

  Kormoran

  JMC

  2001

  Germany

  Elbe

  JMC

  2001

  Germany

  Molders

  JMC

  2001

  Germany

  Lutjens

  JMC

  2001

  Germany

  Spessart

  JMC

  2001

  Germany

  Karlsruhe

  JMC

  2001

  Germany

  U22

  JMC

  2001

  Germany

  Mecklenburg

  JMC

  2002

  Vorpommern

  384W

  Nationality

  Name Of Unit

  Type of training

  Year

  Greece

  Bouboulina

  OST

  2002

  Greece

  Callisto

  OST

  2001

  Greece

  Elli

  OST

  2002

  Greece

  Limnos

  OST

  2001

  Guyana

  Essequibo

  OST

  2001

  Netherlands

  Abraham Van Der Hulst

  OST

  2001

  Netherlands

  Bloys Van Treslong

  OST

  2001

  Netherlands

  Jacob Van Heemskerk

  OST

  2001

  Netherlands

  Van Galen

  OST

  2002

  Netherlands

  Van Nes

  OST

  2001

  Netherlands

  Van Speijk

  OST

  2002

  Netherlands

  Walrus

  OST

  2001

  Netherlands

  Van Amstel

  JMC

  2001

  Netherlands

  Makkum

  JMC

  2001

  Netherlands

  Schiedam

  JMC

  2001

  Netherlands

  Vlaardingen

  JMC

  2001

  Netherlands

  Bruinvis

  JMC

  2001

  Netherlands

  Vlaardingen

  JMC

  2001

  Netherlands

  Bruinvis

  JMC

  2001

  Netherlands

  Scheveningen

  JMC

  2001

  Netherlands

  J V Heemskerk

  JMC

  2001

  Netherlands

  Harlingen

  JMC

  2002

  Netherlands

  Middelburg

  JMC

  2002

  Netherlands

  Van Nes

  JMC

  2002

  Netherlands

  Walrus

  OST

  2002

  Netherlands

  Walrus

  JMC

  2002

  Netherlands

  Maassluis

  JMC

  2002

  Netherlands

  Willemstad

  JMC

  2002

  Netherlands

  Bruinvis

  OST

  2002

  Norway

  Uredd

  JMC

  2001

  Norway

  Bergen

  JMC

  2001

  Norway

  Maaloey

  JMC

  2001

  Norway

  Utstein

  JMC

  2001

  Norway

  Narvik

  JMC

  2001

  Norway

  Uthaug

  JMC

  2001

  Norway

  Trondheim

  JMC

  2002

  Norway

  Uredd

  JMC

  2002

  Norway

  Utvaer

  JMC

  2002

  Poland

  Orzel

  OST

  2001

  Poland

  Orzel

  JMC

  2002

  Portugal

  Corte Real

  OST

  2001

  Portugal

  Vasco De Gama

  OST

  2001

  Portugal

  Corte Real

  JMC

  2001

  Spain

  Reina Sofia

  JMC

  2001

  Spain

  Extremadura

  JMC

  2001

  Spain

  Patino

  JMC

  2001

  Spain

  Canarias

  JMC

  2002

  Spain

  Santa Maria

  JMC

  2002

  Spain

  Patino

  JMC

  2002

  Spain

  Orion

  JMC

  2002

  Sweden

  Gavle

  OST

  2002

  Sweden

  Goteburg

  OST

  2001

  Sweden

  Kalmar

  OST

  2001

  Sweden

  Vinga

  OST

  2001

  Sweden

  Vinga

  OST

  2002

  Sweden

  Arholma

  OST

  2002

  Sweden

  Gotland

  JMC

  2001

  Sweden

  Goteburg

  JMC

  2002

  Sweden

  Kalmar

  JMC

  2002

  Sweden

  Visborg

  JMC

  2002

  USA

  Winston Churchill

  OST

  2001

  USA

  Enterprise

  JMC

  2001

  USA

  Arctic

  JMC

  2001

  USA

  Philippine

  JMC

  2001

  USA

  McFaul

  JMC

  2001

  USA

  Hampton

  JMC

  2001

  USA

  Samuel E Morison

  JMC

  2001

  USA

  Anzio

  JMC

  2002

  USA

  Cape St. George

  JMC

  2002

  USA

  Conneticut

  JMC

  2002

  USA

  Mahan

  JMC

  2002

  1 Operational Sea Training

  2 Joint Maritime Course

  Frigates
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether warships will be re-allocated to Atlantic Patrol (North) duties following the deployment of HMS Iron Duke in support of operations in Sierra Leone. [102573]

  Mr. Ingram
  Outside the hurricane season, May to November, the unit assigned to APT (N) is routinely at 14 days notice to be in the Caribbean theatre. HMS Iron Duke demonstrated, during her transit from the Caribbean to Sierra Leone, that she is well within that 14-day notice period. It is not planned to supplement the APT (N) unit at the present moment.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the operational status is of HMS Montrose. [102552]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 5 March 2003,Official Report, column 1040W to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock).

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the complement is of HMS Newcastle; and whether she is fully crewed. [102551]

  Mr. Ingram
  The complement of HMS Newcastle is 249. 16 posts are gapped, but she is currently carrying 22 personnel under training. Her current strength is therefore 255.

  Kuwait
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the use of water by troops stationed in Kuwait for personal hygiene; and what estimate he has made of the amount of water military personnel will consume per day. [102252]

  Mr. Ingram
  Water for the personal hygiene of troops deployed in Kuwait is being provided under a joint UK/US arrangement. This provides for showers and ablutions. No specific consumption rates are being applied. Bottled drinking water is provided at a rate of six litres per person per day. All personnel are advised to ensure that they adhere to the recommended consumption levels in order to avoid the effects of dehydration.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many press officers from his Department he has sent to Kuwait in each of the last eight weeks. [102248]

  Mr. Ingram
  In the eight weeks since 13 January, the Department has deployed two press officers—defined as members of the Government Information and Communication Service—to Kuwait. The first officer departed during the week beginning 24 February and the second in the week beginning 3 March.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what menus are being used for troops stationed in Kuwait; and what plans he has to place troops on food rations. [102251]

  Mr. Ingram
  A wide variety of menus are available for troops stationed in Kuwait to ensure that they receive the required daily calorific intake and a balanced nutritional diet. Troops currently receive a hot meal for 386W
  both breakfast and evening meal, while lunch comprises a US ration pack ready-to-eat meal provided under a joint US/UK arrangement. Operational ration packs have been deployed for use, if necessary and as required, in the event of any military action.

  Manning Control Reviews
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many personnel have been(a) recommended for manning control review, (b) subsequently discharged after a review and (c) transferred to s-type contracts in each of the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [102443]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 9 December 2002,Official Report, column 13W, which explained that the number of Army personnel who have been recommended for Manning Control Point review is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Only two individuals have been discharged under Queens Regulations for the Army paragraph 9.413, 'Not required for a full Army career', in the last 12 months. Both discharges occurred in April 2002 and neither individual has been re-engaged nor transferred to an s-type engagement.

  Naval Deployment
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the tasks are of(a) 800 and (b) 801 NAS. [102570]

  Mr. Ingram
  800 and 801 Naval Air Squadrons are currently engaged in non-operational tasking. Both squadrons are undertaking routine training and participating in routine exercises, at home and abroad, to maintain their capabilities in readiness for future tasking as required.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of Naval Service personnel are(a) deployed and (b) warned to deploy. [102553]

  Mr. Ingram
  Approximately 26 per cent. of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines trained strength are currently on a range of operational deployments. On current plans, a further 13 per cent. are warned to deploy, including personnel warned for fire-fighting duties.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the French warships, Aconit and Primauguet, will join up with Naval Task Group 03. [102550]

  Mr. Ingram
  The French Ship (FS) Primauguet was integrated into the Naval Task Group (NTG) 03 between the dates 17 to 29 January 2003. There is currently no plan for FS Primauguet to re-integrate with the Task Group. While FS Aconit did participate in NTG 2000, there was never any intention for her to participate in NTG 03. A French Minehunter, FS Cassiopee, is currently assigned to Operational Armilla in the Gulf under United Kingdom Operational Command.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which operational warships are not(a) deployed on operations, (b) warned to deploy for operations, (c) preparing to deploy for operations, (d) allocated to

  387W
  duties for Atlantic Patrol (North), Atlantic Patrol (South) and the Armilla Patrol, (e) held in port as part of Operation Fresco and (f) at sea because crew are on leave. [102565]

  Mr. Ingram
  Of the ships available for operations for the remainder of this year, HMS GRAFTON is not currently operational, warned to deploy on operations, preparing to deploy for operations, allocated to duties for Atlantic Patrol (North), Atlantic Patrol (South), the ARMILLA Patrol, held in port as part of Operation FRESCO or operational but not at sea due to crew on leave. A number of ships warned for operations later in the year are currently in United Kingdom waters or alongside in the UK undergoing training or maintenance or in support of Op FRESCO. These ships could be made available for alternative tasks if priorities changed.

  NBC Regiment
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the(a) establishment and (b) strength is of the Joint NBC Regiment. [102555]

  Mr. Ingram
  On the 1 February 2003 the strength of the Joint NBC Regiment was 498 against an establishment of 343. These figures reflect the fact that the Joint NBC Regiment has been augmented for Operation Telic.

  Operation Telic
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is on under-18s serving on Operation Telic; and if he will make a statement. [102578]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 5 March 2003,Official Report, column 1053W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe).

  Operational Welfare Package
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to allow to family and friends of service personnel deployed in operations to send a limited number of parcels to them at no charge, as part of the operational welfare package. [102698]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence recognises that an affordable, regular and reliable postal service is vital for morale and consequently a high priority is given to achieving this. For operational reasons there is very limited transport capacity available for mail both into the Gulf region and for onward carriage within theatre. A parcels service is, therefore, not offered within the mail element of the Operational Welfare Package for Operation Telic, and only letters and packets within the weight and dimension limits of the air letter service can be accepted, the maximum weight being two kilograms. The charge for a two kilogram packet is £6.89, which is the same as the United Kingdom inland first class letter rate. This is the limit of the concession currently approved and complies with the principle that Service personnel should not be disadvantaged by being deployed overseas.

  Public Relations Agencies
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department spent on public relations agencies in the last year for which figures are available; which public relations agencies are retained by each service; and for what reasons such agencies are retained. [102548]

  Dr. Moonie
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  However, since 1999–2000, Ministry of Defence's public relations expenditure has been published in the annual Departmental Performance Report, broken down into categories of RN, Army, RAF and civilian recruitment, PR, marketing and business support services, Chief of PR, sales promotion, scholarships and National Employers' Liaison Committee. Copies of these documents have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Rail Mail
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what investment the MOD has made in the(a) Rail Mail and (b) MOD equivalent in each of the last five years. [102421]

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what agreement is in place between Royal Mail and MOD for MOD use of the Rail Mail, and if he will place a copy in the Library. [102422]

  Mr. Ingram
  I assume that the hon. Member refers to the system known as "Mail Rail" which the Ministry of Defence does not use, and for which it has no requirement and no investment in this system. No MOD equivalent exists.

  Reservists
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many reservists called up for duty in connection with Operation Telic have failed to respond to call up papers; and what plans he has for legal proceedings against reservists who have gone absent without leave. [102554]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Reserve Forces Act 1996 (RFA 96) requires reservists who are served with a call-out notice to report for service at a specified time and place. Should a reservist fail to comply with a call-out notice, the Ministry of Defence will attempt to resolve administratively cases where an individual has inadvertently failed to comply with call-out instructions. This includes checking address information and sending a follow-up notice by recorded delivery. However, should it become apparent that the individual has deliberately failed to comply, a formal investigation will take place that may result in the reservist being charged with desertion or absence without leave. Such cases will be reported to the civil police and will be tried in a civil court. As at 10 March only one reservist is believed to have deliberately failed to report for service.

  There are separate arrangements for conscientious objectors.
  389W
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many NHS personnel(a) resident and (b) working in Eastbourne have received notice that they may be called up for active service; and what are their positions in the NHS. [91195]

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many reservists have been called up who are employed at(a) Chorley hospital, (b) Preston hospital, (c) hospitals in the north-west and (d) hospitals in the UK. [100682]

  Dr. Moonie
  Generally, reservists are not required to provide details of their civilian employment to the Ministry of Defence until such time as they are called-out. Historically, therefore, no central records have been maintained by the MOD of the numbers of reservists working in the NHS as doctors, nurses, paramedics and other professionals allied to medicine.

  As at 6 March, 1,065 medical reservists in the Volunteer Reserve Forces had been sent call-out papers. Of these, 509 are understood to be working in the NHS. Information detailing the specific NHS Trusts these individuals work for is not available centrally. In addition, 166 medical reservists from the Regular Reserve have been sent call-out papers. None of these are understood to be employed in the NHS.

  The MOD is working with the Department of Health to minimise disruption to the NHS as far as possible.

  RFA Sir Galahad
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) the date of original build completion, (b) the date of acceptance into service, (c) the anticipated date of decommissioning, (d) the number of crew, (e) the stores-carrying capacity and (f) the ownership of RFA Sir Galahad. [102513]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information requested for RFA Sir Galahad is contained in the table:

  Build completion date

  1987

  Date of acceptance into service

  1987

  Planned decommission date

  2005

  Crew complement

  51 RFA, 20 Embarked force

  Approximate stores capacity

  Ammunition and cargo: 900 m3 vehicles: 15 Challenger tanks, 33 eight-tonne vehicles, 23 drop vehicles, 72 Land Rovers or 26 20-foot containers on the tank deck; 33 eight-tonne vehicles, 74 Land Rovers or 40 20-foot containers on the vehicle deck

  Ownership

  MOD

  Riot Control Agents
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether it is the British Government's policy to forbid British armed forces from handling riot control agents such as CS gas and pepper spray during wartime; [102413]

  (2) what the British Government's policy is on British armed forces taking part in joint military operations with other countries where riot control agents are used. [102412]
  390W
  Mr. Ingram
  The Chemical Weapons Convention prohibits the use of riot control agents as a method of warfare. United Kingdom armed forces will comply with their obligations under the Convention. The Government expect that other states parties to the Convention will likewise comply with their obligations under the Convention.

  Sea Harrier
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether Sea Harrier aircraft are being used in the quick reaction alert role. [102580]

  Mr. Ingram
  No.

  Tornado
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the(a) establishment and (b) strength is of Tornado F3 navigators. [102576]

  Mr. Ingram
  On the 1 March 2003 the establishment for navigators on the Tornado F3 was 112. The trained strength on the same date was 90. The figures include senior officer appointments on frontline squadrons and the operational conversion unit.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Advertising Costs (Scotland)
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much the Department spent on advertising in Scotland in each year since 1999 on(a) television, (b) newspapers, (c) radio, (d) magazines, (e) billboards and (f) sporting events. [102330]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information at the level of detail requested is not available. Where it is possible to disaggregate figures for advertising in Scotland, the information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Advisory Panel on Country Information
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 10 February 2003,Official Report, column 537W, on the Advisory Panel on Country Information, what progress has been made to date in setting up the Panel; and what his timetable is for appointing (i) the chairman and (ii) the members of the Panel. [102452]

  Beverley Hughes
  We have identified a number of eminent organisations that we expect will be interested in being represented on the Advisory Panel. The appointment of the chairman and members of the panel will take place during 2003.

  Carter Inquiry
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the report of the Carter Inquiry, with extracts that are deemed commercially confidential removed. [100901]

  Hilary Benn
  A summary of the key recommendations was published on 27 February.
  391W
  As we have made clear, the report took the form of advice to Ministers, including advice on matters that are commercially confidential. As such, the report would not be in a form suitable for publication, even if the commercially confidential material were removed.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether disciplinary action has been taken against officials(a) in his Department and (b) in the Passport Service UK as a result of the Carter Inquiry. [101391]

  Hilary Benn
  No. The Independent Review Team was asked to look to the future and identify the long-term changes necessary to further improve the performance of the Criminal Records Bureau; it was not asked to conduct an inquest.

  Juvenile Prisoners
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many children Lnder 18 in 2002 were made subject to category A status in prison when they were(a) remanded and (b) sentenced; [101255]

  (2) how many children under the age of 18 were held in category A security conditions in prison in 2002, broken down by (a) age, (b) gender, (c) ethnicity and (d) location. [101256]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 10 March 2003]: In 2002, four 17-year-olds were received into Prison Service accommodation and made the subject of category A procedures. Two of them were sentenced during 2002. Of the two, one was first held at Altcourse and then transferred to Moorland as a Restricted Status prisoner upon sentencing. The other was held in Highdown and had his security categorisation downgraded upon sentencing later in 2002. Of the remaining two, one was received into Woodhill and the other into Belmarsh. Both remain on remand. With regard to their ethnicity, two were white, one black and one of Algerian origin.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter to him dated 17 January 2003 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Roz Hughes; [100687]

  (2) why he has not replied to the letter to him dated 16 January from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Roz Hughes [102186]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 12 March 2003.

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his Department will reply to the letter of 11 December 2002 from the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells regarding Mr.Hoi Kam Tang. [101875]

  Beverley Hughes
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 13 March 2003.

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his Department will reply to the letters from the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells of 10 December 2002 and 13 January 2003 regarding Mr. and Mrs. Yurchenko. [101876]
  392W
  Beverley Hughes
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 13 March 2003.

  Commission for Racial Equality
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost of the Commission for Racial Equality was in the last year for which figures are available; what value for money assessment he has made of its work; and if he will make a statement. [99806]

  Beverley Hughes
  The total operating cost of the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) for 2001–02 was £20,465,894 of which some £19,340,000 was provided in grant in aid.

  The most recent quinquennial review of the Commission for Racial Equality was completed in 1996–97. The quinquennial review which was programmed to take place in 2000–01 was delayed to enable the then new Chair of the Commission to become established in post and introduce a modernisation programme to enable the Commission to meet its new responsibilities under the Race Relations Amendment Act 2000. As the Government are currently examining the feasibility of establishing a single equality body we do not anticipate conducting a separate value for money assessment of the CRE at this time.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his statement of 27 February 2003,Official Report, columns 32–36WS, on the Criminal Records Bureau, when he expects the independent executive agency to be created within the Home Office; how many additional staff will be needed; and at what additional cost. [101019]

  Hilary Benn
  The Criminal Records Bureau will be established as a separate executive agency as soon as practicable. As part of the process of establishing the Agency consideration will be given to the number of additional staff required and to the additional cost.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his statement of 27 February 2003,Official Report, columns 32–36WS, on the Criminal Records Bureau, what steps he is taking to determine whether current systems in the CRB would he able to deal with the doubling in demand of criminal record checks. [101028]

  Hilary Benn
  As the report of the Independent Review Team made clear, a further programme of enhancement to the current IT system will be required in order to satisfy the demand for Disclosures. This will be pursued as part of the renegotiation of the contract with Capita.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his statement of 27 February,Official Report, columns 32–36WS, on the Criminal Records Bureau, if he will define the needs of the intelligent customer function of the Criminal Records Bureau. [101029]

  Hilary Benn
  The precise details need to be settled, but the function would include setting standards for the end-to-end process, auditing them and, monitoring performance against them; contract management;
  393W
  identifying and specifying product changes; managing relationships with registered bodies, the police and other stakeholders; and handling complaints.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his statement of 27 February 2003,Official Report, columns 32–36WS, on the Criminal Records Bureau, (1) what implications the increased requirement for bodies registered with the Criminal Records Bureau to verify applicant's identity will have for their public liability insurance; [101033]

  (2) what implications the increased requirement for bodies registered with the Criminal Record Bureau to verify applicant's identity will have for their public liability insurance. [101033]

  Hilary Benn
  We will address any evidence that may be presented to us on these matters, under the current consultation exercise on the recommendations of the independent review team.

  Under guidance issued by the Criminal Records Bureau, registered bodies are already required to verify the identity of persons, applying for a disclosure, in implementing the independent review team's second recommendation we are simply seeking to formalise this requirement. We are currently consulting registered bodies on the implications for them of recommendations and will consider any representations made about the impact on their insurance premiums.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 27 February 2003,Official Report, columns 32–36WS, on the Criminal Records Bureau, (1) how the reduction in the numbers of bodies registered with the Criminal Records Bureau will enable voluntary and community organisations more easily to access disclosures; [101035]

  (2) how many voluntary organisations the Independent Review Team into the Criminal Records Bureau consulted as part of their inquiry. [101034]

  Hilary Benn
  In the course of fieldwork for the review, representatives of two major voluntary organisations were interviewed. We have launched a consultation exercise on those recommendations of the review team that directly impact on the role of registered bodies. We expect that the sector, either through the Consultative Panel and Voluntary and Community Sector Working Group that we have put in place, or directly, will wish to make known its views on the implications of these recommendations, so that they can be fully taken into account.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his Statement of 27 February 2003,Official Report, columns 32–36WS, on the Criminal Records Bureau, what the contractual consequences are for his Department with Capita of recommendation 7 of the Carter Inquiry. [101037]

  Hilary Benn
  This is a matter for the discussions that will take place to renegotiate the contract with Capita.

  Experience Corps
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much funding the Home Office has provided to the Experience Corps. [101867]
  394W
  Beverley Hughes
  The funding for the Experience Corps amounts to a total of £19.9 million over three years to March 2004. To date they have received £11.67 million.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what targets the Government set for the Experience Corps; and what progress has been made towards those targets. [101868]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Experience Corps have been set the target to recruit 250,000 volunteers, reflecting the diversity of people over 50, by 2004. A further target requires that 90 per cent. of the volunteers have been active members over a three month period and that 40 per cent. of these are active over the period of a year in 2003–04. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) on 11 February 2003,Official Report, column 716W, which gives details of progress. The performance of the Experience Corps is currently being reviewed by the Home Office.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many volunteers the Experience Corps has recruited since its formation; how many of these are from ethnic minority communities; and on what basis each total is calculated. [101869]

  Beverley Hughes
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) on 11 February 2003,Official Report, column 716W, which gives details of volunteers recruited by the Experience Corps. The Experience Corps state that, as at 28 February 2003, over 60 per cent. of their volunteers are from ethnic communities. These figures are drawn from a database maintained by the Experience Corps. The performance of the Experience Corps is currently being reviewed by the Home Office.

  Haslar Removal Centre
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research has been commissioned by his Department into the operation of Haslar Removal Centre since February 2002; and if he will place copies in the Library. [102450]

  Beverley Hughes
  No specific research has been commissioned into the operation of Haslar Removal Centre. However, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons carried out a formal inspection of the Centre in February 2002. We expect the report of this inspection to be published in the near future.

  Immigration Detainees
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many immigration detainees are being held in prisons. [102467]

  Beverley Hughes
  The latest available data on the number of persons detained solely under Immigration Act 1971 powers relate to 28 December 2002. As at that date, 215 persons (to the nearest five) were being detained in Prison Service accommodation of which 110 are recorded as having claimed asylum at some stage.

  The routine use of Prison Service accommodation for immigration detainees ended at the beginning of 2002, but it remains necessary to hold small numbers of

  395W
  detainees in prison for reasons of control and security. The figure of 215 may also include individuals who are held pending deportation on completion of custodial sentences.

  Information on Immigration Act detainees as at 29 March 2003 will be published on 30 May 2003 on the Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html.

  Muslims
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further action he is taking to prevent racially and religiously motivated attacks on Muslims; and if he will make a statement. [100584]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Government are committed to tackling hate crime regardless of what form it takes.

  The criminal law already contains a wide range of powers to deal with violent behaviour and harassment. This includes, under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the ability for courts to issue higher sentences to perpetrators of crimes motivated by racial hatred. These measures send a clear message that the Government will not tolerate these types of crimes.

  The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), working with the Government, have developed guidance for police forces on dealing with these types of crime (including racially and religiously motivated crime). This guidance is entitled "Identifying and Combating Hate Crime" and was last updated in April 2002.

  Additionally, ACPO has produced an Operational Guide for the Management of Inter Ethnic Conflict, which will ultimately aim to improve officers ability to understand, communicate and interact with the many diverse communities.

  The police service seeks to maintain strong links with representatives of Muslim communities. The Muslim Safety Forum, which brings together representatives of Muslim communities and the police meets every month to consider any issues of concern.

  Women's Prisons
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the report by the Youth Justice Board on the detention of teenage girls in women's prisons. [101344]

  Hilary Benn
  The Youth Justice Board (YJB) is responsible for the commissioning and purchasing of secure accommodation for under 18s and for the placement of individual offenders.

  On 18 February the YJB announced its intention to remove all under 17-year-old girls from Prison Service accommodation during 2003. There are currently no 15-year-old girls in Prison Service accommodation, and around 20 16-year-olds.

  This is in line with the commitment given by the then Home Secretary in March 1999 when he said that he intended to use the greater flexibility provided by the detention and training order to place sentenced 15 and
  396W
  16-year-old girls in available non-Prison Service accommodation. The detention and training order came into force in April 2000.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Courts (Salisbury)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he will announce plans for the co-location of the Crown court and magistrates court in Salisbury. [102183]

  Yvette Cooper
  Wiltshire magistrates courts committee and Wiltshire county council are undertaking a feasibility study into the provision of a new combined crown, county and magistrates court facility in Salisbury. Once this feasibility study has been completed (expected to be at the end of March); and the outline business case has been approved, which on current plans will be during April, an announcement on future plans will be made.

PRIVY COUNCIL

  Orders in Council
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council how many Orders in Council in 2002 were made under(a) the prerogative and (b) an Act of Parliament. [103042]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  A total of 526 Orders in Council were made in 2002, of which 372 were made under an Act or Measure and 154 were made under the Prerogative. The Orders approved at each Council meeting are listed on the Privy Council Office website (www.pco.gov.uk) and copies are placed in the Library of the House. The majority of Prerogative Orders related to the appointment of Ministers and Privy Councillors, the private affairs of Chartered bodies, and Channel Islands business. The majority of statutory Orders were confirmations of Church Commissioners' schemes under the Pastoral Measure 1983.

  Privy Council
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council how many times the Privy Council met in 2002; and how many privy councillors were present on each occasion. [103041]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The Privy Council met on 14 occasions in 2002. Details are given in the table:

  Date of Council

  Number of Privy Councillors present

  14 January

  3

  23 January

  3

  12 February

  6 (of whom 2 were new Councillors attending to be sworn in)

  26 March

  6 (of whom 2 were new Councillors attending to be sworn in)

  17 April

  4

  22 May

  7 (of whom 3 were new Councillors attending to be sworn in)

  31 May

  5

  26 June

  3

  16 July

  7 (of whom 2 were new Councillors attending to be sworn in)

  397W

  Date of Council

  Number of Privy Councillors present

  22 October

  5 (of whom one was a new Councillors attending to be sworn in)

  29 October

  5

  5 November

  4

  20 November

  8 (of whom 4 were new Councillors attending to be sworn in)

  17 December

  6 (of whom one was new Councillors attending to be sworn in)

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council on what basis privy councillors are selected to sit on ad hoc committees of the Council. [103043]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Nowadays such committees are established only to consider petitions from bodies seeking a Royal Charter. Their business is conducted in correspondence. Those involved in the correspondence are those Privy Councillors with ministerial responsibility for the area of the body's activities and the Law Officers.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Further Education
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to establish a further education national training organisation. [102712]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Formal Government recognition of national training organisations, including FENTO, the further education NTO, ended in March 2002. This is part of a UK-wide transition to Sector Skills Councils representing wider employment sectors. FENTO continues to deliver a number of essential functions and has operated with assistance from the Sector Skills Development Agency and the department during this transition period.

  Good progress is being made towards developing an employer-led Sector Skills Council proposal covering the workforce in the higher education, further education, work-based and community-based learning sectors. This development will support the delivery of Success for All and the Higher Education strategy and enable employers to look strategically at the UK learning sector for the first time.

  Children's Centres
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions he has had with local education authorities about guidelines for the new children's centres. [102713]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Officials have been taking forward detailed discussions with local authorities on this issue. The Sure Start Unit issued children's centre guidance to local authorities at the end of February. Prior to this, a series of stakeholder events were held to enable local authorities and other key partners to feed in their views. In the coming weeks officials will be meeting with every local authority due to receive children's centre funding, as they start their strategic planning.

  Higher Education
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions he has had with the Scottish Executive regarding the White Paper on higher education. [102714]

  Margaret Hodge
  The White Paper "The future of higher education" (Cm 5735) states that there will be discussions with the devolved Administrations about the impact on the other UK countries of the proposals for student and institutional funding for higher education institutions in England. Initial discussions between officials have already begun, and I expect them to continue over the coming months.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) assessed on the relationship between A level points scores and class of final degree; and if he will make a statement. [101041]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 10 March 2003]The Department has not commissioned research into the relationship between A level points scores and class of final degree. However, it has reviewed a number of research projects in this area including:

  i) "Determinants of degree performance in UK universities: a statistical analysis of the 1993 student cohort" by Jeremy Smith and Robin Naylor at Warwick University. This was published in 2001 in the Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 63, 29–60. It found that
  "…for women, an extra two points per A-level subject (i.e. one grade higher per subject) raises the probability of a good degree (at least an upper second class honours degree) by over 9 percentage points. There is a similar effect for men."

  ii) "School Performance and the Likelihood of getting into Bristol" by Jeff Odell in 1999. This found that, on the whole, of all the students who entered the University of Bristol with excellent A levels, those who came from weaker schools gained better degrees than the students from stronger schools.

  iii) "Gender Differences in Educational Attainment: The Case of University Students in England and Wales" by Robert McNabb, Sarmistha Pal and Peter Sloane was published in Economica in 2002. This found that A-level point scores have a strong positive effect on degree attainment.

  iv) "Who does best at university" HEFCE 2002 concluded that young full-time entrants with lower A level points scores are more likely to drop out, to repeat years and, if they graduate, they are less likely to get a good degree. The authors also argue that admissions tutors should be exploring new ways (in addition to A level attainment) to identify performance. This report can be downloaded from HEFCE's website at http://www.hefce.ac.uk/Learning/whodoes/. The HEFCE are continuing to refine and develop their analysis and a fuller report will be published later this year.

  v) "Fair Enough? Wider access to university by identifying potential to succeed". This was published in 2003 by UUK. It identified objective criteria to build on existing systems and more accurately predict applicants' potential, particularly those from backgrounds not

  399W
  traditionally associated with higher education. This can be downloaded from http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/fairenough/.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions he has had with higher education institutions to ensure that they take account of changes to the curriculum proposed in "14 to 19: Opportunity for Excellence". [102710]

  Margaret Hodge
  Representatives from higher education were invited to each of the 58 regional consultation workshops on the 14 to 19 Green Paper, along with representatives from secondary education, further education colleges, employers and other stakeholders. Additional events were also held to discuss the proposals with representatives from higher education including a presentation of the proposals to the Universities UK main Committee of Vice Chancellors.

  The Working Group for 14 to 19 Reform, chaired by Mike Tomlinson, will consult a range of interested bodies, including higher education institutions, as it considers the longer-term agenda for change and develops its proposals for a new unified qualifications framework. The Group's membership includes two University Vice Chancellors.

  Our regional consultations on the White Paper, "The Future of Higher Education", will include discussion of the development of more work-based degrees such as Foundation Degrees and progression from the 14 to 19 phase to higher education.

  Top-up Fees
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on top-up fees. [102715]

  Margaret Hodge
  From 2006, we will give universities the freedom to set tuition fees, up to a maximum of £3,000. Universities will set out in Access Agreements how they will safeguard and promote access when they set their fees.

  In addition, no student or parent will have to pay fees up-front. We will offer loans for fees, subsidised in the same way as the current maintenance loans, with a fair and equitable system of repayments.

  Emergency Planning
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he last issued guidance to schools on procedures in the event of a hostile biological or chemical incident. [102716]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  All schools in England have been made aware, most recently earlier this week, that they can get advice on emergency planning via the UK Resilience website. This includes advice on terrorism.

  First Aid
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action he is taking to encourage the teaching of basic first aid to children in schools. [102717]
  400W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Basic Aid Training is included in the curriculum as part of the framework for Personal Social and Health Education. The aim is to ensure that young children are safe within and outside their school environment. In primary schools, children learn the rules relating to health and safety and basic emergency aid. In secondary schools, young people develop the skills to cope with emergency situations that require basic aid procedures including resuscitation techniques.

  School Results
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps his Department is taking to improve secondary school results in coalfield areas. [102718]

  Mr. Miliband
  My Department has set a number of challenging targets aimed at raising the attainment of secondary school pupils in coalfield and other areas, including floor targets at Key Stage 2, 3 and GCSE level. In addition, my Department has targeted measures such as Education Action Zones and Excellence in Cities, to raise standards in particularly disadvantaged areas. These focus on improving the quality of teaching and learning, tackling social exclusion and providing support to families and pupils.

  Early-years Premises
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many early years settings have(a) opened and (b) closed in each year since 1973 for which information is available. [93431]

  Maria Eagle
  Information on the number of maintained nursery schools that have opened and closed each year is shown in the table. Figures are available from 1995 when the Department's database of educational establishments was created.

  Number of maintained nursery schools which opened and closed each year 1995 to 2002–England

  Closed

  Opened

  1995

  3

  1

  1996

  6

  1

  1997

  14

  0

  1998

  12

  2

  1999

  8

  1

  2000

  15

  2

  2001

  17

  3

  2002

  15

  2

  Information on other types of early years settings that have opened and closed since 1973 is not available.

  All four year olds have been able to access a free, part-time early education place since September 1998. Since September 1999, we have invested substantially in new free early years education places for three year olds. The number of free early years education places taken up by three year olds increased from 214,200 in 1997 to 408,200 in 2002, an increase of 194,000 places. We are committed to providing all three year olds, whose parents want one, with free early years education place by April 2004.

  Education (Northampton)
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) pupils and (b) teachers there were in Northampton in (i) primary,

  Maintained primary, secondary and middle deemed schools: full time equivalent number of teachers1 and pupils—position in January each year Northampton, North and South parliamentary constituencies

  Number of pupils

  Number of teachers1

  Primary

  of which middle deemed

  Secondary

  of which middle deemed

  Primary

  of which middle deemed

  Secondary

  of which middle deemed

  1998

  14,555

  0

  17,410

  8,442

  623

  0

  984

  428

  1999

  14,421

  0

  17,572

  8,540

  616

  0

  988

  422

  2000

  14,237

  0

  17,755

  8,463

  615

  0

  987

  423

  2001

  13,866

  0

  18,773

  8,453

  626

  0

  1,093

  431

  2002

  13,579

  0

  18,840

  8,343

  629

  0

  1,106

  428

  1 Includes qualified teachers and other teaching staff.

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census

  Education Funding
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of his Departmental budget was spent on(a) pre-school education, (b) school age education up to sixth form level, (c) sixth form school and college education, (d) further education and (e) higher education in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement [99819]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The amount spent by the Department on various functions is set out in table 4.2 of the 2002 Departmental Report for the Department for Education and Skills (Command Number 5402).

  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the grants funded by his Department for which(a) LEAs, (b) primary and secondary schools, (c) further education institutions, (d) higher education institutions, (e) individual teachers and (f) students may apply; how much funding was made available in the last financial year; how many awards were made; and what their administrative costs were in each case. [99946]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  My Department makes grant payments to a wide range of education, voluntary and private organisations. Organisations and individuals can also apply to and receive grants from our NDPBs and other agencies, for which we hold no central records. Therefore this question could be answered only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 24 February 2003,Official Report, columns 164–65W, on pupil funding, for what reasons Havering receives lower funding than other London Boroughs for pupils aged (a) five to 10 and (b) 11 to 15; and what plans he has to increase funding for schools in Havering. [102049]

  Mr. Miliband
  In 2003–04, Havering's Education Formula Spending Share is increasing by 3.2 per cent. per pupil. In addition we will continue to provide Standards Fund grant funding for priority programmes to support improvements as in previous years: for 2003–04 Havering's Standards Fund allocation so far is
  402W
  (ii) middle and (iii) upper schools in (A) the latest period for which figures are available and (B) each of the past four years. [100799]

  Mr. Miliband
  The available information is shown in the table.

  £4.2 million not including the LEA contribution. Havering's schools will also continue to benefit from significant increases in the School Standards Grant.

  In 2003–04 Havering's average level of funding per primary pupil is £2,237. Its average level of funding per secondary pupil is £2,956.

  Overall, the per pupil funding in Havering is lower than in London authorities because it benefits less than other London authorities from those aspects in the funding formula which reflect the additional costs of recruiting and retaining staff in high-cost areas (the Area Cost Adjustment—ACA) and the additional costs of educating deprived pupils.

  The ACA for London has three values: 1.2624 (inner); 1.1447 (outer London west); and 1.0912 (outer London east). Havering receives the ACA for those in outer London east: its lower value reflects the lower general wage rates in outer London east compared with those in outer London west. On the measures of deprivation in EFSS, Havering is 10th out of the 13 outer London east authorities for both income support and the working families tax credit and has the lowest proportion of pupils with English as an additional language and low achieving ethnic groups.

  We recognise that the recommendations of the School Teachers' Review Body will place an additional burden on schools in Havering. Consequently our response to the STRB report proposes an additional grant for those London authorities with a low increase in their education formula spending share or a floor increase in their Revenue Support Grant. Havering's share will be £475,000: we intend to pay this grant in May; and the LEA will be required to pass it on to school budgets.

  Education Targets
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many education targets his Department has(a) introduced and (b) failed to attain since 1997. [102292]
  403W
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Department publishes progress against all its outstanding PSA targets in its Annual Departmental Report and Autumn Performance Report. Progress against our CSR 98 targets was reported most recently in the 2002 autumn report, published in November 2002, together with commentary where appropriate. A copy of the report is available from the House of Commons Library.

  English Baccalaureate
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his assessment is of the impact of the proposed move towards an English baccalaureate on an optional foundation year of study after GCSE. [101883]

  Mr. Miliband
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 11 March 2003,Official Report, column 168W, in which we explained that we have asked a Working

  Calendar year of qualification2

  Modern languages

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  French

  800

  770

  1,070

  1,070

  1,050

  870

  3—

  German

  210

  200

  250

  250

  210

  200

  3—

  Spanish

  50

  70

  140

  140

  110

  130

  3—

  Other modern languages

  520

  560

  50

  50

  50

  70

  3—

  Total

  1,590

  1,590

  1,510

  1,520

  1,410

  1,260

  1,390

  1Includes those trained through the Open University but excludes those qualifying through employment based routes.

  2The data for 1995 to 2000 are from the INES Database of Teachers' Records (DTR). A new subject coding system was introduced in 1997 therefore the 1995 and 1996 subject breakdown within modern languages is not comparable with later years. The 2001 figure is taken from the Teacher Training Agency's (TTA) Performance Profiles because 2001 DTR data are not available. The subject breakdown within modern languages is not available For 2001.

  3 Not available

  GCSEs
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the GCSE results were of the pupils who did not achieve level 4 at Key Stage 2 in 1997. [102290]

  Mr. Miliband
  Of those pupils who attempted GCSEs in 2002 but had not achieved level 4 or above at Key Stage 2 in 1997, 12 per cent. achieved five or more GCSE grades A*-C and 83 per cent. achieved five or more GCSE grades A*-G.

  The answer is based only on pupils who attempted GCSEs as information on the percentage of pupils from KS2 who did not attempt GCSEs is not collected centrally.

  Grammar Schools
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many grammar schools there were in each education authority in(a) 1980, (b) 1990 and (c) 2000. [102424]

  Mr. Miliband
  The numbers of grammar schools as defined under the 1998 School Framework Act in each education authority for the year 2000 are shown in Table 1. Prior to 1998 schools reported themselves as grammar schools in the Annual Schools' Census. Data from the Census for the years 1980 and 1990 are shown in Table 2. The data in the two tables are not directly comparable.
  404W
  Group chaired by Mike Tomlinson to take forward work on possible longer-term 14 to 19 developments, including a unified framework of qualifications for this age group. It would be premature at this stage to be developing specific baccalaureate models before the Group has reported or to make any assessment of its effect on post-GCSE study.

  Foreign Language Teaching
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 3 March 2003, ref: 99626, how many(a) French, (b) German and (c) Spanish teachers qualified in each year since 1995. [102154]

  Mr. Miliband
  The table provides a breakdown of the numbers qualifying as teachers in England1 with a modern language as their subject.

  Table 1: Number of grammar schools1 by local education authority2 in England: 2000

  Barnet

  3

  Bexley

  4

  Birmingham

  8

  Bournemouth3

  2

  Bromley

  2

  Buckinghamshire3

  13

  Calderdale

  2

  Cumbria

  1

  Devon3

  1

  Enfield

  1

  Essex3

  4

  Gloucestershire

  7

  Kent3

  33

  Kingston upon Thames

  2

  Kirklees

  1

  Lancashire3

  4

  Lincolnshire

  15

  Liverpool

  1

  Medway3

  6

  North Yorkshire3

  3

  Plymouth3

  3

  Poole3

  2

  Reading3

  2

  Redbridge

  2

  Slough3

  4

  Southend-on-Sea3

  4

  Stoke-on-Trent3

  1

  Sutton

  5

  Telford and Wrekin

  2

  Torbay3

  3

  Trafford

  7

  Walsall

  2

  Warwickshire

  5

  405W

  Table 1: Number of grammar schools1 by local education authority2 in England: 2000

  Wiltshire3

  2

  Wirral

  6

  Wolverhampton

  1

  1 Grammar schools as defined under the 1998 School Framework Act.

  2 Local education authorities without grammar schools have not been shown.

  3 Local education authority areas affected by the 1996–98 local government reorganisation.

  Table 2: Number of grammar schools as reported in the annual schools' census by local education authority1 in England as at January of each year

  1980

  1990

  Avon

  2

  2

  Barnet

  2

  2

  Berkshire

  8

  6

  Bexley

  2

  2

  Birmingham

  7

  8

  Bolton

  6

  —

  Bromley

  3

  2

  Buckinghamshire

  14

  14

  Calderdale

  7

  2

  Cornwall

  2

  —

  Cumbria

  4

  —

  Derbyshire

  1

  —

  Devon

  11

  8

  Dorset

  11

  6

  Durham

  1

  —

  Enfield

  1

  1

  Essex

  9

  8

  Gloucestershire

  11

  7

  Hereford and Worcester

  2

  —

  Inner London Education Authority

  3

  —

  Kent

  19

  29

  Kingston upon Thames

  2

  2

  Kirklees

  2

  1

  Lancashire

  5

  4

  Lincolnshire

  16

  15

  Liverpool

  10

  —

  Norfolk

  10

  —

  North Yorkshire

  7

  3

  Redbridge

  2

  2

  Shropshire

  4

  2

  Staffordshire

  2

  —

  Sutton

  4

  4

  Tameside

  5

  —

  Trafford

  8

  6

  Walsall

  2

  2

  Warwickshire

  5

  5

  Wiltshire

  3

  2

  Wirral

  4

  4

  Wolverhampton

  1

  1

  1 Local education authorities without grammar schools have not been shown

  Modern Apprenticeships
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his Answer of 11 February 2003,Official Report, column 693W, on modern apprenticeship programmes, if he will make a statement on the achievement rates of full national vocational qualification (a) level 2 for Foundation Modern Apprenticeships and (b) level 3 for Advanced Modern Apprenticeships from 1994 to 2001. [98908]
  406W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  My earlier answer to the hon. Member provided figures for the achievement of the main National Vocational Qualifications (NVQs) within Modern Apprenticeship (MA) frameworks. These have risen substantially since 1997. Over half of Advanced Modern Apprentice trainees now complete their level 3 NVQ; other positive outcomes include progression to higher education and continuing with the same employer.

  On 25 February, the Government launched a new Modern Apprenticeship Task Force, under Sir Roy Gardner, to encourage a higher level of employer commitment to MAs. We expect, through their work and that of the Learning and Skills Council (LSC), retention and completion rates to rise further.

  Ma framework completion involves achievement of the appropriate NVQ, Key Skills and Technical Certificate qualifications. The collection of information on whole framework completion was a recommendation of the MA Advisory Committee. The LSC aims to publish NVQ attainment and framework completion data from spring 2003.

  Opportunity Bursaries
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of 18-year-olds from the borough of Redcar and Cleveland who will meet the parental income eligibility criteria for Opportunity Bursaries in 2003 would be eligible for the proposed Higher Education Grant. [102711]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Department does not collect information about parental income by local education authority area. Opportunity Bursaries are not awarded solely on the basis of parental income. 11,000 Bursaries are available for those entering English higher education institutions in 2003. Students with Opportunity Bursaries will remain eligible to receive their payments in years 2 and 3 of the course, when the new higher education grant is introduced for new students from 2004. Eligibility for the Higher Education Grant will depend on household income. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State indicated in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) on 6 February 2003,Official Report, column 358W, that a decision on the income threshold at which the full £1,000 is payable will be announced later this year.

  Primary Schools
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to extend the Excellence in Cities programme to primary schools; and if he will make a statement. [102696]

  Mr. Miliband
  We extended the Excellence in Cities programme to primary schools in the 24 Phase 1 authorities in September 2000. We plan to roll out the programme to primary schools in the remaining 34 Phase 2 and 3 authorities from April 2004. We are currently considering with headteachers, partnership co-ordinators and Ofsted how best this might be done— learning from the experience in the phase 1 schools, primary schools in Education Action Zones and Excellence Clusters.

  Pupil Mobility
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what research his Department has conducted to assess the impact of increased pupil mobility on discipline in schools. [101366]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Pupil mobility is a permanent feature of our school system. There is no evidence that it is increasing. However, there is evidence that very high rates of mobility at particular schools can have detrimental effects on levels of attainment. The Department is therefore supporting a project at 50 schools with very high rates of mobility to help them develop and implement action plans to tackle problems related to behaviour and attendance as well as attainment. This work will also le ad to good practice guidelines to help other schools with high mobility.

  School Circular;
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the circulars that have been sent by his Department to(a) primary school, (b) secondary schools and (c) local education authorities since 1 March 2002; and how many pages each circular contained. [99488]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested has been placed in the Libraries.

  School Federations
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 4 March 2003, ref 100049, what the purpose is of publishing exam results for federations of schools. [102155]

  Mr. Miliband
  The purpose is to enable participating schools and other interested parties to measure the impact of federating on the overall attainment of schools within the Federation and to recognise the joint efforts of schools in a federation to raise standards. Exam results will continue to be published for individual schools as well.

  School Funding
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much was spent on schools in Somerset, in each year from 1990–91 to 2002–03, at 2001–02 prices, broken down to show(a) local government spending, (b) central government credit approval and (c) central government expenditure by each available category; and if he will make a statement. [99823]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested for parts(a) and (b) is contained in the table. However the Department does not hold data that would answer part (c) of the question.

  Somerset local education authority expenditure, capital grant and credit approvals

  All figures in £000

  Net current expenditure ( after recharges) 1,3

  Capita Grant2

  Approvals2

  1990–91

  159,446

  —

  —

  1991–92

  157,032

  —

  —

  1992–93

  183,305

  —

  —

  408W

  Somerset local education authority expenditure, capital grant and credit approvals

  All figures in £000

  Net current expenditure (after recharges) 1,3

  Capital Grant2

  Credit Approvals2

  1993–94

  175,418

  —

  —

  1994–95

  187,054

  —

  —

  1995–96

  171,520

  —

  —

  1996–97

  170,311

  964

  3,082

  1997–98

  169,613

  976

  3,253

  1998–99

  173,308

  6,622

  2,761

  1999–2000

  186,049

  7,122

  2,481

  2000–01

  204,471

  14,598

  3,754

  2001–02

  221,524

  13,181

  4,340

  2002–03

  —

  13,359

  5,289

  2003–04

  —

  12,090

  6,231

  1 NCE includes expenditure within schools and also that incurred centrally by LEAs.

  Sources:

  2 Schools Capital Database. NB Figures prior to 1996–97 not readily available. Capital grant figures include NGfL

  3 Up to 1998–99 Revenue Outturn Statements which LEAs submitted to the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions. From 1999–2000 Section 52 Outturn statements which LEAs submitted to the DIES. Data as reported by LEA.

  Social Care
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the grants funded by his Department for social care for which organisations may apply; how much funding was made in the last financial year; how many awards were made; and what their administrative costs were. [99947]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  My Department does not fund any specific grants for the purpose of providing social care.

  Sure Start
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what funding has been allocated to the Harwich constituency under the Sure Start scheme. [96912]

  Maria Eagle
  [holding answer 10 February 2003]Pursuant to my reply on 4 March 2003,Official Report, columns 965–66W, there is one Sure Start Local Programme operating in the Harwich constituency—a Round 3 programme in West Clacton and Jaywick that was approved in June 2001. It has revenue funding of £601,996 for 2002–03. Funding for capital projects of £400,000 has been approved to date, including funding for a toddler playground and the purchase and refurbishment of a property for a Sure Start Centre. The programme can apply for approval of capital funding up to £1 million. Essex county council is the accountable body.

  Plans for a 'mini' Sure Start programme are currently being considered by the Sure Start Unit. The Harwich 'mini' Sure Start, if approved, will receive up to £100,000 each year for revenue expenditure and funding for capital expenditure of up to £250,000 in total.

  Teachers (Performance Management)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of
  409W
  the effectiveness of the Performance Management System for the teaching profession; and if he will make a statement. [102695]

  Mr. Miliband
  Following the introduction of the new performance management arrangements in 2000–01 the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) looked at how they were being implemented in a sample of schools. They found that even at such an early stage performance management had been introduced in all the schools surveyed and that it had been adopted satisfactorily or better in four fifths of those schools. Ofsted also found that headteachers, other senior managers, teachers and governors were positive about the contribution that performance management could make to school improvement. However we recognise that more needs to be done before performance management can fulfil its potential in supporting school and teacher improvement. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of a speech I gave on 27 January this year on this subject.

  University Funding
  Mr. Bryant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent assessment he has made of the capital needs of UK universities. [102708]

  Margaret Hodge
  Reports commissioned from JM Consulting by the Higher Education Funding Council for England into the capital requirements of higher education institutions in the UK concluded that there was a total shortfall of some £8 billion of investment, consisting of a research infrastructure backlog of £3.2 billion, and a teaching infrastructure backlog of £4.6 billion, plus a need to double expenditure on maintenance. The Secretary of State announced in January 2003 that capital funding for higher education institutions in England will increase by 77 per cent. for research and by 185 per cent. for teaching and learning in cash terms between 2002–03 and 2005–06.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  US Administration (Representations)
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the British Government made the representations to the US administration to which the President of the Council referred in his oral answer to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith) on 6 February 2003,Official Report, column 454. [102484]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Since entry into force of the Chemical Weapons Convention in 1997, the United States has accepted the continuous monitoring of the destruction of its chemical weapons (CW) stockpiles, as well as regular OPCW inspections of its former CW production facilities. Inspections at US industrial facilities only began in May 2000, as a result of a delay in putting in place the necessary domestic enabling legislation. During that time the United Kingdom regularly urged the US to remedy this deficiency at the earliest opportunity. To date the United States has in fact hosted more CW inspections than any other State 410W
  Party, and the bulk of the inspector-person days expended by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons have been in the United States.

  Commonwealth Day
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to celebrate Commonwealth Day 2003; and what total budget his Department has made available for the celebration of Commonwealth Day 2003. [101979]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary received an invitation to attend the Observance for Commonwealth Day at Westminster Abbey, but was unable to attend. A Cabinet Minister will represent the Government at the Observance. The FCO has given the Joint Commonwealth Societies' Council £10,000 towards the cost of organising the Observance for Commonwealth Day at Westminster Abbey. Our Embassies and High Commissions will also be arranging events to mark the occasion, but information about expenditure on these events is not yet available.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with each Commonwealth country regarding Commonwealth Day 2003. [101980]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  None. Each member country is responsible for organising its own events to mark the Day.

  Cruise Missiles
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his counterpart in the US Government about the loading of cruise missiles on to B52 bombers at RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire. [102418]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  None. I refer my hon. Friend to the answers given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Hoon) to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on 11 March,Official Report, column 183–4W.

  Iraq
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps have been taken to ensure that, in the event of UK involvement in military conflict in Iraq, prisoners and persons detained will be protected by the 1949 Geneva Convention and accommodated in facilities that meet appropriate UN standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners. [100889]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government will act in conformity with the Geneva Convention and international law.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on US plans for US military administration in Iraq following military action. [101597]
  411W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  No decision has been made to launch military action in Iraq. If military action becomes necessary to enforce Iraq to disarm, a US-led military coalition will provide security and facilitate the provision of humanitarian relief for the Iraqi people, in accordance with international law.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the Canadian proposals on Iraq as the basis for a resolution at the United Nations Security Council. [102535]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  All proposals on Iraq, from whatever source, have been carefully examined.

  The Canadian proposal contains a number of sensible and useful suggestions, some of which have been incorporated into our current position.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the steps taken to authenticate the documentation on which the claims in the Government dossier that Iraq attempted to buy uranium from Niger were based. [102666]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There were no claims made in the Government Dossier that Iraq had attempted to procure uranium specifically from Niger.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the costs associated with the return of the UN arms inspectors to Iraq to(a) the UN, (b) each member of the Security Council and (c) other UN members. [102668]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Under the terms of UN Security Council resolution 1284, the UNMOVIC and IAEA inspection regimes for Iraq are funded by the diversion of resources from the Oil-For-Food programme. They are, therefore, effectively self-financing.

  The United Kingdom has met some ad-hoc requests for funding for training and other logistical support for UNMOVIC and the IAEA since the establishment of the new inspection regime in March 2000. The cost of this support to date has been approximately £1.2 million.

  We do not have figures relating to any financial support provided by other countries.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the potential environmental consequences arising from military action in Iraq; and what provision he is making to minimise these. [102820]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  No decision to launch military action against Iraq has been taken.

CABINET OFFICE

  Sir David Omand
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office pursuant to his answer of 5 December 2002,Official Report, column 925, to the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), what functions are performed by the 724 other staff working for Sir David
  412W
  Omand; how much this cost the Cabinet Office in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [99221]

  Mr. Alexander
  The 724 other staff referred to in the answer of 5 December are non-senior civil servants. In December 2002 the total salary costs of non-senior civil servants in the units that report to Sir David Omand were £2.1 million. These units are: the Intelligence and Security Secretariat; the Civil Contingencies Secretariat; the Communication Group; the Machinery of Government Secretariat; the Government Information and Communication Service; the Corporate Services Group; ministerial offices; and Sir David's private office.

PRIME MINISTER

  Lord Levy
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the visits undertaken at his request by Lord Levy since 1 January, indicating in each case the purpose of the visit. [102772]

  The Prime Minister
  In his capacity as the Prime Minister's envoy, Lord Levy travelled to Ramallah on 23 January and to Washington on 19 February to update and exchange views on the Middle East peace process.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what factors he takes into account when deciding that Lord Levy, in preference to a Foreign Office Minister, should undertake a foreign trip on his behalf. [102773]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) on 9 July 2001,Official Report, column 350W.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the members of the US administration Lord Levy has met while acting as his envoy. [102774]

  The Prime Minister
  In his capacity as the Prime Minister's envoy, Lord Levy has met a range of contacts, including Richard Armitage (Deputy Secretary of State); Bill Burns (Assistant Secretary of State, State Department); David Satterfield (Deputy Assistant Secretary, State Department); Martin Indyk, Dan Kurtzer, Aaron Miller, Rust Deming and Richard Haass (all State Department).

  He has also met Elliott Abrams, Bruce Riedel and Flint Everett (National Security Council), Scooter Libby and John Hannah (Office of the Vice President), General Anthony Zinni (US Special Envoy) and Senator George Mitchell (Chairman of the Sharm el-Sheikh Fact-Finding Committee).

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Defence of Provocation
  Linda Gilroy
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will make a statement on the defence of provocation, with particular reference to domestic violence. [102722]
  413W
  The Solicitor-General
  Provocation acts as a partial defence to murder and serves to reduce the offence to manslaughter.

  The Home Secretary and the Law Officers together with the Director of Public Prosecutions are currently considering whether there are grounds for a review of the law of provocation and a direction to the Sentencing Advisory Panel.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many cases prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service involved the defence of provocation in the last year for which statistics are available. [102726]

  The Solicitor-General
  Currently the CPS does not record statistics on the number of cases involving the defence of provocation. However, part of the work being carried out by the Law Officers and the DPP in considering whether there are grounds for a review of the law will include monitoring exercise in which CCP's will look at all homicides in their area, particularly those involving the defence of provocation.

  British Transport Police
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many staff were employed by the Crown Prosecution Service on cases brought by the British Transport Police in each of the last four years. [102723]

  The Solicitor-General
  Nearly all operational staff within the 42 areas and the headquarters of the Crown Prosecution Service are likely from time to time to handle cases submitted by the British Transport Police covering England and Wales. There is no central record of who in the CPS has, and has not, handled a British Transport Police case and it would involve a disproportionate cost to survey staff to ascertain this information.

  Race Hate Crimes
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Solicitor-General what her policy is on prosecution of race hate crimes. [102724]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service reviews all allegations of inciting racial hatred in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors.

  All such allegations are considered individually, on their own merits. However when considering the public interest of such prosecutions the Code for Crown Prosecutors specifically states that
  "a prosecution is likely to be needed if: the offence was motivated by any form of discrimination against the victim's ethnic or national origin".

  All such prosecutions are dealt with by the Casework Directorate where they are reviewed by a team of specialist lawyers and no prosecution takes place without the consent of the Attorney-General.

  Serious Fraud Office
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Solicitor-General what the priorities of the Serious Fraud Office are. [102725]

  The Solicitor-General
  The main priority of the Serious Fraud Office is the investigation and prosecution of serious and complex fraud.
  414W
  Other priorities include raising public awareness of the dangers of fraud and maintaining confidence in the UK's business and financial institutions.

  The Attorney-General and I are keen to support the SFO in their work which is why I met the Federation of Small Businesses the CPS and the SFO on 5 March to share their views on ways of combating fraud perpetrated against businesses.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Construction Industry (Accidents)
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment the Health and Safety Executive has made of the risk to members of the public from activities of construction companies who are involved in accidents. [102323]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The risk from construction work to the public can be significant. Those who create the risks are therefore legally required to control them. The Health and Safety Executive has issued practical guidance "Protecting the public—your next move" to help those in the construction industry to understand their legal responsibilities to the public and to explain how to eliminate hazards and control risks which could affect the public. The Health and Safety Executive also runs regular publicity campaigns to discourage children from playing on construction sites.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the number of persons claiming Jobseeker's Allowance while working in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [102776]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information requested is in the table.

  Jobseeker's Allowance claimants declaring part-time earnings (under 16 hours per week)

  As at August

  Thousand

  1997

  53.1

  1998

  46.2

  1999

  36.5

  2000

  28.3

  2001

  21.2

  2002

  19.8

  Notes:

  1. Figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample and are therefore subject to a degree of sampling variation.

  2. Figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred and are expressed in thousands.

  Source:

  Jobseeker's Allowance Quarterly Statistical Enquiries, August 1997 to August 2002.

HEALTH

  Accident and Emergency Admissions
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS patients were admitted to wards from
  415W
  accident and emergency departments within (a) one, (b) two, (c) three, (d) four and (e) more than four hours, after being first seen by a doctor or consultant in (i) February 1997 and (ii) the latest month for which figures are available. [97838]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department collects quarterly data regarding waiting times in accident and emergency, post decision to admit.

  The latest month for which figures are available is Quarter 2, July to September 2002–03—388,247 patients were placed in a bed in a ward within two hours of a decision to admit. 120,915 patients were placed in a bed in a ward within two to four hours of a decision to admit and 509,229 of patients were placed in a ward within four hours of a decision to admit.

  In Quarter 4, January to March 1996–97, 360,246 patients were placed in a bed in a ward within two hours of a decision to admit. 58,540 patients were placed in a bed in a ward within two to four hours of a decision to admit and 293,145 patients were placed in a ward within four hours of a decision to admit.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many elderly residents of each London borough have been placed in care homes outside London in the last 12 months; and how many people from outside London have been placed in care homes inside London in the last 12 months, broken down by social services department. [101309]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not centrally available.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter to him dated 27 January 2003 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Gorton Constituency Labour Party. [100684]

  Mr. Milburn
  A reply was sent to my right hon. Friend on 12 March.

  Dementia
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps he will take to provide people with dementia requiring long-term care with specialist, trained care staff; and what provision has been made under the free nursing care policy for such provision; [102040]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effect of his decision to limit the NHS contribution to funding long-term care to the cost of registered nurse time spent providing, delegating and supervising care to people with dementia. [102041]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 12 March 2003]In response to comments from the Alzheimer's Society, draft supplementary guidance on national health service funded nursing care, that was issued for consultation on 20 December 2002, highlighted the importance of nurses assessing people's mental health as well as physical health needs, particularly in cases of dementia. This will be reflected in forthcoming guidance.
  416W
  As far as NHS-funded nursing care is concerned, people with dementia should be treated no differently from people with other conditions. The level of input from a registered nurse is determined at the appropriate level of funding. Care homes that specialise in dementia care may provide more appropriate care for some people with dementia than a care home providing nursing care.

  The older people's national service framework (NSF) sets out to ensure that people with dementia have access to integrated mental health services, provided by the NHS and councils, to ensure effective diagnosis, treatment and support for them and for their carers. Work to support implementation of the NSF includes a strand on work force development. There is a dementia subgroup of the older people's care group work force team, and this is looking at the steps that need to be taken to ensure that there are the right skills and numbers of staff in place to care for people with dementia.

  Dentistry
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when retrograde amalgam fillings for teeth were first introduced in England and Wales. [98352]

  Mr. Lammy
  As far as records indicate, the treatment has been used since at least the inception of the national health service in 1948.

  Mental Health
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of people who would be subject to compulsory treatment, whether resident or non-resident, under the proposals contained in the draft Mental Health Bill, who are currently exempt under the Mental Health Act 1983. [100820]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 4 March 2003]The 1983 Mental Act liberalised the law to incorporate more tolerant public attitudes in relation to sexual preference so that this could no longer be viewed as a condition of mental disorder. Also excluded were people who are substance or alcohol misusers.

  However, people with psychosis exacerbated or caused by substance misuse, including alcohol, can be treated under the 1983 Act. A misunderstanding of section 1(3) of the Act has resulted in many instances in substance abusers being denied the treatment they need.

  Proposals under the Bill will remove all exclusions to ensure that those who fulfil all the conditions for compulsion receive the help that they need.

  The draft Mental Health Bill proposes a single broad definition of mental disorder, coupled with tightly drawn conditions that must be satisfied for compulsory powers to be used. It is the intention that the strict conditions will ensure that the powers are only used where the patient is suffering from a mental disorder which is serious enough to require treatment under the care of a mental health consultant; the risk to self or others warrants it and appropriate treatment is available for the individual patient. This approach would remove exclusions and the "treatability"

  417W
  requirement so that there are no arbitrary obstacles to the treatment of anyone who satisfies the conditions for compulsion.

  While the new legislation will lead to some change in the group of people treated, overall it is not the intention that more people will be subject to compulsion under the Bill. Investment under the NHS Plan and service improvements under the national service framework for mental health, such as assertive outreach, crisis resolution and early intervention, will help to provide more effective care and ensure that fewer people become so ill that they need compulsory treatment.

  Neurologists
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many neurologists are practising in England; what estimate he has made of the shortfall in neurologists; what action he is taking to encourage more neurologists to practise; what effect the shortfall of neurologists has on the speed of diagnosis for motor neurone disease sufferers; and if he will make a statement. [100107]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are committed to a significant expansion in the national health service work force. The NHS Plan set a target of 7,500 more consultants and 1,000 more specialist registrars by March 2004, over a 1999 baseline.

  Between September 1999 and March 2002, the total number of consultants increased by 13 per cent. During the same time period, the number of consultant neurologists increased by 23 per cent. By 2004, we expect there to be an additional 78 trained specialists available to take up consultant posts in neurology.

  We are encouraging more doctors to practice neurology by expanding the number of specialist registrar (SpR) opportunities in neurology. For 2003–04, central funding will be distributed to support the

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey All consultant vacancies in NHS Trust in London DHSC area three month vacancy rates and numbers

  March 2002

  March 1999

  3 month vacancy rate month (Percentage)

  3 month vacancy rate

  3 month vacancy rate month (Percentage)

  3 month vacancy rate

  England (excluding HA staff) of which:

  3.8

  946

  2.3

  469

  London DHSC area

  3.4

  161

  2.2

  85

  Vacancy Notes:

  1 Three month vacancy information is as at 31 March each year

  2 Three month vacancies are vacancies which Trusts are actively trying to fill, which had lasted for three months or more (whole time equivalents)

  3 Three month Vacancy Rates are three month vacancies expressed as a percentage of three month vacancies plus staff in post

  4 For 2002, three month Vacancy Rates are calculated using staff in post from the Consultant Census, March 2002

  5 For 1999, three month Vacancy Rates are calculated using staff in post from the Medical and Dental Census, September 1998

  6 Percentages are rounded to one decimal place

  General notes:

  1. Vacancy and staff in post numbers are rounded to the nearest whole number

  2. Calculating the vacancy rates using the above data may not equal the actual vacancy rates

  3. Medical and dental figures exclude staff in training

  Sources:Department of Health Vacancies Survey, March 1999 and March 2002
  418W
  implementation of 10 additional SpR posts in neurology. Trusts will also have the opportunity to create up to 20 locally funded SpR training opportunities.

  The long-term conditions care group workforce team covers conditions such as neurology, diabetes and renal services. It is developing the workforce strategy to underpin the national service frameworks for these conditions. It covers all aspects of work force planning and development including medical and nursing, allied health professions and social care professions.

  Motor neurone disease is often a difficult clinical diagnosis because the pattern of symptoms varies between patients and often mimics other, quite different diseases. The Department has introduced targets to limit the maximum length of time a patient should expect to wait to see a neurologist to 26 weeks.

  NHS Consultants
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) NHS consultants and (b) NHS consultant vacancies there are in Greater London; and how many of each there were in May 1997. [101319]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on consultant vacancies and consultants in post is shown in the tables. Vacancy figures were only collected from March 1999. The increase in vacancies reflects the action being taken by trusts to expand the consultant workforce.

  Hospital, Public Health Medicine and Community Health Services (HCHS): medical and dental consultants

  numbers

  19971

  19991

  March 20022

  London DHSC area

  4,210

  4,620

  5,330

  1 As at 30 September

  2 As at 31 March

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10

  Sources:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census

  NHS University
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to apply for the Royal Charter for the NHS University. [100504]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National Health Service University (NHSU) aims to become an awarding and accrediting institution in its own right, by meeting the standards required to become a university. NHSU will apply to the Privy Council in its own right. The decision to grant university status will be then made by the Privy Council.

  NHSU have set up a working group with the Higher Education Funding Council, with members drawn from the Higher Education Funding Council, NHSU, Department for Education and Skills, the Department of Health and the Quality Assurance Agency. This group will look at the appropriate processes and mechanisms for achieving university status, to offer advice and to draw up an action plan setting out the steps to be taken.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Advertising Costs (Scotland)
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much the Department spent on advertising in Scotland in each year since 1999 on(a) television, (b) newspapers, (c) radio, (d) magazines, (e) billboards and (f) sporting events. [102331]

  Mr. Leslie
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Capita
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many meetings(a) he and Ministers in his Department, (b) special advisers in his Department and (c) officials have had with Capita employees and members of the Capita board since May 2001; what the purpose was of each meeting; and if he will make a statement. [98578]

  Mr. Leslie
  As with previous Administrations, and in line with exemption 7 of the "Code of Practice on Access to Government Information", it is not this Government's normal practice to release details of specific meetings or their content, as some of these discussions may have taken place on a confidential basis. All such contacts are conducted in accordance with the rules set out in the "Ministerial Code", the "Civil Service Code", and "Guidance for Civil Servants: Contacts with Lobbyists". Copies of these documents are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Children's Services
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 24 February 2003,Official
  420W
  Report, column 262W, on looked after children, if he will set out the reasons for the delay in publication of the Social Exclusion Unit report. [102527]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Social Exclusion Unit report on the education of children in care will need to take account of the proposals in the forthcoming Green Paper on Children at Risk. It will be published shortly after the Green Paper, which is due for publication in the spring of 2003.

  Compulsory Purchase
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many properties were compulsorily purchased by the Housing Corporation in(a) 1999, (b) 2000, (c) 2001 and (d) 2002. [102409]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Housing Corporation purchased no properties during those years.

  Departmental Costs
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the cost was of the(a) Social Exclusion Unit and (b) Deputy Prime Minister's Central Policy Group in each year from 1997–98 to 2004–05 (planned). [99885]

  Mr. Leslie
  The information is as follows:

  (a) The following table shows the total administration expenditure profile for the Social Exclusion Unit for each year 1997–98 to 2004–05. The SEU was located within the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on its creation on 29 May 2002.

  £000

  1997–98

  89

  1998–99

  681

  1999–2000

  1,570

  2000–01

  2,246

  2001–02

  2,156

  2002–03

  12,770

  2003–04

  23,163

  2004–05

  23,163

  1 Forecast

  2 Planned

  The Social Exclusion Unit does not have any programme or capital costs.

  (b) The Deputy Prime Minister's Central Policy Group was in existence from July 2001 to June 2002 in the Cabinet Office. Administration expenditure of the Central Policy Group for 2001–02 was £491,000.

  Firefighters
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the relationship between the projected cuts in the number of firefighters under the Bain proposals and the proposals of the Pathfinder report. [100120]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Independent Review of the Fire Service recommended a new and more flexible approach to fire cover. It suggested that resources should be deployed to ensure that the right resources such as
  421W
  firefighters, fire stations, and fire appliances are in the right place at the right time to save lives where they are at risk. This new approach is not about cutting fire stations or firefighters. It is about better targeting Fire Service resources at identified risks in a cost-effective manner.

  The Task Group on the Fire Cover Review (whose report is widely referred to as the "Pathfinder report") developed a Fire Service Emergency Cover Methodology. This was used by the Task Group to predict resource and personnel requirements, and their related cost. This was done both for the 11 fire brigades which participated in the Pathfinder trials and, by extrapolation, nationally. However, while the Task Group endorsed the basic methodology, a number of teething problems led the group to reject the detailed calculations, which are now being repeated following further work. The Fire Cover Review has developed a model to inform decisions about the allocation of emergency response resources (fire stations, red engines, and crews). The model has been tested twice in computer simulations. The first test run suggested that you could spend twice the current Fire Service budget without achieving much reduction in risk. The second test run suggested that you could halve expenditure without much increase in current levels of loss of life and property.

  These two simulations have set out two extreme cases. But taken together, and even allowing for some technical errors which have come to light in the early results, the findings suggest that substantial improvements in Fire Service efficiency and effectiveness are achievable. This judgement has been endorsed by the Bain report.

  The report of the Fire Cover Review was published in draft on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister website on 23 December 2002 (www.odpm.gov.uk). Copies of the final report of the Independent Review of the Fire Service, and the draft Fire Cover Review report have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how the cuts in the number of firefighters envisaged by the Bain report would be broken down by Fire Brigade regions. [100121]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Independent Review of the Fire Service recommended a new and more flexible approach to fire cover in which resources would be deployed in the right place at the right time to meet identified risks to life and property. This new approach is not about cutting the number of firefighters. Under these proposals, democratically accountable fire authorities, acting on the professional advice of Chief Fire Officers, would take decisions on the provision of fire cover. The review considered that the recommendations it made could be implemented without the need for compulsory redundancies.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he intends to revise fire service guidance on the employment of people with diabetes as firefighters. [102411]
  422W
  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is reviewing the existing guidance to the fire service on the employment of people with diabetes as fire fighters. Key interest groups are being consulted, and the review will take account of all relevant legislation.

  Housing
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how small local schemes will be funded following the creation of the single housing pot, with particular reference to schemes outside the areas earmarked for housing expansion or housing market renewals. [101831]

  Mr. McNulty
  Local housing authorities and housing associations will continue to invest in improving existing stock or increasing the supply of affordable housing in accordance with priorities identified in local housing strategies. Under the new single regional housing pot the resources provided by central Government to support this housing investment will increasingly be directed to areas or types of expenditure identified as priorities in regional housing strategies.

  Parish Councils
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his oral answer of 5 March 2003,Official Report, column 806, on parish councillors, what the evidential basis was of the information given in his reply. [102137]

  Mr. Leslie
  My reply to the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) on 5 March drew on information in departmental and Standards Board records of the number of parish councillors who have written to say that they have resigned as a result of the requirements in the code of conduct, and on published estimates of the number of parish councillors in England (see 'Local Council Administration', sixth edition, Butterworths 2002).

  Pathfinder Scheme (Swarcliffe Estate)
  Colin Burgon
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the progress of the Pathfinder Scheme for the Swarcliffe estate in the Elmet constituency. [102792]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Housing Private Finance Initiative (PFI) pathfinder for the Swarcliffe estate in Leeds, is due to reach contract signature before the end of 2003.

  Pollution (Fines)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made or plans of the effectiveness of fines levied by local authorities on polluters preventing(a) further incidences of pollution by the polluters and (b) incidences of pollution from others who have not previously polluted; what changes are planned; and if he will make a statement. [99257]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  Part 1 of the Environment Protection Act 1990 specifies that fines be levied by courts and not by the local enforcing authority. The authority may however bring proceedings against the accused in a Court of Law.
  423W
  No assessment has yet been made of the preventive effect of fines levied against environmental offenders. My Department takes the view that the level of fines being imposed for pollution offences is generally too low. We are now working with the Environment Agency and with others, especially the Magistrates Association, to ensure that magistrates are trained and have an increased awareness of the implications of polluting activity and consequently impose more realistic fines. To this end, the Association recently circulated relevant training material to all its 28,000 members.

  The Government are also exploring the possibility of developing general guidelines on sentencing for environmental offences. To this end, my Department has recently commissioned research to examine penalties for environmental offences and to aim to establish a solid body of information, which could be used as a basis for future action. The research team is due to report in the summer.

  Public Bodies (Greater (London)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the value was of each grant paid to public sector bodies in London in the last year before the creation of the Greater London Authority for transport and highways purposes, including the highways and transport element of rate support grant; what sum was paid to the Greater London Authority in the last year for which information is available; and if he will make a statement on the methodology for determining that grant. [101550]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Grants paid to public sector bodies in London in 1999/00 were as follows (figures in fan):

  (£)

  Traffic Director for London

  24

  Traffic Control Systems Unit/Woolwich Ferry/Consultancies

  8

  London Transport (incl. London Underground

  816

  Docklands Light Railway

  29

  Highways Agency London spend (est.)

  140

  London Borough LTP allocations

  84

  Highways Rate Support Grant

  223

  Total:

  1,324

  In addition to these figures, a proportion of the expenditure on National Rail would have been spent in London.

  In 2002/03, the sum paid to the Greater London Authority in the form of GLA transport grant is £1,024,118,000. This does not include any funding for the London Underground, National Rail, or for rate support grant paid to the London boroughs and TfL. No account of concessionary fares funding for London boroughs has been taken with regard to these figures.

  Decisions on the level of GLA transport grant are taken by Ministers during comprehensive spending reviews, based on an assessment of London's need and competing national priorities. Grant is determined annually, following consultation with the Mayor of London.

  Quarries
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many quarries within the Peak District National Park are operating without the requirement for modern working standards required by schedule 13 of the Environment Act 1995; and what steps his Department is taking to ensure all quarries in the Peak District National Park are reviewed under schedule 13 of the Environment Act 1995. [102694]

  Mr. McNulty
  This information is not available centrally, because the review of existing mineral sites in this area is the responsibility of the Peak District National Park Authority. Guidance on the use of schedule 13 by all mineral planning authorities is set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 14: "Environment Act 1995—Review of Mineral Planning Permissions".

  Smoking
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what policy his Department has adopted on smoking in the workplace. [100936]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister operates a no smoking policy except in specifically designated smoking rooms.

  Speed Cameras
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many staff were employed by local authorities to operate and administer speed cameras in each year since 1997. [102230]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  This information is not held centrally.

  Fire Authorities
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the authorities which benefited from the coastline factor in the fire service formula; and what proportion of the aggregate fire service FSS allocation was distributed on the basis of the coastline factor. [101549]

  Mr. Raynsford
  1.5 per cent. of the aggregate fire service FSS allocation was distributed on the basis of the coastline factor. The following fire authorities benefited:

  Cornwall;

  Cumbria;

  Isle of Wight;

  Isles of Scilly;

  Lincolnshire;

  Merseyside;

  Norfolk;

  Northumberland;

  Somerset;

  Suffolk;

  Tyne & Wear; and

  West Sussex.

  425W
  In addition the following authorities benefited on behalf of their combined fire authority:
  Bath and north east Somerset, Bristol, north Somerset and south Gloucestershire for the Avon Fire Authority; Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland and Stockton-on-Tees for the Cleveland Fire Authority; Plymouth, Torbay and Devon for the Devon Fire Authority; Bournemouth, Poole and Dorset for the Dorset Fire Authority; Darlington and Durham for the Durham Fire Authority, Brighton and Hove and East Sussex for the East Sussex Fire Authority; Thurrock, Southend-on-Sea and Essex for the Essex Fire Authority; Portsmouth, Southampton and Hampshire for the Hampshire Fire Authority; East Riding of Yorkshire, Kingston upon Hull, North East Lincolnshire and North Lincolnshire for the Humberside Fire Authority; Medway and Kent for the Kent Fire Authority; Blackburn with Darwen, Blackpool and Lancashire for the Lancashire Fire Authority; and York and North Yorkshire for the North Yorkshire Fire Authority.

  Stratford on Avon District Council
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much total Government grant was(a) paid and (b) proposed to be paid to Stratford on Avon District Council in (i) cash and (ii) constant prices in each year between 1997–98 and 2003–04; and what the percentage increase in such grant in each of these years was at constant pricing. [102896]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The following table shows total formula grant which consists of redistributed business rates, revenue support grant and SSA reduction grant (SSA review) (where appropriate).

  Over the period requested there have been many changes in the functions and funding of services to local government. To enable a like-for-like comparison between years, we calculate adjusted grants. The percentage change figures have been calculated on the basis of these like-for-like comparisons.

  Until the introduction of Central Support Protection Grant in 1999–2000, there was no need to calculate grant on a like-for-like basis, and for this reason grant comparisons in the years 1997–98 and 1998–99 are not available. There were no changes in funding and function between 1998–99 and 1999–2000 that needed reflecting in adjusted grants for 1998–99 to allow a like-for-like comparison; the actual 1998–99 values have therefore been used in this case.

  Year

  Formula grant (£ million)

  Formula grant at 2003–04 Prices (£ million)

  Percentage increase in formula grant at 2003–04 prices

  1997–98

  5.635

  6.507

  Not available

  1998–99

  5.167

  5.807

  Not available

  1999–2000

  5.516

  6.053

  6.2

  Adjusted

  1999–2000

  5.516

  6.053

  2000–01

  5.979

  6.415

  6.0

  Adjusted

  2000–01

  6.016

  6.454

  2001–02

  6.009

  6.298

  -2.4

  Adjusted

  2001–02

  5.866

  6.148

  2002–03

  6.157

  6.295

  2.4

  Adjusted

  2002–03

  5.968

  6.102

  2003–04

  6.164

  6.164

  1.0

  Telecommunications
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what further measures he proposes to take to encourage mast sharing by telecommunication operators. [102095]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Code of Best Practice on Mobile Network Development was published on 11 November 2002. This firmly encourages mast and site sharing where that is the optimum solution in the individual circumstances. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has no plans to amend further the planning arrangements for telecommunications development at the present time.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations he has(a) made to and (b) received from local planning authorities in respect of telecommunication operators' commitment to participate in obligatory pre-rollout and pre-allocation consultation. [102094]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government issued 'Planning Policy Guidance Note 8: Telecommunications' in August 2001 which strongly encourages telecommunications operators and local planning authorities to carry out annual discussions about rollout plans for each authority's area. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister also issued the 'Code of Best Practice on Mobile Phone Network Development' in November 2002, which includes more detailed recommendations for managing the relationship between mobile operators and local planning authorities and the process of public consultation. The Code also contained the Mobile Operators' Ten Commitments, which includes the commitments to participate in pre-rollout and pre-application consultation with local authorities and improved consultation with local communities.

  The Government receive many representations on matters relating to the telecommunications industry but the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is not aware of any particular representations from local planning authorities on this subject.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what financial support the Government's independent scientific research programme on mobile communications health issues has received from telecommunication operators. [102096]

  Mr. McNulty
  The independent scientific research programme is costing £7.36 million of which private companies in the telecommunications sector are paying 50 per cent. (£3.68 million). More information about the research programme can be found at the Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research Programme website: www.mthr.org.uk.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what information his Department has gathered regarding the extent to which telecommunication operators have met their commitment to provide staff resources to respond to complaints and inquiries about radio base stations within 10 working days. [102097]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Mobile Operators Association have commissioned Deloitte and Touche to carry out
  427W
  an independent review of the implementation of the Operators Ten Commitments. The results of the review will be made available to the public in due course.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to replace telecommunication operators' voluntary code of conduct with statutory regulation; and if he will make a statement. [102098]
  428W
  Mr. McNulty
  There are no plans to replace the mobile phone Operators' Ten Commitments with statutory regulation. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will, however, continue to monitor the implementation of the Commitments and will keep the situation under review in light of experience and any new developments.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Teachers' Pension Scheme
  The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband)
  The Government Actuary has reported on the results of his valuation of the Teachers' Pension Scheme (TPS) as at 31 March 2001. His report recommends that the employer contribution rate for the TPS should increase from the current rate of 8.35 per cent. to 13.5 per cent. from 1 April 2003. The contribution paid by teachers will remain at 6 per cent. of their salary.

  The majority of the increase (equating to 4.75 per cent.) arises because for the first time the cost of pensions increase (the annual cost of inflation increases) will be covered by the employer contribution, whereas previously it was funded directly by the Exchequer. Employers in the maintained sectors have been provided with additional funds to help them to meet the cost of this increase. The remaining 0.4 per cent. of the increase is as a result of demographic changes since the last valuation, most notably improvements in life expectancy. This anticipated pressure was taken into account in the 2002 Spending Review settlement for education.

  A copy of the Government Actuary's report has been placed in the House of Commons' Library

DEFENCE

  Service Accommodation
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram)
  The Government gave a commitment under SDR to improve Single Living Accommodation for Service personnel. I am therefore pleased to announce that, following competition, FALCON, a consortium led by Interserve fm and Compass, has been selected as the Preferred Bidder for the ARMADA Private Finance Initiative (PFI) Project. Subject to the successful completion of negotiations, it is planned to award the contract in late July of this year.

  The ARMADA Project encompasses the provision of services in the Fleet Accommodation Centre at HM Naval Base Devonport over a 25-year period. This includes property maintenance, infrastructure maintenance, catering, cleaning and responsibility for environmental aspects and ground maintenance as well as the design, build, finance and operation of the Fleet Accommodation Centre Single Living Accommodation.

  En-suite accommodation is planned for 55 Senior Officers, 195 Junior Officers, 600 Warrant Officers and Senior Ratings and 700 Junior Ratings, with 100 beds (non-en suite) retained for transient personnel.

  Iraq (Further Contingency Preparations)
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon)
  In a statement on 20 January 2003,Official Report, columns 34–35, I informed the House of the Government's decision to deploy a land force package led by Headquarters 1 (UK) Armoured Division to provide military capabilities for potential military action against Iraq. This deployment has made good progress.

  I told the House that operational planning continued to evolve. In order to provide Headquarters 1 (UK) Armoured Division with further flexibility to respond to a range of possible tasks and circumstances, we now plan to deploy two additional units. Members of the 1st Battalion The Duke of Wellington's Regiment will deploy to provide additional infantry capability. 202 Field Hospital (Volunteer) will deploy to provide additional medical capability. We had originally envisaged that 202 Field Hospital (Volunteer) would replace 33 Field Hospital, which is already deployed. We now plan that 33 Field Hospital will remain in theatre, along with 34 Field Hospital and 202 Field Hospital (Volunteer), for the time being.

  These changes involve some 850 personnel; the total size of the deployment remains about 45,000 personnel.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Partners for Water and Sanitation
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley)
  I am pleased to welcome the publication of the first annual report from the UK tri-sector partnership Partners for Water and Sanitation.

  This partnership between Government, civil society and the private sector aims to make a contribution towards achieving the targets for water and sanitation agreed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in South Africa last Autumn.

  The annual report gives details of the progress made in each of the three African partner countries—South Africa, Nigeria and Uganda—with information about the exploratory and scoping study visits undertaken by the partnership. The report also sets out plans for future activity.

  It is encouraging to note the progress made by this partnership in developing strong relationships with partner countries and the Government wish it every success in the contribution it is making towards achievement of the water and sanitation targets agreed at the World Summit in Johannesburg last year.

  Copies of the report will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Households Below Average Income 2001–02
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith)
  Today I have published Households Below Average Income (HBAI) for 1994–95—2001–02. This is a report published under National Statistics arrangements with results that cover Great Britain. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  The report shows that all incomes have been rising rapidly, but it is lower incomes that have been rising faster. Income growth has been at roughly double the long-term trend, but unlike comparable earlier periods like the late 1980s when the poor were left behind, the gains have been felt across the whole income distribution: rising prosperity for the many and not just the few. Whereas median real disposable income for the population as a whole had risen by 19 per cent. since 1996–97, median incomes for the poorest two-fifths were up by 25 per cent.

  The reduction of child and pensioner poverty is a priority for this Government. There have been very significant falls in the numbers within both groups below "absolute" low-income thresholds.

  In 1996–97 there were 4.3 million children in households with incomes below 60 per cent of the median (after housing costs income); by 2001–02 the number of children whose households fell below this same real income line was down by 1.8 million, a decline in this poverty count of 42 per cent. For pensioners below the same threshold, the decline is from 2.7 million in 1996–97 to 1.1 million in 2001–02, a decline of 1.6 million or 59 per cent.

  We are not just increasing the incomes of poorer pensioners and children, we are doing so at a fast enough rate to help them to narrow the gap with the rest of the population. Before the late 1990s, there was a generation-long trend for relative income poverty amongst children to rise. The number of children below 60 per cent of contemporary disposable income more than doubled from 1979 to reach 4.3 million in 1996–97. The new figures confirm that this trend is now in reverse, with a fall of 100,000 in the number of children below this threshold this year. By 2001–02 there were half a million fewer children living in households below 60 per cent. of contemporary median (after housing costs) income than in 1996–97. For pensioners, the same relative poverty count fell from 2.7 million in 1996–97 to 2.2 million in 2001–02.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Iraq (Humanitarian Contingency Planning)
  The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short)
  I welcome the International Development Committee's report on humanitarian contingency planning in Iraq. The House may welcome a summary of the principles my Department has applied in our planning, our current level of preparedness and constraints on it, and our assessment of the international community's planning. I set out my position in a written memorandum to the Committee 22WS
  before I gave evidence on 12 February. We will respond in due course to the report's detailed recommendations, some of which have already been addressed or are already Government policy. I want to set out to the House now how our planning has developed in the last month.

  The Government's objectives on Iraq were set out to the House in a written statement by Jack Straw on 7 January. These include as an immediate priority to continue to support humanitarian efforts to relieve the suffering of the Iraqi people. We have worked to encourage contingency planning for a range of scenarios, including the possible resolution of the crisis without conflict. My responsibilities as Secretary of State for International Development include helping minimise the risk of humanitarian suffering as well as alleviating it when it occurs, and this has guided our planning. We have had extensive discussions across Government about how military strategy can minimise and mitigate the risks of conflict to the Iraqi people.

  In the event of conflict in Iraq, my Department would have two humanitarian roles. One is to help advise the Ministry of Defence and the armed forces on how best to discharge their humanitarian responsibilities under The Hague and Geneva Conventions. The other is to use the funds, expertise and influence available to us to support the direct delivery of impartial humanitarian assistance by the international humanitarian community. I will summarise what we are doing in both capacities.

  In the event of conflict and the occupation of Iraqi territory by the UK military, the occupying forces would have humanitarian responsibilities under The Hague and Geneva Conventions. It is likely that in the first stages of any conflict, UN agencies and NGOs would not be fully operational, particularly if there is a credible threat of the use of chemical or biological weapons. Military forces thus might have primary responsibility for the initial delivery of humanitarian assistance. They are also likely to play a key role over a longer time period in providing a secure environment for other organisations to deliver humanitarian assistance. My Department has been advising the Ministry of Defence and the armed forces on these issues for some time. We have recently agreed the secondment of a full-time Civil-Military Humanitarian Adviser to the Headquarters UK 1 Division in Kuwait, and are also providing advice to the National Component Headquarters in Qatar. We are considering additional support. We are discussing with the armed forces the use of military Quick Impact Projects in the period immediately after any conflict, which DFID would consider funding where there are clear humanitarian needs.

  The principles we apply in delivering humanitarian assistance to Iraq are the same as anywhere else. They are not determined by the nature of the conflict, or subject to military strategy or diplomatic considerations. We will respect international humanitarian law and relevant human rights laws and conventions. We will allocate our assistance impartially based on the best possible assessment of need. We will state clearly the standards we aspire to and how we are accountable for our assistance. We will respect the neutrality and independence of our humanitarian

  23WS
  partners. Where moral dilemmas in the delivery of humanitarian assistance arise, often requiring fast and difficult decisions, with lives at stake, we will be explicit in the analysis which guides our choices, and communicate this openly.

  It is the Government's policy to support the work of international humanitarian agencies, particularly those of the United Nations, to take the leading role in responding to humanitarian emergencies. My Department's regular funding to the UN and other humanitarian agencies includes provision for emergency preparedness for a variety of contingencies across the world. On 10 February I announced I was supplementing this funding with an additional £3.5 million contribution to support UN humanitarian contingency planning for Iraq. This money has been allocated to a range of UN agencies including the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), the World Food Programme, the World Health Organisation, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and the United Nations Security Coordinator (UNSECOORD). I decided last week to provide a further £6.5 million to supplement our existing funding for the Iraq planning work of these agencies, and support a small number of NGOs in their contingency preparedness. For UN agencies to maintain a high level of preparedness for a range of scenarios is prudent, but this has continuing recurrent costs. We are keeping this situation under regular review and maintain close contact with UN agencies and other donors about how far UN appeals have been met.

  This £10 million of new funding is in addition to the UK's ongoing humanitarian programme in Iraq. Since 1991 DFID has provided over £100 million of bilateral assistance, and DFID's contributions through the EC have been an additional £15 million. In 2002–03 we expect to spend over –8 million. Much of this supports the work of NGOs operating in northern Iraq. Humanitarian work in the north, where the Oil-For-Food programme is run by the UN and the Kurdish authorities are keen to collaborate with a range of international organisations, is much easier than in the centre/south. Despite sanctions, humanitarian indicators such as maternal mortality and child mortality have improved much faster in the north under the Oil-For-Food programme. But my Department is also funding the work of UNICEF, the International Committee of the Red Cross and CARE in Baghdad-controlled Iraq. These organisations do essential technical work improving water and sanitation systems, repairing health facilities, and building the capacity of the Iraqi people to maintain their own infrastructure.

  My Department is now holding weekly confidential meetings with NGOs to share information on our and their contingency planning, and discuss areas of mutual co-operation such as preserving humanitarian independence. We are making contingency preparedness funding available to those who have carefully thought through the complexities of the humanitarian environment and are likely to be able to play a significant role in the early stages after any conflict.
  24WS
  DFID believes that the UN, through the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs should play the leading role in the co-ordination of humanitarian activity, including in the vital function of the pooling and sharing of information about priority needs. The UN is best able to reassure implementing agencies of the independence of humanitarian decision making. My Department is funding OCHA to prepare for this role in Iraq, including through support for the creation of a Humanitarian Information Centre headquartered in Larnaca, to which we will be seconding a specialist. We are also supporting the UN Joint Logistic Centre through further secondments.

  DFID's strategy for responding to the humanitarian needs following any conflict will be determined by events which cannot be predicted. Retaining sufficient flexibility at this stage to deploy our finite financial and human resources where they are most needed is essential. We are deploying operational humanitarian staff to key locations in the region now so we can take rapid and well-informed decisions when required about future deployment.

  We have brought DFID's stockpile of non-food items, vehicles and equipment to immediate readiness, and are procuring additional supplies. We are positioning some of these stocks in Kuwait and elsewhere in the region, where they could be used by a variety of implementing partners. This is in addition to the prepositioning done by UN agencies and others which we are helping to fund.

  DFID is working closely with the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Treasury to assess the possible costs of humanitarian assistance in the event of conflict. The unmet needs could be enormous. The precise cost will depend on the extent of damage and displacement caused by any conflict, and particularly on disruption to the Oil-For-Food programme (OFF). We have put considerable effort into discussing how to minimise that disruption. Contingency planning includes looking at how disruption to the delivery of essential services provided by OFF can be minimised. The Government expect a leading role for the UN in such circumstances. We are working with others on detailed ideas for a possible further UN Security Council Resolution to ensure OFF could continue to operate in a modified form after any conflict.

  As well as close liaison with UN agencies whose contingency planning we are already contributing to, my Department has maintained dialogue with a range of other Governments. The Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Affairs in the US Department of Defense is now leading American planning on humanitarian issues which would arise after any conflict. DFID has a secondee in ORHA; the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence have also seconded staff. My officials are in close contact with their US counterparts on a range of humanitarian issues. The Government are aware of the plans of a large number of other countries and international organisations who would contribute to immediate humanitarian assistance in Iraq in the event of conflict. Most would do so according to humanitarian principles regardless of who the belligerents were and on what basis conflict started. Co-ordination of planning is politically sensitive for

  25WS
  many of them at this stage. The UK will encourage wider international co-ordination as quickly as these political sensitivities allow.

  My assessment of the overall level of preparedness of the international community to cope with the humanitarian challenges which may lie ahead in Iraq is that it is limited, and this involves serious risk. UN agencies have made sensible plans with the resources at their disposal. The USA has put a lot of effort into its planning but lacks recent on the ground experience of work in Iraq, and I am concerned by optimistic assumptions about how quickly the UN and NGOs might be able to do post-conflict work. The UK military's humanitarian planning has been proceeding quickly in recent weeks but their Geneva Convention obligations could be huge.

  Many donors have not engaged fully with the detail or the scale of the potential humanitarian challenges. There are currently serious humanitarian crises in Afghanistan, the West Bank/Gaza, southern Africa, Ethiopia and Eritrea, and both the international humanitarian system and DFID resources are highly stretched. We could do more with a little more time. But ultimately no preparation would be enough to cope with the scale of the worst-case scenarios—16 million people currently dependent on Oil-For-Food handouts deprived of their monthly ration for a sustained period, the complete collapse of water and sanitation systems in a largely urban country of 25 million people, and the possible use of chemical and biological weapons on the civilian population. That is why it is so important to minimise those risks.

  My Department is also considering the longer term reconstruction and reform issues. It is clear that a UN mandate will be required to provide legal authority for the reconstruction effort, and to make possible the engagement of the international financial institutions and the wider international community. Efforts are being made to ensure that a suitable mandate is put in place.

TREASURY

  Spring Reports
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng)
  Following the announcement that the Budget will take place on 9 April 2003, HM Treasury plans to publish the 2003–04 Main Estimates, the Supplementary Budget Information publication that accompanies the Main Estimates, and the Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2003–04 on Tuesday 6 May 2003.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Rent Services Agency
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty)
  Key Performance Targets have been agreed for the Rent Service Agency for the business planning period 1 April 26WS
  2003 to 31 March 2004. The targets are included in the agency's business plan, which includes management objectives, performance indicators and key tasks.

  Copies of the business plan will be placed in the Library in due course.

  The key targets for The Rent Service are:
  To process 87 per cent. of Housing Benefit Determinations without an inspection within three working days.
  To process 87 per cent. of Housing Benefit Determinations with an inspection within 15 working days.
  To process 87 per cent. of Pre-Tenancy Determinations within four working days.
  To process 87 per cent. of Redeterminations within 15 working days.
  To process 87 per cent. of Fair Rent Determinations within 40 working days.
  To increase the number of cases determined per employee by a minimum of 1 per cent. whilst reducing the costs per case by a minimum of 1 per cent. in real terms, and with improvements in the quality of service provided.
  To achieve a 2 per cent. reduction in the number of Local Reference Rent Housing Benefit cases that are amended by more than 5 per cent. on redetermination.
  To achieve a 1 per cent. reduction in the number of Fair Rent cases that are amended by more than 10 per cent.on appeal to the Rent Assessment Committee.
  To improve customer satisfaction rating from 85 per cent. to 87 per cent. in 2003–04. This percentage relates to people who rate the Agency's service as "good" or better.

  The key performance targets remain more challenging than the statutory requirements for the Rent Service and represent the Government's commitment to continuous improvement of the Service.

  Best Value and Performance Improvement
  The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford)
  The Government have today published a circular on best value and performance improvement, containing guidance for principal local authorities about how to achieve best value and secure continuous improvement in delivering local services. It consolidates and replaces existing guidance.

  The services provided by local authorities directly impact on everyone's quality of life. It is therefore vital that these services are delivered to a high standard, and in ways that are responsive to the needs of their users.

  The circular emphasises the important role that best value can play in helping to drive up the quality of local services. It explains how authorities can make arrangements under best value to secure a well-trained and motivated workforce, to review performance effectively, and to use the annual performance plans to record their priorities for improvement and achievements.
  27WS
  It includes a code of practice on workforce matters in local government service contracts. The code will ensure that the provision of local services is not undermined by poor employment practices in respect of new joiners to contracted-out services. Partnerships with the private and voluntary sectors should be selected where these will drive up service performance standards, not in order to drive down staff terms and conditions.

  Authorities should use the guidance to continue to challenge how services are delivered and look for new and innovative ways to deliver quality services.
  28WS
  Today, I am also laying an order requiring all best value authorities to consult recognised unions and employees' associations, and staff, when conducting best value reviews. This will ensure that better decisions are made, increase understanding of the reasons for those decisions, and help authorities achieve continuous improvement in service delivery.

  Copies of the circular have been placed in the House Libraries.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Derby.

Prevention of Driving under the Influence of Drugs Bill [H.L.]
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make it an offence to drive a motor vehicle while under the influence of a controlled drug; to provide powers for police officers to undertake roadside drug tests on drivers; to provide that statistics of drug-related road accidents and deaths are collected and collated; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Dixon-Smith.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House: Standing Order 47
11.5 a.m.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Williams of Mostyn, I beg to move the first Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 47 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Monday 17th March to allow the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill to be taken through all its remaining stages.—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business of the House: Debate, 17th March
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend I beg to move the second Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved. That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Goodhart set down for Monday 17th March shall be limited to three hours.—(Baroness, Symons of Vernham Dean.)
On Question, Motion agreed to

Health (Wales) Bill
11.6 a.m.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clause 2,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 3 to 7,

Schedules 3 and 4,

Clauses 8 to 10.—(Lord Evans of Temple Guiting.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill
11.7 a.m.
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Rooker.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
"REGIONAL BOUNDARIES
(1) Before making any order under this Act the Secretary of State shall—

(a) invite all local authorities in England to submit to him proposals for the creation of regions for the purposes of this Act;

(b) invite such other persons and bodies as appear to him to represent relevant interests throughout England to submit to him proposals for the creation of regions for the purposes of this Act;

(c) upon receipt of submissions in response to paragraphs (a) and (b) invite the Electoral Commission to comment on the submissions and to make proposals to the Secretary of State for the creation of regions for the purposes of this Act having regard to—

(i) the desirability of all regions being, in so far as is compatible with sub-paragraph (ii), of approximately equal population size; and

(ii) the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities;

(d) publish the proposals made to him by the Electoral Commission under paragraph (c); and

(e) make an order creating regions for the purposes of this Act, having regard to the proposals published under paragraph (d).

1439
(2) For the purposes of this section "relevant interests" means professional bodies, trades unions, voluntary organisations, faith groups, political parties, business organisations and community organisations.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a) and (b), the Secretary of State shall set out a timetable for the giving of responses to him."
The noble Baroness said: The Bill seeks to facilitate the establishment of eight regional assemblies within England by defining the process by which referenda will be held. One of the mainstay arguments that the Government have used when trying to persuade us that regional government is a positive step forward is that England has prominent regional differences and that decentralising a degree of power from central government to elected regional assemblies will allow policy to be tailored to the differing needs of those in different areas. So we are told that public services will meet local needs and people will no longer feel that Whitehall dictates all.
However, if the Government have their heart set on the establishment of regional assemblies, which would be a fundamental constitutional change and involve a major reorganisation of local government, it is irresponsible and democratically untenable that a preliminary review of those boundaries is not carried out first. Amendments Nos. 1 and 10 make such a review the primary requirement preceding the calling of a referendum.
I am sure Members of the Committee will recall the heartfelt concerns of a number of noble Lords at Second Reading who felt little allegiance to the regions to which they had been assigned with little or no regard. As presently constituted the regions are huge, the boundaries unnatural and arbitrarily drawn. My noble friend Lady Seccombe pointed out that living in Warwickshire she has within a 10-mile radius of her home the West Midlands, the East Midlands, the South East and the South West regions. Regional identity should not be swept under the carpet in the interests of utility, which is what we feel the Government are doing.
From the White Paper it is clear that the Government believe that a debate on the composition of the regions and their definitions would be a waste of time. That is a somewhat dismissive view of an area of significant constitutional change. However, the Government have, without consultation, decided to stick with the administrative boundaries used by the Government Offices for the Regions and the regional development agencies—regions that have no coherence or points of community identity.
Clause 26 of the Bill makes it clear that the references to regions in the Bill are those defined in the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998. There are various views of how those regions came about, but since they were created for administrative rather than electoral purposes, they are unlikely to have been the subject of the degree of consultation that we propose in Amendment No. 1.
In the White Paper the Government say that they have not,
1440
"completely ruled out in the longer term the possibility of adopting boundaries for regional assemblies that do not follow the existing boundaries".
But that is simply fanciful. Why refuse to review the system of boundaries at this stage in advance of the re-organisation of the local government substructure—a matter to which we shall return at a later stage—if there is even the smallest chance that at some time in the future those boundaries will be altered? That undermines the validity of a referendum—a result obtained on the basis of the boundaries as put forward at the moment. Surely it would be more regular, constitutionally and democratically, to sort out all the above details before asking people to vote for the proposals.
The boundaries of the proposed regions do not even square with people's perceptions. The number of people who do not know which region they supposedly live in is but one manifestation of the difficulty. A Mori poll in the North West region revealed that only 28 per cent could identify the region in which they lived, 12 per cent named entirely the wrong region and 60 per cent had simply no idea which region they lived in. The artificial North West region stretches from Crewe in Cheshire to Carlisle in Cumbria. Like many other regions, it has rural and metropolitan communities with different needs and characteristics. Cheshire has more affinity with the Midlands. Staffordshire and Cumbria are far apart. Cumbria might better be placed in the North East. The artificial—
Lord Rooker: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness as she gives us a historical breakdown of the regional boundaries, but anyone would think that the present Government set them. The boundaries that she fundamentally attacks now were set by the previous Conservative government. I do not understand the purpose of this part of her speech.
Baroness Hanham: It is abundantly clear. I said that, where the regions are formed, they have the regional development agency boundaries. I also said that it was unclear where they were originally formed. Historically, they go back to 1948. But this Government accept them as the boundaries. We argue that, for the purposes of an electoral system rather than an administrative one, they are completely inappropriate because they do not relate to communities or local identities. This amendment suggests that the Government provide, construct and look at smaller regions that have an identity.
To conclude my earlier remarks, there are disparities not only in the make-up of the regions but in the population. The North East region has a population of around 2.5 million whereas the South East region has a population of 8.5 million. There is very little credibility. It will be difficult to construct constituencies and to ensure that there is any regional identity unless the population has a say in the matter.
11.15 a.m.
Lord Tordoff: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. The situation will be made more difficult if she persists in believing that Cheshire looked towards the Midlands. It looks towards Manchester and Liverpool—I speak as Lord Tordoff of Knutsford, which is in the good county of Cheshire. There is no question that Knutsford looks north, north-west and north-east, not south.
Baroness Hanham: I am sure that the noble Lord will have an opportunity to develop his comments in a minute, as soon as I finish my remarks.
In conclusion, the redrawing of the boundaries will not be easy. But it must be done before the new constitutional arrangement takes place. We do not avant to underestimate the extent to which the Bill proposes fundamental changes, not only to the constitutional arrangements of the country, but to the democratic arrangements. We should not be too glib about that. We should take seriously what regional government means, if that is what the Government are intent on introducing. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: We on these Benches have made no secret of our concern about the regional boundaries, which, as the Minister reminded the Committee, were created by the previous government, though for a different purpose. They were created for administrative reasons. One wonders whether they were created to continue control from Whitehall rather than to devolve it. They were used for the purposes of the regional development agency boundaries so that we could get on with that proposal. I must confess that during the passage of the Regional Development Agencies Bill I did not support change of the boundaries. Hindsight is a great thing.
We have heard some examples. I thought that my noble friend was going to say that Cheshire was a unique entity—sui generis is perhaps the term to use. Many people living in Cheshire would not wish to be identified with anywhere else. But there are identity problems elsewhere. I understand that Shropshire feels closer to Gloucestershire than to Birmingham in the South West, although I cannot speak directly about that. Under the proposals, Gloucestershire is allied with Cornwall. We know about the problems in the South East.
But to what extent is the purpose of this amendment to get it right? We know that the Conservatives do not wish to see regional government in place. I cannot help thinking that the amendment is simply a recipe for delay. Under the amendment as tabled, several conditions must be met, including much consultation—I would not argue with that. But I wonder whether it is dealt with in a limited way, given that "relevant interests" is so closely defined.
1442
The wording of subsection (1)(c)(ii) of the new clause, which provides for,
"the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities",
is familiar. The words were used in the Local Government Act 1992 in the context of the proposals for structural change to local government. But it is significant that they were printed alongside the condition that the Local Government Commission should have regard to the need,
"to secure effective and convenient local government"
We are about securing effective and convenient government at all stages. If we must have such conditions, I would not wish to leave that out.
There is also the question of size, which worries me. This is a diverse country and, of course, the populations of different parts of the country are different. I do not understand the need for size to be a criterion. That suggests that there is a need to create a level playing-field so that the regions can compete for power between themselves. The regions differ in size, but that does not undermine the identity of any region. I say that without disagreeing with the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, about the proposed South East region, which is an absurdity. I accept that, but I do not think that the amendment is the way to go about things.
I come back to my first point. We know the attitude of the Conservatives to this important democratic proposal. Critical as we on these Benches are of the way in which the Government are going about things, we do not wish to see regional government threatened. I fear that that is what the new clause is aimed at.
Baroness Mlatch: Does the noble Baroness agree that many of her colleagues in different parts of the country are concerned about the shape of the boundaries and look to Parliament—particularly this House—to do something about them and, at least, have a proper debate about them? If possible, we should ensure that boundaries are readjusted to come more closely into line with community interests. The noble Baroness's colleagues say that: does she speak for them?
Baroness Hamwee: I speak for all my colleagues, including those on these Benches. I said that we had concerns about boundaries, and we need to get them right. However, we should not delay the process, as the provision in the amendment would do. The issue must be addressed, but, reading between the lines, I do not believe that this is the way to go about it, if we are to have regional government in the form in which we all want to see it.
Lord Waddington: At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, was extremely frank. As usual, he was entirely honest in his explanation of the Bill's purpose. However, I can hardly say that I came away with the impression that he was a great enthusiast for the Bill. I was moderately surprised, therefore, when he intervened during the remarks made by my noble friend.

1443
It is sensible to examine the boundaries and ask whether they should be used as boundaries for electoral purposes. Unusually, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was wrong, when she said that the boundaries were set for the purposes of the regional development agencies. In fact, they were set up to demarcate the boundaries of the Government Offices for the Regions. They were drawn on the map to show where the area of responsibility of one Government Office ended and that of another began.
It is ludicrous to say that, because the boundaries were set at the beginning of the 1990s, they should be the boundaries for elected assemblies in the regions. One has seen example after example of the failure of the boundaries to create an area in which there was any obvious identity of interest or any loyalty among the people living within the boundaries for the area.
Baroness Hamwee: I corrected my reference to the regional development agencies. I appreciate that the boundaries were set in the early 1990s. The Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 reflected those boundaries.
Lord Waddington: My point is straightforward. Whether we like the idea of elected regional assemblies or not, we ought to make some effort to get the boundaries right and have regions that are understandable to the people who will vote for the assemblies.
The Minister acknowledged the absurdity of some of the boundaries at Second Reading. Referring to remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, about Cornwall, he said:
"I fully accept her point. I drew attention to the fact that the regions are government regions. There is one example that I always give to people. I have never measured the distance, but about 40 miles south of the centre of Birmingham is the small town of Chipping Camden, which is in Gloucestershire. It cannot be much more than 40 miles from Birmingham, but it is in the same region as Land's End".
That was a plain acknowledgement of the absurdity of it all. The Minister went on:
"That is the reality. The noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, made the same point, giving examples of boundaries where she lives in Warwickshire. It is a difficulty. I do not deny it".—[Official Report, 20/2/03; col. 1330.]
If it is a difficulty, it is the Government's duty to address it.
There are major issues in the North West. Should Cumbria be in the North West or the North East? That question should he addressed now, before we launch ourselves into this exercise. Obviously, it will take time, but it will be a long process anyhow, as the Minister has often said.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, challenged my noble friend's assertion that Cheshire had links with Staffordshire, Shropshire and Derbyshire. It depends which part of Cheshire one lives in. My noble friend was, I think, reading from a paper given to us a day or two ago by representatives of Cheshire County Council. They made the point that, in the north of
1444
Cheshire, one will certainly find oneself in a commuting area in which all the links are with Greater Manchester, as I know well. In south Cheshire, however, one begins to see links with the counties further south, rather than to the north.
The North West is not the best area in which to look for examples of absurd boundaries. We heard of plenty of those in our earlier discussions. It is ridiculous that Watford should be in East Anglia, or that Banbury should be in the South East. It is absurd that Cheltenham should be in the South West. I could go on and on. It is the Government's duty not just to say, "These are convenient boundaries, and go ahead we shall"; they must get the thing right, if they want to go ahead at all.
Baroness Warnock: I support the amendment with some hesitation, for I have not made up my mind whether I am for or against regional assemblies. The worst disaster for the setting up of regional assemblies would be if the boundaries had later to be changed because they did not work. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, that the matter ought to be settled or, at least, debated, before we begin setting up the assemblies.
It was bad enough when the county boundaries were, as it seemed to many people who were loyal to their county, arbitrarily changed. I think of the obvious case of the ridings of Yorkshire. Not only would it be confusing to start on the process of establishing regional assemblies, rightly or wrongly, and then have to change the boundaries of the areas that they were meant to serve; it would cast doubt on the validity of the whole process.
11.30 a.m.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: I believe that many of these boundaries are in the eye of the beholder. They are not perfect and they can change. It is clear that Amendment No. 1 is intended to be an impediment to regional government. Therefore, I oppose it.
I think that there are three positions as regards regional government. The first position is stated in the proposed new clause. The Conservative Benches regard regional government as "big" local government. That is a problem. Their mind-set is big local government. On these Benches, regional government is about democratising that which is in the regions already and further devolving from central government. I believe that the third position is that taken by the Government, who seem to be promoting an elected regional advisory committee. We live in hope that we can build on that. Therefore, we are generally supportive of the Bill in order to build upon it and make it real.
Clearly, this amendment is about impeding regional government so that it does not happen. The Conservative Benches are worried that it is big local government. They may acknowledge that.
Lord Bowness: In my speech at Second Reading I said—I repeat it only to establish my bona fides and

1445
perhaps to chide the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for being somewhat dismissive of this amendment and its motives—that I am perhaps less hostile to the concept of regional government than some of my colleagues. However, I do not believe that that is what we would be getting.
Amendment No. 1 is not about the principle of regional assemblies. It is about whether this paving legislation will set up real regions to which communities can relate. If that is not done, the regional assemblies will fail. I repeat that this amendment is not about whether we have the regional assemblies. It is a comprehensive amendment that sets out all that might be required to ensure that proper boundaries and regions are established.
I accept that a much slimmer procedure could be proposed. If my memory serves me right, when a major local government reorganisation occurred in New Zealand, the Government established a commission with far-reaching powers to establish boundaries and merge authorities. The quid pro quo to that was that the Government accepted the recommendations of the commission and did not insist on debating every proposal in Parliament. That saved a considerable amount of time.
The response of the Government to this amendment will inform us whether we are referring to devolved powers or, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland, merely big local government. I believe that the proposal is about big local government. Nothing that has been said or put on paper suggests that there will be anything but big local authorities. There is little or nothing to suggest that real powers will be devolved.
Leaving that matter to one side, the argument concerning a proper examination of the boundaries is hard to deny. I ask noble Lords' forgiveness for repeating what I said at Second Reading. I referred to the discussion which took place in Committee on the Regional Development Agencies Bill on 7th October 1998. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, stated:
"If and when regional assemblies are established, there will clearly be a need for new primary legislation to establish them. Parliament will then have the opportunity to consider the extent and the boundaries of the regions proposed in that context. We arc not committed to using these precise boundaries for regional assemblies at a later stage".—[Official Report. 7/10/98; col. 442.]
Those are the kind of assurances given to your Lordships' House in response to amendments put forward at that time. It was argued that if we proceeded with regional development agencies and their attendant regional chambers on the boundaries of the existing government offices, we would be prejudicing the future. We were assured that the future would not be prejudiced. Today, some five years later, it is clear that the future was being prejudiced when that Bill went through.
1446
During the same debate, in justifying not involving the Boundary Commission, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, stated:
"we are not involved with electoral constituencies or bodies of democratic accountability here;"—
namely, regional development agencies—
"we are dealing with development agencies and the administrative areas of those development agencies. It would not be appropriate, given the expertise and the system of working that the Boundary Commission has adopted in the past, to apply it to this area".—[Official Report, 7/10/98; col. 450.]
Therefore, I wonder what has changed in that time. What are the arguments to justify the boundaries of what are alleged to be democratic bodies—not merely democratic bodies exercising allegedly more than local government functions—while apparently exercising devolved functions of government? These are questions that should be answered at this stage, before any reference to the Boundary Commission is dismissed as causing delay.
Baroness Blotch: I hope that my noble friend will forgive me for taking issue with a point which he and the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, made. It would be unfortunate if at the outset of the Bill we were to play party politics with this issue. I listened carefully to the Second Reading debate and I have read in Hansard the report of the debate since. I have also had a great number of discussions outside the House. There are people from all parties—in particular, from the Liberal Democrat Party—who take different views about regional assemblies. In particular, they are fighting hard against the shape of the boundaries. It would be unfortunate if this debate was overridden by suspecting the motives of those of us on these Benches who are saying, at the outset of this Bill, that if this constitutional change is to happen, it is important that there should be a healthy debate in this House—and in the character of this House, which is to have open, constructive and fair debate—about the shape of the boundaries. Ultimately, there should be, a parliamentary determination of those boundaries reflecting views from all parties. Therefore, I believe that that is unfair.
The noble Lord, Lord Shutt, and my noble friend, referred to big local government. This is not big local government. It is certainly big government because it is anything but local government. It is big centralised government. The Minister gave examples at Second Reading. Powers are not being ceded from the top down—from central government to regional government. They are being ceded upwards from county and unitary authorities to the regions. The control, but not the powers, is moving down. There will be influence over issues, but not power.
The only example which the noble Lord very readily and almost unthinkingly gave was that of housing. There will not be determinating powers. There will not be powers in the real sense that we understand powers in government. Yes, it will be influence, but powers will reside still with the departments in Whitehall.
This is big government—control from central government. I hope that the Liberal Democrats will bury their political prejudices in this matter and argue

1447
for all people of all political persuasions that this is an important debate that should take place at the outset of the Bill and not be subordinated to party hack politics.
Lord Waddington: Before my noble friend sits down, is she aware that the Liberal Democrats on Lancashire County Council have firmly expressed their opposition to this measure?
Baroness Blatch: My noble friend makes the point for me. That is right. That is why I believe that this is the last Chamber in the world where we should play party politics with a matter so constitutionally important.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: If, like the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, I thought that the amendment sought to undermine the whole concept of regional government, I should support it with alacrity. But I fear that it does not. The amendment accepts regionalisation; it proposes that the regional boundaries should not be decided now, but after due consultation with many people and bodies. In my view that is an acceptance of the principle of regional government, which, as I made clear at Second Reading, I am completely against. I believe in local, democratic, government. I believe that regionalisation will undermine that, not complement or improve it.
The present regional structure was set up following the passing of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, when it was decided that the regional aid distributed by the European Commission, using our taxpayers' money, should no longer be administered through central government but through regions. The existing regions, which under the present Government became regional development bodies, were set up to make that administratively possible; namely, to administer the direct link between the regions and Brussels. That is the history.
Many people in this country believe that regionalisation does not have so much to do with good local government as with good administrative arrangements between Brussels and the European Union. There are those who would not agree; but I believe it, as do many others. Therefore, if we are to have regionalisation, we must give grave consideration to what we intend to do with the regions, and to how they should be geographically set out.
It is no good saying that the present regions are set in stone. That is nonsensical. A great many people have different ideas about where the regional boundaries should be, even if they agree with regional government itself. I sat on the committee of the association of municipal corporations dealing with the reorganisation of local government in 1968; we gave evidence to the Royal Commission. If my memory serves me right, it was suggested that there should be 12 indirectly elected provincial councils. So, even then, the proposal was not for eight regional authorities but for 12.
1448
Like the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, I worry that an association between some of the areas contained in the existing regions is nonsensical. I live in Reading. My region will include Lambourn, in the Lambourn Valley—which trains marvelous racehorses—and Dover and Folkestone in the east. There is no compatibility between the two areas. Their interests are entirely different and would be difficult to reconcile.
Perhaps I may give a recent example of what happens when regions are too big. The south-east regional planning committee recommended that there should be extra building in Reading, on the flood plain. Why on earth would it make such a recommendation when the areas it suggested were flooded? Yet it did so. If we are to set up these regions—which, I repeat, I am against—we really must be very careful that we do so in such a way that they will work, and not simply between Brussels and this country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is beginning to understand this—according to his article in The Times. If we are going to set up regions at all, we ought to be doing it in such a way that there is compatibility, and agreement, between the people who will be affected.
As I said, I am split. I am in great difficulty. I am in a dilemma. I do not support the proposal because I do not support regional government; yet I believe that if we are to have regional government, it is better to set it up after what is suggested in the proposed new clause has taken place. I do not think that the amendment will be pressed to a vote today, but perhaps we can consider the matter further and return to it on Report.
11.45 a.m.
The Earl of Caithness: First, I apologise to the Committee for not being able to be present for the Second Reading debate. I was unable to stay for the whole debate; therefore, I did not put my name on the list of speakers.
One of the great advantages of this place is that it is a Chamber of the United Kingdom. Therefore, I can bring some experience to our proceedings of how regional assemblies are working in Scotland. I shall set out my stall by saying that I am pro regional government—whatever regional government means. We have it at the moment: some of the county councils are good regional government. I am also, however, in the right circumstances, pro regional assemblies. There can be merit in putting areas together. Furthermore, in the right circumstances, I am pro unitary authorities. But the size of the region, its powers, and how it will work are crucial considerations.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, I live in what is classified as the South East region. I spent a great deal of my life in the Banbury area, where at one time I was a land agent. Looking at the map of the South East, my reckoning is that the logical place to have a regional assembly would be at Gatwick.
On a good day, the journey to Gatwick would take me two hours-plus from Banbury—providing that there is no hold-up, or fog, on the M25. A person living

1449
in Broadstairs, in Kent—most of the people in Banbury. with due respect to them, probably do not have a clue as to exactly where Broadstairs is; they know that it is probably in Kent but they cannot put a finger on it, and most of the people in Broadstairs probably do not know where Banbury is, which is not so surprising—will have an equivalent journey time to Gatwick of about two hours. It will take those poor people who live on the Isle of Wight—such as our current Lord Chairman—at least three hours to get to Gatwick, excluding the ferry journey; and that will be on a good day.
We have exactly the same problem in Caithness. Our regional assembly is in Inverness, and it takes our councillors two-and-a-half hours to get there. If the weather is bad, they have to make the journey the night before. One Liberal councillor has said that it is "madness", and "a complete waste of time", to have a regional assembly so far away. In the Highlands council, your vote can be counted only if you are in the chamber. A 20-minute meeting and a vote on the Budget meant that that Liberal councillor had to leave Caithness the night before in order to travel down to Inverness for a debate lasting 20 minutes, and to cast his vote. He then had to make the journey back. What a waste of time and money! Yet the principle behind parts of this Bill is absolutely right. Some regional assemblies could be beneficial. That is why I support reviewing the boundaries now. If that does not happen, whatever is said about the boundaries being able to change, I have a nasty suspicion that they will not change. They can get set in stone, and it becomes too difficult for the Government to change them. It becomes too difficult for the whole bureaucracy. If the process towards a referendum is started, people assume what the boundaries are, which then get set in stone. I think the amendment is far from being a delaying measure. It is a practical measure.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, disappointed me. She started off very encouragingly, like her friends up in Caithness, saying that she was concerned about the boundaries. However, she did not say what she was going to do about them. I had hoped that she would suggest a positive alternative to what we have before us. However she does not like what either we or the Government are proposing.
The noble Lord, Lord Shutt, said that regional assemblies would democratise what is there. I ask the noble Lord to talk to his Liberal friends up in Caithness. If he talked to the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart, or John Thurso MP, he would find it is far from democratising what is there. It is not producing better services. It is quite different in Caithness. Whereas decisions used to be made locally, they are now being made in Inverness, and then passed down the line. That is not good for local government or local involvement in government. We must learn from some of the mistakes we made in reforming local
1450
government—and I include my own party. We must not take government further away from the people, but bring it back to the people.
Lord Greaves: The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, issued various challenges to us, so I believe I am justified in replying to some of them. Debate on the first amendment is always broad-ranging. Some of the issues raised relate to the amendment; others relate to other countries. We have just heard the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, talk about Scotland, to which this Bill does not refer. He put his finger on a very important point. There is no regional assembly meeting in Inverness. There is no such body. There is a local government body, the Highlands and Islands Council. It may well be far too large for the area it covers. People have to travel from Thurso to Inverness to vote, and then go back again. That may all he true—although it is in Scotland, not in England. However, it illustrates a very important part of the case we are putting forward. Various broad questions have been discussed. Are the new regional assemblies, which essentially are going to be big local authorities taking most of their powers—insofar as they have powers—upward from local authorities? Are they going to be genuine regional bodies which take over the powers of the very large number of unelected and often only remotely accountable bodies—quangos—which exist in the regions at the moment? Are they going to involve devolution of powers from Westminster, as happened in Scotland and, to a lesser degree, in Wales?
That is the huge question mark over the whole of the Government's intentions on regional government. It will arise during this Bill. It will arise even more when and if—
Lord Waddington: I do not understand why the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is so worried. There is no question about it at all. If there was a question, it has been answered by the Minister. He plainly said:
"I think that the penny has dropped during Second Reading of the legislation that there are no new powers and no new funds".—[Official Report, 5/3/03; col.813.]
Lord Greaves: The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, asks me why I am so worried. That is precisely why. We believe the Government may be seriously and fundamentally wrong on these matters, which will have to be debated at a later stage. I remind the noble Lord that legislation gets passed by Parliament. The Government may have their views and a huge amount of influence on what gets passed. Nevertheless it is Parliament that passes it. Until that happens, we do not know what the answers to the questions are going to be.
Lord Waddington: I must ask the noble Lord to give way again. The Government—quite wrongly—have decided to go ahead without first presenting a Bill which defines the powers of the new assemblies. We can only go on what government spokesmen say. They have said that there will be no new powers. It is ridiculous to assume that something entirely different

1451
will happen, in spite of that clear commitment by the Government. The Government have told us what will happen.
Lord Greaves: The Government have told us what they want to happen and what they think will happen. That may be different from what actually happens in the real world. We only have to go back to the Greater London Authority Bill. When it left Parliament, it was in a very different state from when it came to Parliament. It still may not have been perfect or ideal. It may not have been what the Liberal Democrats would have produced. Nevertheless, the Act that was finally passed was very different from the Bill that was first presented to Parliament. That is not unusual. I hope that the Conservatives will join with us in significantly improving legislation which in due course will set up regional government. We will find out whether that happens.
However, this amendment is not really about powers at all. It is about regional boundaries. I want to turn to that question. It is always easy to ridicule a particular proposal for a territorial area—whether administrative or governmental—by looking at places on the periphery and saying they have far more in common with people who live just over the border than they have with the core or main part of their area. That always applies whether it is a region, a local community or whatever it happens to be. It is in the very nature of territorial areas and boundaries. At Mow Cop in the south of Cheshire, the county boundary with Staffordshire runs along the hilltop next to the folly and the quarries. That does not mean that the boundary at Mow Cop between Staffordshire and Cheshire is stupid. It may be that the whole of that boundary should be redrawn locally, and all of it put into one area or the other. The fact that people living next door to each other in Mow Cop are now in the present counties is not an argument for saying that those counties are somehow wrong and should be abolished.
It is always the case that if lines are drawn on maps, then some places near or on those boundaries will have more in common with people just the other side than they have with the main centre of the area, the region, the local authority, the country, or whatever it happens to be.
Lord Bowness: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I have heard no one suggest that it is the peripheries that are the problem. There are many major problems about proceeding with the regions, as they have been established administratively as government offices. It is about size—which indeed raises the question of how many should be set up. It is not about peripheries. Controversially, one could ask whether London should be a free-standing region in its own right, or part of another region. It is no good quoting other capital cities in Europe, because they are smaller. Those arguments are not the subject of this amendment, but they are much bigger than just the issue of people who live on the margins. No one has suggested that that is the issue.
1452
Noon
Lord Greaves: I agree with the noble Lord. I was about to make that point. I was replying to most of the criticism of the boundaries of the regions made by his colleagues. They have talked about places in Gloucestershire that are in the same region as Land's End but are nearer to Birmingham. That is a question of periphery and the margins. I live almost on the boundary of Lancashire and Yorkshire, which will be the boundary between the North West and the Yorkshire region. Some of the places near to where I live were moved out of Yorkshire into Lancashire in the 1974 local government reorganisation. There may be arguments that places like that should be moved into one area or another, but that is a peripheral issue. It is inevitable in any carve-up of an area into territories. It is not a serious argument to be entertained.
The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, has, however, identified the serious possibility of dispute over whether larger areas should be detached from regions and made into separate regions of their own or moved from one region to another. The obvious area of dispute in the North West, to which I think the noble Lord referred, is Cumbria. There is an argument as to whether Cumbria is a sensible area. Some say that it is unified by the Lake District, which is in the middle of it, and that it would be silly to split the Lake District between different areas. However, the affinity of people in south Cumbria is certainly to the North West. There is no doubt that Barrow-in-Furness and the south lakeland areas such as Milnthorpe and Kendal are in the North West. The only doubt is whether north Cumbria—north Cumberland, as it was—covering the Carlisle and Penrith area and perhaps the west coast around Workington is actually in the North East. These are peripheral areas that will always be difficult to put into a region. The geographical reality is that anyone who lives in Workington is, by definition, a long way from anywhere.
There is an argument for having a major debate about the issue. It is a matter of judgment as to whether such a debate, which would take a long time, should be allowed to hold up the Government's plan to go ahead not with regionalisation of the whole country—nobody is suggesting that—but with giving some regions the ability to have a referendum.
I do not think that the Bill will be applied to the whole country. In some areas, regional boundaries are disputed. The whole of the South East is perhaps the greatest example. There is no consensus on what the regions are and how they fit. Another important question arises over Cornwall. Should it be a separate region on its own, because of its identity and its distance from everywhere else? These are major issues.
If there were any chance of the Government going ahead with referendums in those areas, I would have more sympathy with the amendment. However, in practice that is not the case.
Baroness Hanham: Does the noble Lord agree that the Government intend to introduce regional

1453
government? If they intend to introduce it in totality at some stage, it is impossible that they should not set out the framework for that regional government before any further decisions are taken. I challenge the noble Lord on whether it is possible to argue that, because it will be all right for a couple of regions up in the North East and the North West, which may or may not be totally happy about the idea, it will not matter whether the other regions are all hopelessly wrong. We are dealing with the principle here. We are not on the tatty edges.
Lord Greaves: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for spelling that out. I think we are in the real world. We have to look at the Bill in those terms, considering what is going to happen, not some airy-fairy principles about what may occur at some distant future time. It is interesting to hear a Conservative Front Bench spokesperson argue about long-term principles. I thought that was what they always accused us of doing instead of living in the real world. I think we are living in the real world on this matter. We are told that we have to listen to what the Government are proposing. They are clearly considering going ahead with referendums in a limited number of regions. The three regions they are clearly considering in the foreseeable future are the North East, Yorkshire and the North West. For all the peripheral problems here and there, there is no fundamental disagreement that if we have regions in this country, those three exist and have an identity. Pretty well anyone can sit down with a map and draw the rough boundaries.
Baroness Blatch: We all live in the real world. In my part of the real world, this is part of the parliamentary process. We are in no doubt about the Government's intentions. Knowing how open the Minister is with Parliament, I have no doubt that he will remind us that at the end of the day the people will decide whether to have regional government. The Bill is set up for the people to decide.
We know that if we lie down now—in a parliamentary sense—and simply accept these boundaries as de facto because they are what the Government want, we will be remiss in our duty. This part of the process is to try to persuade the Government that there is a real issue. Whether or not the Government intend to have regional government only in the North East and one or two other areas, whether there is to be a referendum and whether the answer is yes or no in any part of the country, once the boundaries are set and the Bill is passed by Parliament, people will be able to vote only on the boundaries set in the Bill. This is our opportunity to say at the outset that the boundaries should be properly revisited, taking into account all the points made.
I am also cognisant of what the Liberal Democrats have said. On Second Reading, they made it clear that, irrespective of whether they get changes to achieve the kind of regional government they want, if the Government insist and powers are ceded upward from local government to regional assemblies rather than downward from national government, with all of local
1454
government being reorganised, at the end of the day the Liberal Democrats so want regional government that they will still vote for the Bill. We are more principled than that. We will fight for Liberals, Conservatives and Labour Party members outside this Chamber to get the point sorted out by Parliament ahead of action being taken and referendums being held.
Lord Greaves: I am grateful that the noble Baroness will come out fighting for us all. We look forward to seeing that. The question of powers comes up later. We all agree that the Bill is unsatisfactory in that it does not deal with powers. We shall discuss amendments on that subject later.
There is clearly an important point to be made about boundaries. Other amendments, some of which we have tabled, deal with the issue in a better way.
The criteria laid out in paragraph (c)(i) and (ii) of the amendment simply do not meet the provisions of the Bill. Paragraph (c)(ii) refers to,
"the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities".
I agree with that proposition, but if there is to be a review of regional areas and regional boundaries, there clearly has to be as part of that review a consideration of whether there is a regional identity, whether there are regional interests and where those regional identities and interests lie. That ought to be a fundamental consideration. It is indicative of the approach taken in the amendment by the Conservatives that they do not even think that that is worth including.
The suggestion that the criterion of "approximately equal population size" is a fundamental criterion is nonsense. Cornwall is a case in point. If there is to be a review of boundaries, there is clearly a case—whether it is right or wrong—for saying that Cornwall should he a region in its own right. A large number of people would argue that case. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, argued that case from the Conservative Benches at Second Reading. That view clearly clashes with what is set out in the amendment regarding a uniform size. On that ground alone we find it impossible to support the amendment.
Baroness Rendell of Babergh: The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred to Cornwall. Cornwall may be a major example of dissent from the proposed regions. Some 10 per cent of its population has signified objection to being part of the South West—an area which would include Swindon and Gloucester. Cornwall has its own language, which is very much on the increase, a unique terrain and a coastline probably distinguished above all others in the United Kingdom. Only a referendum will show, but Cornwall will not easily submit to inclusion in a vast area along with fellow constituents with whom the Cornish consider they have nothing in common.
12.15 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, was brave enough and well informed enough to introduce the European dimension into the debate, as some of us did at Second Reading. The noble Lord could not see, of course, that his erstwhile noble friend on the Front Bench, the Minister, treated his intervention with, I was going to say silent mirth but I am afraid it has become the sort of statutory ridicule with which any of us are greeted who try to recognise the influence that the European Union is having on nearly all our affairs. This Bill is no exception.
At Second Reading I think that I got the Minister to confirm, in a somewhat coy way, that the boundaries proposed—I am sure he will correct me if I am wrong—for the English regions are, indeed, the same boundaries which have been drawn for the European constituencies. That means that they were agreed in Brussels and that they receive so-called European aid, which is not, of course, as the noble Lord—
Lord Bowness: I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way, but perhaps he can help me. I thought that I heard him say that the boundaries of the European constituencies were agreed in Brussels. I thought that there was great argument in this House and elsewhere when we settled the boundaries of the European constituencies.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: They are the boundaries of the European constituencies and they send Members to the European so-called Parliament. They are, as I understand it—the Minister appeared to confirm this at Second Reading—the boundaries which we are considering today. In fact, the Minister said:
"At present, I understand that regional government boundaries are in any case coterminous with European Parliament boundaries. As far as I know, there is no cross-over; they were used last time".—[Official Report, 20/2/03; col. 1334.]
It is a usual European trick to say, "Well, it is there anyway. It was used last time and so there cannot be anything wrong with it".
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: Does the noble Lord agree that the boundaries as they are currently drawn exist only because his party when in government created them for administrative purposes? Has he not observed that other organisations have therefore reorganised their boundaries in order to be coterminous, and that the decision to create regional parliamentary constituencies for the European Parliament was taken as a matter of convenience as they already existed? This Bill follows on from that.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I do not know whether the noble Baroness was present, but I thought that we had already covered that point. I do not think that the noble Baroness or anyone on her Benches could accuse me of going along with anything done by my party in
1456
the European context. I am grateful for her intervention but I am entirely innocent of the accusation that she seeks to make.
Before the helpful intervention of my noble friend Lord Bowness I said that the regions already receive European so-called aid. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, reminded the Committee briefly—but I shall do it again—that there is no such thing as EU aid. We get back only about £1 from every £2 that we send to the corrupt filter in Brussels. That so-called aid is always spent in this country on projects which are designed to improve the image of the corrupt octopus in Brussels and not necessarily on projects which we would back here.
As I say, at Second Reading the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and, indeed, my noble friend Lord Bowness tried to dismiss the genuine fears that many of us have that what we are witnessing in this Bill is in fact the beginning of the great project of the Europe of the regions. In that regard I say to the Minister that he did not answer the main question that I put to him at Second Reading, and this may be as good an opportunity as any to put it to him again. If we Eurosceptics were scaremongering, would he come to the Dispatch Box with his hand on his heart and give an unequivocal assurance on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that the regionalisation envisaged in the Bill will never, and could never—and I mean never—lead to the kind of dominance by Brussels and the European Union which I described in my Second Reading speech and with which I do not need to trouble the Committee again now? I was given no such assurance from the Minister on that matter. It would be helpful to have such an assurance today.
But there is a positive aspect to the amendment which I should have thought the Minister might he willing to accept. If the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, myself and others are just scaremongering and these regions and the boundaries of these regions have nothing to do with the European project of the Europe of the regions, then surely it would allay our fears and much of the resistance that the proposal is meeting in the country if the Minister were to accept the amendment which might result in boundaries different from those of the European Union constituencies. I do not say that it would kill completely the project of the corrupt octopus in Brussels, but it might go some way towards messing it up. Therefore, for that reason, I support the amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I want to take up one of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, made. He made many good points and reasonable points. But he referred to living in the real world and said that we were all agreed on the fundamentals. I hope that I always live in the real world. I meet many people and talk to many people. Their world seems to be my world. I hope the noble Lord will agree that I, like him, live in the real world. He said that we are all agreed on the fundamentals. But the debate has demonstrated that we are not all agreed on the fundamentals. That is the whole point of the discussion. He seems to think

1457
that today and over the next three or four days in Committee we are discussing an issue which has been agreed.
That is not the idea. The idea of scrutinising the Bill is to seek to improve it. I believe that the amendment does that. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, may not agree with the contents of the proposed new clause but we should try to understand and improve the Bill. I give an example. He said that provided the people agree, the Government will have referendums in three regional areas. Let us suppose that the people in those regions agree and set up regional authorities. They say, "This is a good idea. We want to set up other regions". However, the other regions may not agree with the boundaries. They may say, "We would agree with the regions if you had not already given what we consider should be part of our region to someone else". The method of setting up regions on the basis of present administrative regions and on the basis that they would be more democratic is absurd and undemocratic. It will not enable regions to be set up which are convenient to the working of ordinary people and of good devolved government.
We are not all agreed on the fundamentals. Indeed, what the Minister may argue are fundamentals are certainly not fundamentals. If we are to have regional government—I repeat that I am agin it—we should start with a blank sheet and decide exactly what the boundaries of the regions will be.
Cornwall has been mentioned. I have to say that Cornwall would be far better served by good devolved local government than by being part of a regional government. What Cornwall wants is not just a new country called Cornwall—that would be absurd—but the ability to do what is right for Cornwall. It must have far more powers and the wherewithal to do so. That is what Cornwall really wants. Some people down there may not know it. I want local government properly resourced, near to the communities which are served and able to co-operate with local government to provide greater services.
I hope that I do live in this world. But we are not agreed upon the fundamentals and unless the Minister is prepared to move sharply on the issue and start on a blank piece of paper so far as concerns the geographical areas, the whole matter will be a complete and utter failure in the long term.
Lord Rooker: At the risk of embarrassing the noble Lord, I thought that the most telling intervention came from the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, when he told the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that because I had said something, it was going to happen and, therefore, it had to be accepted. I hope that that will be the flavour of the remainder of the debate.
I give a pledge to the Committee that I shall do my best to answer only the amendments tabled. I shall be ruthless with myself. I apologise for my earlier intervention when the noble Baroness was introducing the amendment. However, I thought it right to put the matter in context. These boundaries have not appeared since 1997. It is true that they have been used
1458
since 1997 for other purposes: for the European elections; and the regional development agencies. The word "incoherent" was used in relation to the boundaries. Therefore, I thought it right and not party politically churlish to remind the noble Baroness that those are boundaries set up by a Conservative government. We have not sought to interfere with them. They have been used and added to for many other functions. As the noble Baroness said in an intervention, other organisations changed their internal arrangements to fit in with them because it was administratively convenient.
I wish to make this clear. It cannot be "big" local government because the powers scrutinised by the assemblies will be from central government. Power is not going up; it is all going down. I treat the proposed new clause seriously. I do not think that I shall be minded to accept it; I shall give reasons why. However, I have to assume that those who are fundamentally opposed to regional government will still vote against the proposal. I am not sure of the purpose of the new clause. If you are against regional government you can propose processes for setting up or delaying the boundaries but I assume, therefore, that at the end of the day the Conservative Party will vote against the proposal.
Baroness Hanham: On that point alone, it does not matter whether or not the Conservative Party is in favour of regional government. In this Chamber we are considering government proposals on a policy they have developed and are about to put t o the electorate. Whether or not the Conservative Party believes in regional government, it seems perfectly proper to accept government policy at face value but to ensure that it is at least as coherent as possible.
Lord Bowness: In view of the Minister's remarks about powers, when we debate the next amendment perhaps he will particularise the powers proposed to be devolved from central government to the regional assemblies. At Second Reading, the noble Lord gave the example of housing. It sounded suspiciously like breaking up the Housing Corporation or, if not, taking the existing housing functions from existing local government. Perhaps those points will be answered in the next group of amendments.
Lord Rooker: As I probably stated at Second Reading, the answers are set out in the sustainable communities plan. There is no secret about the proposal on housing.
Lord Bowness: With respect—I do not wish to interrupt the noble Lord too much—the functions quoted as going to regional assemblies are those at present carried out by local authorities of one kind or another. They are not central government functions.
Lord Rooker: The noble Lord has a fundamental misunderstanding. Between today and the following days in Committee, I invite him to read the Government's policy statement in a White Paper—

1459
there is no secret—published in May 2002. It is available in the Printed Paper Office. It sets out exactly government policy, clearly thought through. It puts forward a proposal. The Bill is based on it. It is a paving Bill because it sets up only the preparations for the regional assemblies.
We believe that the consultation proposed by the new clause would be unproductive, expensive and time consuming. It is likely that no more agreement would emerge from that process than there is on current regional boundaries, for the reasons that we have heard today. There will always be arguments on the margin; people will argue about how many regions there should be in the country, whether the London boundaries should remain the same, and so on.
The current boundaries are well established, whatever disputes there may be about the margin and numbers and whatever arguments there might be about one part of a county looking north or another part looking south. The boundaries have had a good deal of acceptance and recognition over several years, and they are used by many organisations, as well as by the Government.
12.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: Does the Minister accept the distinction between what is proposed and the administrative boundaries as they are at the moment, with good county government and good spread, and local district and parish government below them? The distinction is real and it is what we are here to discuss. If regional assemblies are introduced, local government will be vastly changed and vastly removed from local people. Therefore, administrative areas without county councils and with vastly amalgamated district councils are a very different proposition indeed.
Lord Rooker: That is another point that we will debate later on. We are not prepared to introduce new tiers of government. I made that clear on Second Reading. We are not having any new tiers of government.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Rooker: No, hang on a minute. The implication of the intervention from the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is that we would have regional assemblies provided that we leave everything else as it is. That would imply another tier of government, as the merchants and the media have said. I have read in the past few days, in the forgers' gazette parading as the Daily Mail, that we are introducing another tier of government. We are not. If we had to introduce another tier of government we would not introduce this Bill, and if it was amended in such a way we would not proceed with it.
We are not prepared to introduce another tier of government. That is why, if regional assemblies are to be introduced after a referendum, we need first to
1460
consider what will he needed to create unitary authorities, so that there is only one tier of government in addition to regional assemblies. Before people voted in a referendum for a regional assembly, they would know all the details of that process; they would know where the boundaries were, what the unitary authorities were, and what changes were proposed to the functions of local government.
Baroness Blatch: Will the Minister accept that he has completely misinterpreted my concern? He says that we have consistent administrative areas, that they have worked so far and there is no reason why they should not work in future. However, they worked because they worked alongside good county and local government. The proposition set out in the White Paper is that they would be working alongside nothing because the counties and/or the districts will have disappeared. I was not suggesting the introduction of another layer of government; I was simply saying that the proposition is a very different one indeed.
Lord Rooker: The noble Baroness cannot say that until the Boundary Committee has proposed what is necessary to create unitary authorities in advance of a referendum. That cannot take place until the committee gets the wherewithal from this legislation. Therefore, it is not possible to make that allegation.
Lord Waddington: The Minister is becoming very confused, which is unusual for him. Surely, it follows as night follows day that in those parts of the country where there is only unitary government, if one creates a regional government one is creating another tier of government.
Lord Rooker: Yes, in those parts of the country, but there is not a single region that is exclusively unitary, so there would be changes. They will be dealt with in other amendments.
I want to give the mechanics and practicalities of the new clause. We are only the Government—we may get it wrong. Nevertheless, the information that I have may be useful to our deliberations.
If the new clause was accepted, we estimate that it would take about 16 or 17 months to conduct a review of the regional boundaries, provided that all England was done at once. The resources of the Electoral Commission are such that it could not conceivably conduct an all-England review, given the workload that would involve. It would have to be broken down into tranches—probably into two or three regions, so that the country was done in three tranches—which the new clause does not permit. The reality is that under the new clause it would take about four years to review the regional boundaries.
I know that what I am about to say will be prayed in aid against me later, but it is in the White Paper. In exceptional circumstances, on some unspoken date in future, we have not ruled out changes to the boundaries. That does not mean that we or anyone else have plans for them. It would happen only in exceptional circumstances and in the longer term, as

1461
we made clear in the White Paper. Therefore, imposing a boundary review in the amendment would not be conducive to our plans to proceed expeditiously to give the regions of this country the opportunity to have elected regional assemblies. The point at issue is: how soon can we let the people decide whether they want elected regional assemblies? If we proceed as the Bill intends and the soundings work out, one, two or more regions may have a referendum before the next general election. They should not have to wait for four years for a review of the boundaries" which the new clause would make necessary.
The Earl of Caithness: Will the Minister give way?
Lord Rooker: I will not be able to answer any questions about Scotland—I can tell the noble Earl that.
The Earl of Caithness: I was not going to mention Scotland again. However, it has been a useful experience living there, because I have seen happen something similar to what the Government propose.
Would the amendment be any more acceptable if it were rephrased so that there was a boundary review for only two areas at first? One could do a review of the North East and Yorkshire first, if the Government particularly wanted to begin in that area. The rest of the country could learn from that, and it would make it easier to know in advance what would happen when it came to a referendum.
Lord Rooker: That would not make sense, given the fact that we have been taking soundings from citizens and organisations within the existing boundaries on which the Bill is based and on which we want to proceed. When the Bill gets Royal Assent, if Parliament so desires, the Secretary of State will make a statement about the results of the soundings. After that, the Electoral Commission can be given the starting gun to start work. Therefore, the noble Earl's suggestion would not work—it would still cause delays.
It would be using extreme language to suggest that the new clause would wreck the Bill, but it would delay the provisions by four years.
The key aim of regional assemblies is to bring under democratic control the work of existing regional bodies. I do not have to set them all out, because they are in the White Paper, a summary of which was produced in the Printed Paper Office. In the North East alone, there are 30 organisations comprising central government departments and agencies with regional or local offices. In that region, there are 21 national public bodies with regional or local offices. There are two other regional public bodies and five sub-regional or local organisations located in the region.
Lord Greaves: Will the Minister give way?
Lord Rooker: No, I want to finish this point.
1462
The key aim is to bring under democratic control the work of the existing regional bodies that deliver or administer services. A significant number of those bodies operate on the boundaries that are the subject of the amendment. We think that they are a reasonable size in terms of the population. It would be impossible to make the regions identical in terms of landmass, economic performance, the GDP or population. Those details are set out in the White Paper.
If we redrew the boundaries before we started, there would be massive upheaval in all those organisations. It may be that the soundings do not work, and there may be no vote for regional assemblies. In that case, what would have been the point of reviewing the regional boundaries over the course of four years, when they work okay at the moment, for present purposes?
Lord Hanningfield: Essex and Hertfordshire dislike intensely being included in the eastern region—and it does not work. The Minister will be as enthusiastic as I am about the Thames Gateway. It is ridiculous that the decision on the Thames Gateway, which relates to Essex and Kent, is taken in the Eastern region. There would be a considerable advantage in reviewing the boundaries in the South East now; it would help to make them work. The existing boundaries are not working in a good chunk of the country. Even if there were no regional assemblies, a review would benefit the way in which boundaries work in the South East and the Thames Gateway.
Lord Rooker: I agree with the noble Lord on the importance of the Thames Gateway. However, it is currently split between three regions—the South East, East and London. Based on all the evidence I have from my short time at the ODPM, co-operation and partnership between the people and the key players are working immensely well. Nothing is perfect, but that is no excuse to stop the entire process and start again. As I said repeatedly on Second Reading, the assemblies are strategic. Eight regions outside London are established and recognised and a range of organisations are already in place, each of which is a sufficient size to enable it to perform its role. London's boundaries are established and no one is arguing that they should be changed—although that is the implication of a review. The new clause seeks to tear all that up—and for what? It offers pointless delay. Nothing would happen for four years. It would be four years before people would have a choice of whether to go down this route. It would be a complete waste of time. I hope that the noble Baroness will not press this amendment.
Lord Greaves: The Minister referred to the large number of organisations in the North East which already exist on these regional boundaries and he used the specific words, "bringing them under democratic control". Did he actually mean that, or was he still talking about some sort of airy-fairy monitoring and scrutinising and about not controlling them in any way

1463
whatever? Will not those organisations still exist? Where they are responsible to central Government, will not that responsibility continue?
Lord Rooker: Regardless of the degree of scrutiny, it is democratic control. As we said, they will be very small bodies and there will be another piece of legislation. However, the position will be fully set out before the referendum so that, before they vote and decide whether to go down that route, people understand the powers, consequences and procedures for how such regional assemblies work. That is the people's choice, not the Government's choice or the politicians' choice, based on all the evidence we can muster and make available on the consequences of a "Yes" vote in a referendum.
Baroness Hamwee: I invite the Minister to address a specific point. He talked about delay—which, as I made clear in my speech, very much concerns me. I described it, perhaps more harshly, as "mischief", and he avoided saying that this was a wrecking clause. However, I think that it would help the Committee—this is an entirely straight and innocent question—if he said how the amendment, if agreed to, would relate to the Government's manifesto commitment, as I understand it, to introduce regional government in this Parliament. I do not have the manifesto with me, so I do not know the precise words. However, given the role of this House, the question seems relevant.
Lord Rooker: I do not know the date of the next general election, but I think that it will be in less than four years. So I can safely say that, if this lot took four years, it would be beyond this Parliament.
Baroness Blatch: The Government are making it possible to introduce regional government. However, as the noble Lord makes clear every time he comes to the Dispatch Box, it will be the people who introduce it, not the Government. This is a paving Bill. The Government will have met their parliamentary and manifesto obligation simply by putting the Bill before Parliament and gaining approval for it. Parliament will decide the means to the end. So it will not be the Government who introduce regional government.
12.45 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: I think that this amendment has generated a worthwhile debate on the overall principles of regional government. As I said, it does not really matter whether the Conservatives agree with regional government. As Members of the Committee have seen, there are some divisions on the Benches about the principle and form of regional government. What does matter is that the Bill is coherent. To be fair, we have not yet had a Bill on regional assemblies. This is simply a paving Bill for how and where assemblies are established. Our argument is still that one cannot proceed with elected regional assemblies when there is incoherence on the point of democratic input.
1464
This aspect of the debate has been quite entertaining because no one has any idea where these boundaries originated. In the House of Commons debate, regionalism was traced back not quite to Alfred and his cakes, but quite some way. It was decided that its basis lies probably in the 1948 work and pensions areas. Members of the Committee can therefore choose their own starting point, but these regions have served an administrative purpose. However, we believe that there is a difference between administrative and democratic regions. We are trying to establish that difference.
The amendment also puts forward the argument for ensuring formal and proper consultation with the great number of bodies and great number of people on the regional boundaries. The debate has given a small indication of the great concern and interest in the quixotic nature of the current boundaries. If one is proposing any layer of government—regardless of whether it is an additional or changed layer—and democratic input, those who elect the individuals forming that assembly should have at least some idea of the relevance of the area concerned. Cornwall and Cumbria have been cited as major areas of concern. They are not just on the periphery of boundaries. They are a great test indeed for my proposal on boundary review.
I think that the Government may hold a misconception about the extent to which the country understands their intentions. The position will not have been helped by the fact that the soundings exercise by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to test interest levels ended before the Bill reached this House. That exercise finished on 3rd March. As noble Lords who followed proceedings in another place will know, the report of those proceedings could be written on the head of a pin. There was very little interest and very little information. I think that the Government will find it difficult to say that there has been meaningful consultation. This amendment provides for a proper consultation process.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: The noble Baroness is presumably winding up. Before she does, I should like to ask whether she has read the article in The Times. a week ago last Monday, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said:
"With our plans to increase UK funding for regional policy, devolve decision-making power to the regions and return key regional policy responsibilities from the EU back to Britain, the future control of regional economic policy is moving from Brussels to London and then from Westminster to the … regions themselves".
Does the noble Baroness agree that that appears to show a fundamental change in government policy—that they are not satisfied with how regional policy is being controlled by Brussels, and that they therefore want it returned to this country? That being so, might not the Government want to consider whether the existing administrative regions are more suitable for this new devolvement from the EU than are the existing regional development bodies, which were of course set up to suit the European connection? Does it not suit and help the noble Baroness's argument that

1465
the Chancellor of the Exchequer is thinking along different lines and may very well want to alter the regions to suit a policy which is dictated and followed by the United Kingdom rather than Brussels?
Baroness Hanham: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, for drawing my attention to the article, which I have not seen. I can well understand why the Chancellor might wish to repatriate some of the decisions made on our behalf in Brussels. It may very well be that he would like to have some of those decisions taken by us, but on a regional basis. If that is correct, and he wishes to review the boundaries, that would fit in nicely with my amendment.
I am a little burdened by the arguments put forward by the Liberal Democrats. I do not believe that they reflect what is being said in the country in general. There is great concern across the board.
Lord Waddington: I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. Is it not right that she should pay tribute to the Minister who really made the point for her on 20th February? He said:
"My Lords, the Liberal Democrats are not a national party like others. They are different in some parts of the country to others".—[Official Report, 20/2/03; col. 1332.]
Baroness Hanham: I am grateful to my noble friend for that intervention. I believe that the Liberal Democrats may not be speaking as they did in another place and as has been said in the country. I hope that we shall have an opportunity to test that further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 [Referendums]:
Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 5, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection (1A),"
The noble Baroness said: We have already opened up a number of areas of the Bill, but I am not certain how we can debate its merits. The Bill asks people to vote for regional assemblies when we, and those who vote, are not being told the powers, responsibilities and constitutional arrangements of the assemblies. This issue was rightly emphasised by many noble Lords at Second Reading. I do not believe that at that stage the Minister gave anything like an adequate response although he admitted that the regional assemblies would not be service delivery organisations.
It seems more than likely that they will be just talking shops. But no one should be asked to vote for a pig in a poke. Even if only one or two regions are involved in the reorganisation in the early stages—the way things are going there may be none at all—that represents an enormous constitutional upheaval. But the only information available about the practical powers of the regional assemblies is that they will resemble in some shape or form the proposals contained in the White Paper.
But if the White Paper is to be believed, these functions or powers will consist principally of a right to consult or be consulted on some strategic plans or the exercise of some control over organisations and bodies whose functions already exist regionally. Perhaps I may take up a point made in the previous debate. I wonder how many of the organisations listed on page 81 of the White Paper will come under regional government and how many will stand as free organisations. I refer the Committee specifically to the learning and skills councils, which I understand will not be part of the responsibilities of regional assemblies. The Minister might wish to comment on that.
To highlight the general ignorance about what regional assemblies will do, I wish to comment on the comparisons with Scottish and Welsh devolution which have been bandied about. It is absolutely clear that what is proposed for the regional assemblies is very different as regards Scotland and Wales and there will be no devolution of power. To date, this House and another place, which has unavailingly discussed this issue, are in the dark as to the actual nature of the powers, structures and constitutional arrangements of elected regional assemblies.
We are not alone: it seems that the Government themselves are no clearer. We understand that regional government officers will continue as before. In the debate on 20th February, the Minister admitted that as a result of this upheaval it was not likely that there would be fewer quangos. As my noble friend Lady Blatch has already pointed out, he could think of only one significant devolved power from central government and that was housing. In reply to a question from my noble friend, the Minister said (at col. 1331 of the Official Report):
"We are regionalising housing".
If my noble friend Lady Blatch asked me to give another example, I would have a great job in finding one. But there is one: it is the decimation of the structural planning roles of the county councils, which are being passed to the regional planning boards which would continue to exist.
A crucial point is that an elected regional assembly would not improve the future delivery and quality of vital services such as education, social services, transport and health. But what they will do needs to be spelled out and agreed by Parliament. If we in this House and another place are confused about what functions the regional assemblies will have, how much more will that apply to the general public?
Perhaps it is in the Government's interest to keep the public so confused since if they hear that regional assemblies will take decisions from Whitehall and will have a larger degree of devolution, the public may be inclined to vote in favour. If they did, as things stand, they would have been gulled into a view that there was more to these changes than there is. Indeed, there is plenty of evidence to show that in the absence of proper, detailed proposals, wholly erroneous information is being spun already by campaigning organisations, which are long on enthusiasm but short

1467
on reality. What the public is not being told is that of the 10 powers listed in the White Paper, eight would be ceded by county councils, as my noble friend Lady Blatch told us at Second Reading.
The reality is that far from bringing decisions closer to the people—another spun fabrication—those in housing and planning in particular are being taken further away from the people affected. When they fully understand the implications of regional assemblies in terms of costs, the re-organisation of local government and representation, they may be less than enchanted by the whole idea.
I cannot stress enough that the functions of regional assemblies must be spelled out clearly and definitely before a referendum is held. It will be thoroughly misleading, if not completely dishonest, not to do so. Our view is that the Government should draft a regional assemblies Bill; that it should be debated in Parliament and passed before any decision is taken on how, when and where any referendum should be held. It is the democratic responsibility of this Government to lay their cards on the table as to the powers of regional assemblies. If there is the required level of interest they should not be afraid to do so. I beg to move.
1 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: Amendment No. 5 takes a slightly different approach and picks up on comments by the Minister and his colleagues about their minds not being wholly closed to pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill before a referendum is held. That process attracts me—not least because, depending on how the Committee goes about its business, it would enable direct discussion with witnesses, stakeholders and others with a stake, however one defines that, in the outcome. That seems a constructive way of dealing with proposed legislation and, because of our concerns about the powers spelt out in the White Paper and some of the terminology used now, it needs to be explored further.
In the debate on Amendment No. 2, the Minister—referring to the powers scrutinised by the new assemblies—talked about scrutiny as being democratic control. Scrutiny does not amount to the exercise of a power. Whether or not it amounts to democratic control depends on how scrutiny is applied—at its most extreme, scrutiny can veto the exercise of a function proposed by the executive body. It is not just the headline issue of powers and functions but how the executive and scrutiny arms will operate in the assembles for which they are proposed.
The issue extends to structure. We tend to concentrate on function. This House is not the best example of the maxim that form should follow function but to my mind it should. If the function were as we wish it to be, the proposed form may not be appropriate.
The new assemblies are supposed to be mean and lean, comprising between 25 and 35 members. There are issues around how much a small body can be representative of a substantial region. We have concerns over whether so small a body can provide the
1468
executive and scrutiny arms. It is not just a matter of the workload. There is a danger that the number of members suggested to undertake those two functions is too low.
The amendment asks the Minister to build on comments made by him and his colleagues about being open to some way of continuing this debate. It is clear that Parliament would like to be involved in the debate about the assemblies' powers, functions and structure. Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are a way of taking that forward.
Lord Bowness: If anyone is to be convinced that the Bill is an exercise in devolution, not local government reorganisation, it is vital that powers are spelt out clearly—certainly before any referendum is held.
The Minister chided me earlier, suggesting that I had not read the White Paper. While it is true that I do not have my copy, that has been remedied by the Printed Paper Office. Its contents are just as I remember from my original reading of them. The White Paper makes it clear that the powers of an elected assembly are at best marginal. It is important to take account of the summary:
"Elected assemblies will improve the quality of life for people in their regions, particularly by improving regional economic performance … Assemblies will be given the lead role in developing strategies to achieve this. They will drive the implementation of their strategies, monitor progress and revise strategies when appropriate … Assemblies will be given a range of powers to help them to deliver these strategies. These will include executive functions such as responsibility for resources and influence to promote results that will benefit the region … Specific responsibilities include economic development and regeneration, spatial development, housing, transport, skills and culture … Regional Development Agencies will be accountable to their elected assembly, which will appoint the Chair and Board members".
That last responsibility is the only one that is not an existing local government county function and is true devolution from the Secretary of State to the proposed regional assemblies. Otherwise, they are to be consulted.
The Minister earlier listed the number of public bodies active in the North East as some justification for establishing regional organisations. The list of central government departments and agencies with regional and local offices, presumably prayed in aid of the argument, includes the Court Service, Crown Prosecution Service, Forestry Commission, Highways Agency—which we know is not going over because that was said on Second Reading, HM Land Registry, Inland Revenue and Passport Agency. There is no suggestion that any of them will be involved or be subject to regional assemblies. They have regional offices in the same way that any organisation might have branch offices.
Lord Rooker: I did not say that they were going over. I gave that as an example of other organisations that have used the boundaries for their purposes. I did not say that they were going over to the elected regional assemblies.
Lord Bowness: I do not want to put words into the Minister's mouth, but I doubt that the Passport

1469
Agency is using a regional boundary. If there is a convenient location for a Passport Agency office in the North East, it has nothing to do with regional boundaries.
The organisations that will be subject to democratic control from regional assemblies include the Countryside Agency, Environment Agency and English Nature. The White Paper, from which we are supposed to draw comfort and be informed, makes clear the formidable role that a regional assembly will have in connection with the environment. It will have the right to be consulted by the Countryside Agency, Environment Agency, English Nature and other relevant public bodies—and to consult them in turn. That is not devolution in my terms.
If those examples purport to justify establishing regional assemblies, then although we are told that there will be no additional tier of government, the truth is that there will be no additional tier of local government. The Government in their wisdom will reorganise local government, make it much larger than it is currently and transfer functions from existing local government bodies to the new assemblies. The new assemblies will not be a devolution of government from the centre. If they are going to be statutory local authorities, they will be subject to the same controls as existing local authorities. I draw Committee Members' attention to the definition of local authorities in Clause 23 of the Local Government Bill which appeared recently in the Printed Paper Office. It includes all the existing local authorities with which your Lordships will be familiar. Clause 23(1)(o) also includes:
"any other body specified for the purposes of this subsection by regulations under subsection (2)".
Under subsection (2) those are levying and precepting bodies. The White Paper says that regional assemblies will raise their finances independently and not by a levy on central government. They will therefore be local authorities and not devolved assemblies. If the Government wish to prove me wrong, they will publish the powers before the referendum.
Lord Waddington: It is only through such debates that we begin to get the picture and some idea of what job, if any, the elected members of the regional assemblies will have. On 5th March the Minister said that there were no new powers or funds. He was underlining what he has said again today: there will be no new powers devolved from central government to the elected assemblies. He has said today that no new powers will be taken from local government and given to the elected assemblies. That is not strictly true, because we know that it has already been decided that planning powers should go to a regional level.
Apart from that matter, the Minister says that no powers will be taken from local government and given to the regional assemblies. What on earth will they have to do? The assembly members will be paid and people are entitled to know what salaries they will receive and what the chief executives will be paid. The bill for the assemblies will be footed not by central government but by council taxpayers, who are already
1470
being punished by the Government. They will be paying their taxes for nothing, if the Minister's words are to be taken literally, because there will be no new powers for the assemblies to exercise.
We will be debating the referendum question on Clause 2. The wording of Clause 2 on the statement that must precede the question on the ballot paper makes this proposal sound far more attractive than the facts warrant. I know that the Electoral Commission has approved the wording, but it has nothing to rely on except the extremely vague wording on page 34 of the White Paper to which my noble friend Lord Bowness referred. It is wrong that anyone should be asked to vote in a referendum for a regional assembly without the powers or lack of powers that it is to exercise being spelt out at least in a draft Bill if not in legislation.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: This is a cart-before-the-horse Bill. How on earth can we ask people to vote for something if they do not know what they are voting for? That is what the debate is about. When people are voting for something, especially a major change, they should know exactly what they are voting for. The Minister may believe that only opponents of regions are concerned about the matter, but the Campaign for the English Regions is also concerned. It sent me a large brief, but it is only necessary to quote one paragraph. It states:
"In the meantime people in the regions are understandably concerned about voting for an assembly whose powers have not yet been established. If the Government will not legislate before a referendum then it should move this timetable forward by committing itself to publish a draft powers and constitution Bill well in advance of any referendum. This will enable debate about how assemblies will work to continue and develop in the regions".
If the people in favour of the regions are concerned about the Government's policy, surely the Minister should consider what they are saying and ensure that before people vote they know what they are voting for and are not being asked to buy a pig in a poke.
1.15 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: I support the amendment. As I said on the first amendment, the two crucial issues are the size and functions of the region. It is crucial that those who are to take part in the referendum know exactly what they are voting for and the implications. Now that the full implications have been realised north of the border, many of the people who voted would not now vote in the same way. All sorts of functions such as planning and culture have been lost at a local level and have gone to a regional level.
That has been a disaster for all sorts of small community-based interests, which have been doing a great deal of good work for a long time but now find that their finances have changed and that they are not able to continue. Where planning is carried out on a regional rather than local basis it is a recipe for disaster because locals do not feel involved in controversial decisions. To give an example, windmills for

1471
generating electricity have caused endless problems because decisions are not being taken at the local level as they should be.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I also support these amendments to define the powers and functions of the proposed assemblies. I know that the Minister wishes to avoid all discussion of the Bill's European dimension. I noticed, for instance, that he did not take the opportunity I offered him to answer my basic question at the end of my remarks on Second Reading. I can of course persist.
To be more specific and to give the Minister a much easier question to answer on the European dimension with reference to the amendments, what will be the interface between the new regional assemblies and Brussels? I presume that Brussels will continue to send back some of our taxpayers' money in the guise of EU regional aid. What role do the Government see for the new regional assemblies in that process? Do the Government ever foresee them having powers to raise taxes, for instance? Would those taxes be confined to the regions, or can the Government foresee part of them being passed to the tentacles from Brussels?
Lord Rooker: I say at the outset, and at the risk of repeating myself again—
Baroness Blatch: Is the Minister going to respond to my noble friend?
Lord Rooker: I am summing up.
Baroness Blatch: I wish to speak to the amendment.
Lord Rooker: Well, I am sorry!
Baroness Blatch: I did not want to stop the Minister if he was only intervening as regards my noble friend.
Lord Rooker: No one else was on their feet.
Baroness Blatch: I am sorry. I am only a little one. The Minister should bear in mind that we cannot see each other.
First, I strongly support my noble friend. With a proper determination of boundaries before—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness but it is important to remember that we are in Committee and that it does not matter whether the Minister speaks or not. If anyone wants to continue the debate after the Minister has spoken, he or she can do so and that will be quite in order.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is absolutely right. I did not want the Minister to think that he was bringing the amendment to a close and then stand up and discuss it. This also gives the Minister an opportunity to respond to everyone who has spoken.
1472
As I just said, I strongly support my noble friend. The first two groups of amendments are absolutely fundamental. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, used the phrase, "The cart before the horse". That is definitely the case with the Bill.
I hope that the noble Lord will forgive us—it is the stuff of politics in both Chambers to use such an opportunity to test all of the arguments and propositions, whichever government are in power.
Whenever I have listened to government Ministers advocating the development of regional assemblies, they have used the language of bringing democracy to all bodies that operate in the regions. I strongly support the comments of my noble friend Lord Bowness.
I have examined the list relating to the North East. The noble Lord was absolutely right; it merely reflects what is happening in the area. It would be helpful if the Minister told us what on that list will be ceded—that is, in terms of a link with, partnership with, influence over or shared influence together with—and what powers will pass from the National Health Service, the Inland Revenue, the Passport Agency and learning and skills councils. There are two important lists. I suspect that if a regional assembly is established in the North East, many of those bodies will still operate there—some of them will do so autonomously—and some will have links with the regional assembly.
As I read the White Paper, even regional development agencies will remain in being under the regional assemblies arrangement. When Ministers discuss this matter, they refer to all such bodies in the region being brought under some form of democratic control. We probably have a meeting of minds with our Liberal colleagues in this regard. There is a real hungriness—or, to be absolutely grammatically correct, hunger—on the part of most of us to know precisely what the Government have in mind in terms of real powers being ceded and from what source.
My second point involves the difficulty of making sense of the language. The summary to chapter 4 states:
"Assemblies will be given a range of powers to help them to deliver these strategies. These will include executive functions such as responsibility for resources".
If assemblies will be given money from central government—we know of the tendency of government to tag any moneys that come down from on high—of course they will have responsibility for such resources. With regard to any moneys that they have, they will be held accountable by district auditors, external auditing and public accountability. The summary continues that assemblies will also be given,
"influence to promote results that will benefit the region".
What exactly does that mean? It is important that the Minister gives those words real meaning when he replies.
An example in chapter 4 is set out in Box 4.1, which is entitled, "Regional strategies for an elected assembly". When one runs through that, one finds it hard to discern a power that will be given to the regions. They will have influence and partnerships

1473
with other bodies. With transport, for example, there will be powers to "spell out plans". However, the plans will be controlled by national government. They will not have the power to determine: to address congestion, to improve public transport or road links and to ensure that transport systems support sustainable economic growth. They will merely have the power to set out plans.
On housing, Box 4.1 states that the assemblies will have powers to,
"deal with all aspects of the housing market and social housing in the region".
They will have the power to "deal with" but not to determine. When I asked about the housing that will surround Stansted, I received a letter. The Government will determine that development; there will be no power to determine in a region or at county level. They will have a role in planning and an influence in the local determination once the number of houses has been determined at national level.
On health improvement, Box 4.1 refers to assemblies,
"setting out a long-term public health strategy, which assemblies will agree with the relevant Regional Directors of Public Health".
How does that dovetail with the 10-year plan of the NHS? The NHS determined the NHS Plan and it has been presented to Parliament. What powers will they have to determine something that is separate, or will they simply have to operate within the plans set out by the NHS?
There are real areas of concern. As noble Lords will know, my particular area is education. The learning and skills councils are regional bodies: there are 47 of them around the country plus a national body. They will continue to operate as learning and skills councils. Will the regional assemblies take on themselves the powers that are currently controlled by the learning and skills councils?
I am extremely concerned about my final point. What will be the consequence in practical terms for the two parliamentary Chambers: the House of Commons and the House of Lords? We already know that when there was devolution to Scotland, we were told on almost a daily basis that we could not ask questions about Scotland because that was a matter for the Scottish Assembly. We are told on Welsh matters that we cannot ask questions about Wales because that is a matter for the Welsh Assembly. We are now told on London matters that we cannot ask questions on London because that is a matter for the Mayor of London.
If the North East gets its assembly, will we find ourselves, as Members in this House, with no influence, knowing that the regional assembly has no real power and that its accountability will be to national government? However, we, as Members of this House or another place, will lose our influence as a United Kingdom Parliament.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch that if the Bill comes to fruition and we have eight regional assemblies plus London, the United Kingdom
1474
Parliament will be very seriously emasculated constitutionally. The weight of the United Kingdom as an entity, whether with regard to Europe or anywhere else in the world, will be seriously diminished by this approach.
The Minister must forgive us for labouring these points and for sounding so anxious about the answers to some of our questions. However, it is incumbent on him to agree with my noble friend that before people are asked to vote in a referendum, they know what they are voting for, what the powers and functions will be and what the entailed costs will be. All of that information must be put before the electorate and agreed by Parliament so that the electorate can make an informed choice.
Lord Evans of Temple Cuffing: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 1.29 to 2 p.m. for Judicial Business and to 3 p.m. for Public Business.]

Saville Inquiry
Lord Lamont of Lerwickasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the cost to date of the Bloody Sunday inquiry.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, the total cost of the inquiry to Government was £104.5 million up to the end of February 2003.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I make no apology for raising this Question for the third time as every time I raise it the costs have increased. Does the Leader of the House agree that the inquiry should be renamed the "Lawyers' Benevolent Fund" and that the hearings should be moved to the Millennium Dome? How can he justify the fact that one barrister is reported to have been paid over £2 million, others over £400,000 each and those at the end of the gravy train struggle with expenses of just under £1,000 a day? Is it not monstrous that while the Government pay vast sums for the inquiry, the relatives of the victims of the Omagh bombing struggle to find the money to pay their legal fees and are receiving precious little help from the Government?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I first answered this Question on 19th November 2002, secondly on 7th January 2003 and thirdly today. If people keep asking about whether the costs have increased when the legal process is continuing the

1475
answer is likely to be in the affirmative. The question is whether allegations of this kind should be investigated. When the Prime Minister announced the inquiry, Mr Hague gave general support. Perhaps the theme underlying the Question of the noble Lord is that we should stop the inquiry now.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, with hindsight—governments are supposed to have foresight as well—does the Minister agree that Nelson Mandela's truth and reconciliation approach would have been a much more economical and sensible approach? Does he agree that already the Truth and Reconciliation Commission has achieved far more than this nonsensical Saville inquiry, which I suspect will achieve nothing? When it was set up I said that it would achieve nothing but bitterness and it has created more and more bitterness. Does he agree that Nelson Mandela's Truth and Reconciliation Commission has achieved exactly the reverse?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, in South Africa the Truth and Reconciliation Commission has been an extraordinary achievement of the human spirit and the generosity of the human heart. Your Lordships will remember that to gain the benefits of the commission one has to admit one's liability. Is it suggested that any of those against whom the grave charges have been brought in the Bloody Sunday inquiry would be willing to do that?
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, do the Government have any views on the remark made by the chief constable that he can see no profit coming from the Saville inquiry one way or the other?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am happy to repeat that the chief constable has made it plain that he was misrepresented and misreported. He had the decency, which I respectfully commend, to talk to the relatives of those who were killed to say that he very much regretted the hurt that had been caused by the fact that he had been misreported in the newspaper.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, perhaps I did not hear the noble and learned Leader of the House correctly, but I did not hear him answer the Question about the cost to date of the Bloody Sunday inquiry. Perhaps he could remind me of the cost. Can he also tell the House when the inquiry is likely to complete its work?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, I gave the figure of £104.5 million, which is divided into £81.5 million in respect of the families' representation generally and £23 million for the MoD representation generally. As I have said on two previous occasions in answering the same Question—I am sorry that my answer has to be the same—it is expected that the report will be concluded in the year 2004.

Chechnya: Referendum
3.4 p.m.
Lord Juddasked Her Majesty's Government:
What discussions they have had with the Russian Government on the implications for the global alliance against terrorism of the referendum planned for 23rd March in the Chechen Republic on a new constitution.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we discussed the planned constitutional referendum in Chechnya within the framework of our dialogue with the Russian Government on human rights. In that context we also discussed terrorism. We have made it clear that we recognise the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation and the right of the Russian Government to defend their citizens from terrorism. We do not believe that the conflict in Chechnya can be resolved by military means alone and therefore have urged the Russian authorities to seek a political solution.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that helpful reply. Does she agree that one of the difficulties about the conflict in Chechnya is that while there are fighters who are close to Al'Qaeda and who have no interest in what any of us would recognise as a political settlement, there are others who, however misguided, have turned to fighting for recognisable political objectives? Such people have to be won back into a political process. By impatiently steaming ahead with a referendum on 23rd March on a proposed constitution that has been forged without a political process, there is a danger of counterproductivity and of people unnecessarily being driven into the arms of the extremists. Does she agree that in the end the battle against terrorism has to be won by hearts and minds and that we must persuade the Russians that that has to become a priority?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree that part of the battle against terrorism has to be won by hearts and minds, but I am afraid that there are times when the use of force is also necessary, as we sadly know. This is a volatile and highly explosive situation. The conflict is now in its fourth year. My noble friend is right to refer to the Al'Qaeda links that some of the militant groups appear to have. It is worth remembering that some of the groups have struck at the Moscow-appointed civil administration. The latest attack was in December last year when 80 were killed and 150 were injured. My noble friend is right to imply that sometimes Russian troops use violence and brutality in the spiral of violence that he has identified. Since the theatre siege, the Russians have realised that it is important to try to find a means by which to resolve the conflict other than violence, hence consideration of the new constitution. The constitutional referendum is on 23rd March and I am sure that we all hope for a peaceful outcome.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, the whole House will want to recognise the perseverance of the noble Lord, Lord

1477
Judd, on behalf of the Council of Europe in this difficult matter. Do the Government agree that daily murder and repression continue? Is it considered that the constitution is sufficiently well known to the potential electors to have a meaningful answer? Does she also accept that some members of the Russian Duma have argued for a postponement?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I too pay tribute to the work that my noble friend has done on this issue. Of course, the cycle of violence is on both sides. I have attempted to illustrate to your Lordships that there have been some appalling suicide attacks that have injured innocent civilians, and in those circumstances naturally the Russian authorities respond.
The Russian authorities have said that the referendum will take place on 23rd March. Six months after that there is due to be a presidential election and parliamentary elections three months after that. The process is about establishing a new constitution in Chechnya and a knowledge of that will lie at the heart of the referendum.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, is not the noble Lord, Lord Judd, right in telling us that this tragedy involves separatism as well as terrorism? If, as the noble Lord advises—and he should certainly know—this referendum is premature, can the Minister at least assure us that when President Putin actively seeks close co-operation with international organisations and his friends, including this country, on how to handle this appalling matter, we will respond very positively?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we respond very positively. The noble Lord is right that it is not just about terrorism; it is about separatism. But I hope that the noble Lord heard my Answer that we have made clear that we recognise the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation. The constitutional reforms do not involve a separate state for Chechnya but a degree of autonomy within Chechnya itself.
Of course we shall try to give what help we can. I regret that the OSCE Assistance Group to Chechnya has been unable to extend its mandate; however, the OSCE presidency is currently exploring with the Russian Government how the work can be continued. We are hopeful of a positive outcome on that.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, it is clear that the conflict in Chechnya has spilled out over national boundaries. It has contributed to the continuing destabilisation of Georgia. What action are the British Government and their colleagues in the European Union now taking to help to stabilise Georgia and to protect Georgians from cross-border, often Russian-supported, destabilisation?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord any specific information about Georgia. I shall research that further and write to him. The European Union hopes to agree a
1478
balanced consensus statement on the situation in Chechnya at this year's United Nations Commission on Human Rights. So the European Union is taking a forward position on the matter. But I shall write to the noble Lord on the specific issue of Georgia.
Lord Rea: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that the proposed referendum is likely to be a travesty of democracy in view of the fact that a large proportion of the citizens of Chechnya are refugees outside the country, and members of the Russian armed forces will be allowed to vote in this election? Surely that is hardly the way towards a political solution rather than a military one. Will Her Majesty's Government press the Russians to start a dialogue with the elected President of Chechnya, Asian Maskhadov, who is no terrorist?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I cannot agree that it is a travesty of democracy. I think that the noble Lord is over-stating his case. But I agree that it is a difficult situation and that there are many imperfections. The United Kingdom Government have consistently stressed that a political solution to the conflict in Chechnya is essential. I believe that we are in a better position than we were when there was resort only to the use of violence. We welcome the plans to establish a new constitution. We have welcomed the plans for elections in Chechnya, so I cannot agree that it is a travesty of democracy. But we hope that the constitutional referendum will be the beginning of a long-term political process in which all parties will be able to renounce violence. Its success will depend on the thorough, consistent implementation of political and civil rights as set out in the new constitution.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the noble Baroness not agree that Chechnya is not historically part of Russia, as the Russian Government claim, but was conquered by force less than 150 years ago, wholly against the wishes of the inhabitants?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure that, historically speaking, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, must be right. If he is inviting me by implication therefore to retreat from the position of Her Majesty's Government on the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation, I cannot go that far. To use the analogy of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, many states would break up on that basis. The noble Lord would be in some difficulty in pursuing his analogy.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, will the Minister say something about abuses of human rights, particularly those perpetrated by the Russian forces and Chechen fighters? Are the excesses more by the Chechen fighters or by the Russian forces? Will Her Majesty's Government encourage the Russian Government to sign up to the International Criminal Court so that soldiers responsible for human rights abuses can be brought to justice?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government encourage all governments—the noble Lord mentioned the Russian Federation; let me also mention the United States of America—to sign up to the International Court. The noble Lord asks me to adjudicate on which violence is worse. I believe that there is violence on both sides, as I have illustrated. I have said that we believe there is violence on the part of the Russian authorities. I stressed that there is violence by the militant groups. We have also stressed that the Russian authorities must respect their obligations under the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees and that all movements of internally displaced persons must be strictly voluntary. We last did so during our human rights discussions with the Russian MFA only last week.

Government Annual Reports
3.16 p.m.
Lord Smith of Cliftonasked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the original intention in producing the Government's annual reports; why these ceased after three years; and whether there is any likelihood of their being resumed.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the information in the annual report was a collation of existing publicly available material, and we have decided not to continue with it. The Government will, of course, continue to report to Parliament and the public on their performance through a variety of means, such as reports, statistical bulletins, Ministerial Statements and Parliamentary Questions.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that reply. It is not as characteristically robust as his replies to me usually are, but that is because his officials who had notice of my Question found it difficult to give him more material.
Does the noble and learned Lord agree with me that the annual reports were launched with a great fanfare of publicity and were an interesting new part of the repertoire of public accountability on the part of governments? I regret that we do not have them, because it is convenient to have between two covers all the statistics and the targets missed or otherwise. What would be the Government's attitude if, for example, a company finding itself in troubled waters, such as Monsanto or Cable & Wireless, suddenly decided that it did not wish to produce any more annual reports?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there are a number of differences, to which I shall come in a moment. The noble Lord asked me two questions originally: first, whether the reports were produced with a great fanfare, to which the answer is yes, and, secondly, whether they were desperately interesting—ahem.
1480
I now turn to the failing companies. Certainly I would be quite happy to be employed by any of those failing companies, because I would probably receive a pay-off of about £6 million for demonstrated failure.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, were not the annual reports intended originally to provide publicity for the Government's activities, but they ran out of material and steam, despite the efforts of spin doctors? Are they now presumably to be discontinued for the same reason?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, they were tried on three occasions. The response was not perhaps universal. The total cost was quite significant. No one could sensibly believe that there is not abundant material available—some would say too much. If the noble Lord believes that it was a waste of time and spin, he ought to rejoice, because the sinner has repented.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord have some amazing crystal ball that said it would be better to stop producing annual reports because Higgs was going to report on corporate governance and therefore the annual report would require a performance evaluation of every board member and everything that the board did?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do have a crystal ball: we are going to win the next election.
Lord McNally: My Lords, could not officials also have provided the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House with a more direct Answer—I was going to say "honest"—along the lines that it was a merry wheeze dreamt up in the early stages of the Labour Government's life to get free political advertising provided from the public purse? As the noble and learned Lord has conceded that it was an error, should not the costs be refunded to the public purse by the Labour Party?
Moreover, as that publication and others were sanctioned by somebody in government, can the Minister tell us where authority lies for judgments on whether public money should be spent on publications? Is it political or public spending? At one stage, it was considered that the buck stopped with a political appointee, Mr Alastair Campbell. Does the director of the Central Office of Information report to Mr Alastair Campbell or to a responsible Minister? Who takes responsibility for that important area of public spending, in which, as the noble and learned Lord conceded, the Government have erred in the past?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I did not say that it was an error; I said that it had been tried. It was tried on three occasions: 1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–2000. It was then discontinued, but a comprehensive report was put to the electorate in, I

1481
think, 2001, and they seemed to be pleased with what we had done. The reports were signed off—sanctioned, in other words—by the then Cabinet Secretary.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord say what the cost was over each of those three years?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, as it happens, I have that material to hand. The total cost in the first year was £250,000; for the second year, it was £180,000; and, in the third year—showing what an excellent, prudent Government we have—it went down to £125,000.

Iraq
3.22 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether a simple majority of the Security Council of the United Nations in favour of the draft resolution submitted by Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States would be sufficient justification for the United Kingdom to invade Iraq.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as I told the House and as my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said in another place on 25th November, following the adoption of Resolution 1441, the preference of the Government, in the event of a further material breach by Iraq, is for a second Security Council resolution. Resolution 1441 warns Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violation of its obligations.
As my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said in November, we must reserve our position, in the event that the council does not live up to its responsibilities under the resolution. We have repeatedly said that we will always act in accordance with international law.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Will she confirm that Her Majesty's Government take the view that, if the resolution is not, for some reason, passed by the Security Council, that will not debar the Government from military action against Iraq for lack of proper legal authority? Can the noble Baroness reconcile that view with that of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, who said:
"If the US and others go outside the Security Council and take unilateral action, they would not be in conformity with the charter"?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are working very hard to secure a second Security Council resolution. I will not say anything that would prejudice the chances of a
1482
successful outcome for those negotiations. I said what I had to say about reserving our position in my Answer.
The noble Lord asked about the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Kofi Annan has been saying—we have all been saying—that it is important for the United Nations to come together. That is exactly what we have been trying to ensure. It is why we have tried to provide a basis—a compromise—even at this late stage, on which we can resolve the matter properly. Trying to secure agreement in the United Nations is more complicated when one member of the P5 says that it will veto a resolution in any circumstances.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will accept that many of us did not hear the Secretary-General saying what he said. Yesterday, the Prime Minister spoke of bringing the international community as a whole together on the issue. There are questions of legality with regard to the UN Charter and to voting procedures, which require nine votes. There is also the broader question of legitimacy and acceptance by the international community that action is justified. Does the Minister accept that, by that standard, the British and American Governments have not yet succeeded in persuading the international community in the way that the Prime Minister suggested yesterday?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I concede that there is a strongly argued position to be held on both sides of the question. It would be extraordinary to succeed in persuading the whole international community to adopt one position, as things stand and given the events of the past few days.
I remind the noble Lord that the international community came together effectively around UNSCR 1441. My right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are negotiating with every ounce of their strength to ensure that that international consensus survives.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the case for military action against Iraq does not begin or rest with the draft resolution referred to in the Question or with Resolution 1441? It rests with Resolution 678 of 1990 and all the subsequent Chapter VII resolutions about Iraq.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree very strongly with my noble friend. It is not just a question of Resolution 678, the resolution containing the decision to take military action against Iraq. There is also Resolution 687, which led to the suspension of that military action.
We sometimes refer to what we are discussing as the "second resolution". I remind your Lordships that it is the 18th resolution on the issue. As my noble friend pointed out, the resolutions were made under the mandatory chapter, Chapter VII.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree, further to the remarks made by the

1483
noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, that, as members of the United Nations have voted no fewer than 17 times to compel Saddam Hussein to disarm and to use all measures to do so, it would be reasonable to conclude that any further pressure, including force, had UN approval and was internationally legal? They are complex matters, on which we all, understandably, seek reassurance.
We appreciate that legal advice from the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General is confidential, as is right and proper. However, would it not be helpful, in the debate to be introduced by the Liberal Democrats on Monday, to have his presence and guidance? If he cannot help us on this difficult issue, he could help us with the broader issues affecting the Armed Forces in a conflict, now that we operate under the International Criminal Court system, which raises new and complex problems.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, in answer to the first part of the noble Lord's question, I shall repeat what the Prime Minister said yesterday in another place:
"As the Foreign Secretary has pointed out, resolution 1441 gives the legal basis for this. The reason we have been seeking a second resolution is … that it is highly desirable to demonstrate the unified will of the international community".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/3/03; col. 284.]
That is the Prime Minister's view. It is good enough for me and, I hope, for the noble Lord.
I thank the noble Lord for the way in which he put his question about the advice of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General. I remind him, however, that, by a long-standing convention that has been observed by successive governments, the fact and substance of Law Officers' advice are not disclosed outside the Government. That convention is reflected in paragraph 24 of the ministerial code. I believe that the noble Lord will also find it reflected on page 389 of Erskine May.
Law Officers' advice is given to the Government in confidence. If the department to which the advice is given wishes to disclose the advice, it may do so with the consent of the Law Officers. In practice, that is rarely done.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords—
Lord Sheldon: My Lords—
Lord Grocott: My Lords, we shall hear from my noble friend Lord Sheldon.
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in Stalinist times in the post-war years the Foreign Minister at the time drew the distinction between a "No" vote and a veto? When he voted "No", the Security Council assumed it was a veto. He said, "No, it was not". That is the precedent for our times, which
1484
has not been changed. We must not assume that any "No" votes will be a veto in the event of such votes being cast.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord raises an interesting point—which I am sure has already registered with my right honourable friends in another place. I shall ensure that it is conveyed to them. What has been so difficult about the position articulated from the other side of the Channel this week is the use of the words, "in any circumstances whatsoever". That has been very difficult. However, I shall certainly convey the point raised by my noble friend Lord Sheldon and I thank him for it.

Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill
3.30 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): I call Amendment No. 3.
Baroness Hamwee: I believe that, just before the sitting was suspended, we were about to hear the Minister respond to the previous group of amendments.
Lord Rooker: We were about to hear the Minister only if no one else stood up. I have already been told off today. I was a pupil of my noble friend Lord Stoddart when he was a Government Whip in another place. I learnt all the etiquette of procedure. I am aware that I am here to answer questions in Committee as often as required. I shall do my best—indeed, in the manner in which I was taught by my noble friend.
The expression "cart before the horse" was used. I throw that back at Members of the Committee who referred to it. If there was ever a case of the cart being before the horse, it was to demand detailed information about the functions and powers of a regional assembly in advance of the Bill on the referendum. It has been made clear that, before the referendum takes place, the electorate will have all that information at their disposal.
Those concerns were indicated at Second Reading. I accept that. They were put strongly. There were concerns about people voting for or against establishing an elected assembly before the legislation to set up the assemblies was enacted. The White Paper, Your Region, Your Choice, sets out our proposals. I could refer many of today's speakers to various sections of the report which would answer some of the questions put. It is not that the discussion has not taken place. The White Paper sets out in substantial detail from where the assemblies will draw their functions and powers.
The Government also said that that was the basis on which they hoped to introduce the legislation. I accept that we have not done that. Once we have received the recommendations from the Boundary Committee for

1485
local government in the region, we shall publish details of our proposals again. That will include a statement on how we intend to deal with the Boundary Committee's recommendations arising out of the local government review. People will then understand the consequences for local government. We shall also publish a summary of what an assembly would do and how it would work—before people cast their vote in the referendum. Therefore, there will be no argument that people will not have the necessary information.
There is nothing new in that approach. It was a two-stage approach. It was used for London, Scotland and Wales. I take on board the spirit of the questions asked; namely, more information to be made available before people make a choice. We accept that in principle. We are not opposed—I repeat, not opposed—to publishing a draft Bill on the powers of the assemblies. However, there are timetable issues relating to that. Therefore, at present, I cannot give a firm commitment that it would be a draft Bill. Certainly, we shall publish a summary document of the issues on which the Bill will be based.
I accept that a draft Bill would provide an opportunity for pre-legislative scrutiny. The Government have not ruled that out; it is a question of the timetable to which we are working. The argument concerning more information is covered in Amendments Nos. 5 and 6.
I can answer one specific question. As we left the Chamber, the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, said that he would not be back at 3.30 p.m. As Members were being so emollient and civilised, I told him the answer to his question at the doorway. Therefore, I had better put that answer on the record. The question posed by the noble Lord was: will an elected assembly be a local authority? The answer is, "No". It will be legally distinct from a local authority, the GLA, the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament. Those are different bodies with different functions. It will not be a local authority. There will be a legal distinction.
In some ways, it is putting the cart before the horse. Before the referendum, which would be after the Boundary Committee has published its proposals, the Government will make a statement about how they intend to take forward the proposals of the Boundary Committee in the regions and produce a summary document about the way in which the assemblies will work and be set up.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He answered the question about the status of the regional authority. He said that it would not be a local authority. Nor is it to be a government. Therefore, what will its status be? Will it have a status in its own right as a regional assembly and a regional authority? What will that status be?
Lord Rooker: I can only repeat what I previously said. The question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, asked for a definition of a local authority. The question was: will an elected assembly be a local authority? The specific answer is, "No". Regionally
1486
elected assemblies will be legally distinct from local authorities, the GLA, the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament. They will have separate legal distinctions. They will be different bodies with different functions. Therefore, the answer to the question is that I cannot say in terms of a sub-clause or give a legal definition, but there will be a distinct definition of regional assemblies. They will not be classified in law as a local authority. That, of course, was the allegation in the question originally posed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, raised the issue of the learning and skills councils. I shall become a tautologist if I continue repeating what I have said. The noble Baroness has been most generous and I therefore draw her attention to paragraph 4.29 on page 39 of the White Paper. That sets out the individual responsibilities of the elected assemblies and the learning skills councils. It may be that Members do not like that. However, it is set out.
I shall not "over claim" for the elected regional assemblies. In some speeches today, there has been a thrust which suggests that the regional assemblies will not be as big as the Government have claimed. We have not made massive claims. We have been clinically calculating on what their function and role will be. I am partially criticised for pointing out that there will be no new money and no new powers. And nor will there be a new tier of government—I am adding that to the mantra now.
We are not making super claims for the regional assemblies. We have been clear. It is set out in the White Paper. Further arguments have been put forward, then knocked down with comments such as, "Well, it's not going to have these powers'. That was never the proposal. It is a modest advance in democratic accountability for the spending of huge sums of public money. That is to be welcomed.
Baroness Blatch: If it is a modest advance as regards the spending of huge sums of public money, I am grateful. But the learning and skills councils and the sector skills councils are concerned with skills in a regional context. If that is the case, and if there is to be no duplication, what on earth will be the relationship of the regional assembly to sector skills councils and to the national Sector Skills Council, to learning and skills councils and to the national Learning and Skills Development Agency?
Lord Rooker: I can confidently say that that will be set out in the summary of the powers placed before the people before they vote in a referendum.
Baroness Hamwee: I am sure the Minister will accept that what the Government propose may not be the same as what we end up with. My noble friend made that point earlier. I do not presume to speak for the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, but I hope that the Minister accepts that we on these Benches are keen 'to make progress, in the knowledge not only of what the Government propose but of what the final product might be.

1487
Having said that, I have completely forgotten the reason why I rose to my feet! I shall sit down again, and I may remember when I read Hansard.
The Earl of Caithness: If I intervene it may give the noble Baroness time to think of her question.
Will the Minister clarify two points? Will the regional assembly, although not classed as a local authority, still be funded publicly either by central government or by local taxes from below? Therefore, although it is not strictly a local authority in the Minister's definition, will it be a local authority quango or some equivalent definition?
I am confused on a second point relating to the functions of the assemblies. Shall we in this Chamber be able to debate, amend, and persuade the Government to change some of the functions that they propose to give to regional assemblies before the people in an area are given a chance to vote? Or shall we be cut out of the process as from now?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: It may be convenient if I raise two questions at this point. The Minister did not comment on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, about the relationship with the European Union. That is important—because there is a relationship. The Commission has offices in all the regional "capitals"—it has a presence in the regions—and, through local authority members, there will be a presence in Brussels itself. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, may want to enlarge on that point. It is a question that needs comment.
The Minister says that the regional assemblies will spend huge amounts of money, and that the quangos will not be brought under the democratic control of the regional authorities. But they spend £50 billion a year. If my arithmetic is correct, that is between 12 and 15 per cent of the total national tax take. Yet they are not to be democratised in any way. That is something of a lacuna which I am sure the Minister would like to address.
Baroness Hamwee: I rarely follow the noble Lord's example, but I shall do so on this occasion—if not politically—and add to the list of points for the Minister to answer, having now remembered my question. It relates to the timing of the government proposals. Will the Minister be a little clearer as regards the obstacles? Is there a problem as regards the time of parliamentary counsel—which often presents difficulty; or is there some structural reason why a draft Bill will not be available for scrutiny as early as we should like? I am still seeking a way in which we might meet one another on this point.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I did not speak before lunch—although not for dietary reasons—but the Minister addressed the idea of "the cart before the horse". I think I was responsible for introducing the concept at Second Reading (at col.
1488
1277). I claim no intellectual property rights, nor do I have any emotional capital tied up in the phrase, but it was good of the Minister to address it given my small part in its introduction.
In referring to the two-stage process, the Minister indicated that he cannot guarantee a draft Bill. I recall a similar process when we debated the Greater London Authority Bill. We had had an initial debate in another place on governance in London in June 1997. In that debate, I quoted the episode where Lord Home—as he then was not—had been asked during the 1964 general election about the government's intentions as regards VAT. He said that a lot of very clever men were thinking about it at that very moment. I said I had the impression that the same was true of what the government were going to do for London. Mr Raynsford, whose responsibilities have remained remarkably constant in this area over the past six years—although with extended and promoted levels—replied that I was perfectly right and that a lot of clever people were thinking about it. We then had the White Paper, and moved on to the Bill, which extended from 270 clauses when it first reached this place to 413 when it was placed on the statute book—indicating that the clever men had clearly had to work overtime in terms of extending the range of the Bill. It meant, inevitably, that we were looking at a moving target the whole time.
In a Bill so directed towards strategy—as I understand this Bill will be—there was a whole series of strategies which the assembly and the authority were supposed to produce. I took the liberty of asking Ms Glenda Jackson, the Minister then in charge of the Bill, what would happen if the strategies were in conflict with each other. She was gracious enough to say that that could not happen, because the Bill prevented it; they were not allowed to be in conflict with each other. That did not seem quite as gracious as she might have been—which would have been to explain how the differences would be resolved. At this juncture, I am reassured by the Minister's remarks—although on the basis of past experience I have lingering doubts about how it will all turn out in the end.
Lord Rooker: I think that we all have lingering doubts on everything that we are dealing with. One always has to be careful about the unintended consequences of what one is proposing.
As regards the timetable, we are some period away from any referendum that might take place. The Bill will have to receive Royal Assent. Only after Royal Assent will the Secretary of State give his views to Parliament about soundings in the regions; and the Electoral Commission and the Boundary Committee will have to review local government. The estimate is that that will take about 12 months. I cannot even forecast the publication of the draft housing Bill—which is supposed to be later this month—let alone talk about the Bill to set up assemblies, with all their powers, which is 12 months away at the earliest, if there are to be referendums.

1489
We are not opposed in principle to providing a draft Bill in advance of the referendums. There is no policy difference. There are timetable issues that will determine whether that is feasible. I suspect that there may well be resource implications. Nevertheless, we have to be so far advanced in order to publish a summary of how we propose that the assembly will work before people cast their vote. All that would have to be in place. On the basis of that, we should know how the Bill would be drafted.
On the question on which I am tempted by the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart and Lord Pearson, this is not a cop-out. The White Paper is there for everyone to read. Chapter 8—pages 58 to 62—sets out the powers and the relationship with other bodies, including Parliament, the Council of the Regions and the EU, and other matters. I cannot go beyond the content of the White Paper. If I ask for a note from my officials, it will simply draw my attention to paragraphs in the White Paper. I do not think that Members of the Committee would thank me for reading out four pages of the White Paper.
Baroness Blatch: Does the noble Lord accept that what he has just said causes huge anxiety? We have tried to make sense of the White Paper. The Government are not able to give details of what the relevant phrases in the White Paper mean. When I spoke on the amendment earlier I referred to certain words in the White Paper and asked what they meant. The Minister simply tells us to wait for the referendum, which is possibly a year or more away—I do not blame him as, clearly, the matter also involves the department and the Deputy Prime Minister—depending on when the Deputy Prime Minister comes to Parliament to say that there will be a referendum in a particular part of the country. However, we want to know what pages 58 to 62 of the document mean and what the powers comprise.
The Minister has not yet referred to the point that we raised this morning with regard to the power that he mentioned on Second Reading; that is, a power to the assembly from national government, which turned out on reflection not to be a power. Is he able to give us examples of powers that will be transferred from central government to regional assemblies? I refer to powers and not to parts to play in the process or influence on it or a duty to promote the results of it. Will the Minister tell us what the words mean? It is important that we understand that. If the Government cannot tell us that until a referendum takes place, we are travelling blind with the Bill.
The Earl of Caithness: In the hope that if I intervene the Fifth Cavalry might come to the help of the Minister, I hope that he will consider answering my question about our being able to debate functions before they are put to a referendum, and whether we can alter them before such a referendum takes place.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I seek to give the Minister a little more time to think of the answers to the questions that I put to him, which were repeated to
1490
some extent by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, who pointed out that the regions that we are discussing already have offices in Brussels. Brussels already has its tentacles in our existing regions and sends some of our taxpayers' money back to those regions in the guise of EU aid. So, whatever the White Paper may say—it did not help me on this point and I did not find it elucidating—what will be the interface between the new regional assemblies and Brussels? Can the noble Lord give the Committee the assurance that the new assemblies will not eventually have tax raising powers, with some of those taxes ending up in Brussels?
Lord Rooker: I repeat that we are dealing with a Bill that paves the way for the referendum. The referendum is well over 12 months away at the earliest. I am asked to dissect the White Paper in detail. Amendment No. 5 requires us to publish a draft Bill before we proceed with the referendum. Frankly, if I accept the amendment—which I cannot do for the reasons I have explained—I suspect that Members of the Committee would then ask what would be in the draft Bill and I would still be in the same position. The Committee will have to wait until it is available as we are talking about a matter that is more than 12 months away.
I cannot give precise detailed answers to all of the questions that have been asked as regards relations between the assemblies and Brussels and the Council of the Regions. I refer to Chapter 8 of the document. That is as far as we have gone publicly. I have nothing further to add. I do not have to wait for the cavalry. I have nothing further to say about Chapter 8. Before the electorate vote whether or not to have an elected regional assembly, we shall be in a position to address the powers and responsibilities that we are discussing at least in summary form and, at best, in a draft Bill. As I said, I have not ruled out a draft Bill. It is purely a question of not committing to a certain timetable so far in advance. I cannot give that commitment.
Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for that response. He is in some difficulty here as I do not think that anyone has thought through how the public will be advised on the matter. My heart goes out to the Minister as I believe that he is struggling where he should not have to.
At the moment the Government are relying on the population having read the White Paper. If the Government think that people have read the White Paper, they are living in Cloud-cuckoo-land. No one reads White Papers except politicians and a few other people who need to know something about them. Therefore, the Government cannot rely on that. The Government cannot rely on the White Paper anyway as the White Paper does not spell out in detail what regional assemblies will do or what their powers and structures will be.
We have learnt today that a regional assembly is not a local authority. Therefore, it must be something else. But the situation vis-à-vis regional assemblies is not tile same as that which pertains in Scotland, Wales or London. We need to know what a regional assembly is

1491
and under what provisions such a legal entity will operate. It seems to me that we have to sort out not only the powers and structures of the regional assembly but also where it fits in with any kind of governance within this country. The matters about which we need to know are widening out.
I appreciate that this is meant to be paving legislation but it requires people to know what the matter is all about. I do not think that it is good enough simply to say rather airily that the relevant details will be made known before the referendum takes place. If they are as clear as the text of the White Paper, no one will understand them. As I said before, this matter needs to be discussed by Parliament. The powers and structures need to be scrutinised by Parliament to enable Members to determine what they will involve before they are voted upon by the electorate. I have referred to a pig in a poke. I say again that the electorate are being sold a pig in a poke if they are not given a proper account of what they are voting for.
Recently I visited the north of England. What is being said there about what regional assemblies will do bears absolutely no relation to what the Minister said today. High flown views are being expressed about how the assemblies will act and about all the wonderful things that they will do. That is happening because there is a vacuum and it will continue as long as that vacuum persists.
I shall withdraw the amendment today but I advise the Minister that I shall return to the matter as it constitutes a serious part of the paving Bill. To expect the country, or any part of it, even to vote whether it wants a regional assembly when it does not know what a regional assembly will do is thoroughly dishonest. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 6, leave out "an" and insert "a directly"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 3, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 30. With Amendment No. 3 we come to the second line of the text. I think I can promise the Committee that this debate will be shorter than those on the previous groups of amendments, possibly even the shortest on the whole Bill.
I propose that the assemblies be referred to not just as elected assemblies but as directly elected assemblies. I propose that phrase also in the question to be posed to the electorate under Clause 2.
At present there are bodies that are known as assemblies. Strictly they are regional chambers established under the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998, but I believe that all of them now refer to themselves as assemblies. They may not be the best known bodies in their regions although they are not unknown by any means. Their role may well adopt a higher profile as the debate continues. It is best to avoid as much confusion as possible. As we have said, there is enough confusion already without adding to it. I seek to avoid the possibility of those who oppose the
1492
question as set out in the Bill answering it with the words, "But there already is an elected assembly". I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: In speaking to the amendment, I shall try to be as brief as the noble Baroness. The amendment seeks to clarify that the regional assemblies will be directly elected. I assure noble Lords that that is the Government's clear intention. I understand the argument that it might be helpful to make it clearer in the referendum question and preamble that the assemblies will he directly elected. But the issue is not as simple as putting in a single word. I understand that nowhere in electoral law is "direct election" specifically defined. More importantly, I am not convinced how helpful it would be in practice to voters in the polling booth. I think that all voters understand what an elected assembly means but would the meaning of "directly elected" be clear to them? I fear that the amendment raises more questions than answers. I believe that it would be better to explain clearly in our statement before the referendum the intended voting system. Therefore, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment and not to move Amendment No. 30.
Baroness Blatch: The White Paper suggests a list system. Are the Government able to say "directly elected"? Some people will be directly elected and others will be elected as top-up members among the party. It is not that the population would not understand but that the Government do not intend that there should be wholly direct elections.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I did not deal with that question because the White Paper sets out in some details the proposed electoral system for the assemblies. We plan to adopt the member system form of proportional representation for assembly elections.
Baroness Blatch: I am sorry to persist, but that is relevant to the amendment. The elections are either direct elections or they are partly direct elections. That should be the Government's answer, not that the public do not understand. We should not patronise the public in this way.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: Our intention is to make our instructions for the electorate as clear as possible. I argued that if the word "directly" is introduced, the electorate will find it confusing. I do not think that that is patronising.
The Earl of Onslow: Are people so stupid that they do not understand the word "directly"? I may have only five O-levels but I understand the word "directly" and I am no more intelligent, clever or better educated

1493
than the vast majority of the British electorate. Of course they can understand. To patronise them in this way is not very attractive.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: We are proceeding down a cul-de-sac. We are proposing the same language as has been used for Wales, Scotland and the London Assembly.
Baroness Blatch: These are not the same bodies as the London, Welsh or Scottish parliaments.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: Of course they are not the same but the electoral system is the same.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I am not sure whether the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is about to wind up. However, in light of the Minister's remarks, given the second line of the Prime Minister's preface to the White Paper in which he says,
"It delivers on our Manifesto commitment to provide for directly elected regional assemblies in those regions that want them".
it is a little surprising that the Government should be so infirm of purpose that they refuse an amendment to the Bill which refers to "directly".
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: That is amusing. Things have moved on since the Prime Minister made his introduction. We have taken advice from various sources including the Electoral Commission which is absolutely happy with what we propose.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I do not understand why the Minister makes such a fuss about it. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, put it well when he asked, "Are people stupid?" People are not stupid. The electorate are much wiser and more knowledgeable than politicians think. People know that direct elections mean that they go to a polling booth or have a postal or proxy vote and they put a cross against a name. That is what direct elections mean to the general population.
It could mean something different to the politically aware. For example, it could mean to local authorities—it may make regional assemblies more acceptable to them—that election means any kind of election, direct or indirect. In other words, the local authorities would elect members to the regional assemblies. They would still be elected but they would not have been elected directly by the Government. It sounds like a niggling point but it is very important.
Perhaps I may refer to the Royal Commission on Local Government and my service on the Association of Municipal Corporations' reorganisation of local government committee. It proposed that the provinces should be elected from among the local authorities. So there is a difference. It is understood in political circles. So far as concerns the electorate, "direct elections" mean that they go to the polling stations and put a cross on the ballot paper.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: We are left with the problem that there is no definition of "directly
1494
elected". We have consulted with expert bodies whose advice is that it would be confusing to use the word when talking about regional assemblies. At the risk of boring noble Lords, I have to repeat that we are proposing exactly the same electoral system for regional assemblies as has been used for the Welsh, Scottish and London assemblies.
Baroness Hanham: Perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to direct my attention to the difference between what is proposed now and paragraph 4.22 on page 38 which states:
"The Regional Development Agencies will become directly accountable to the relevant elected assembly".
I am not sure of the difference.
Lord Skelmersdale: Before the Minister answers, although I am not a lawyer and have not been trained as a lawyer, I have learned over many years in your Lordships' House that in the absence of a definitions clause the courts take the view that words in Acts of Parliament have their natural meaning. It is obvious that in this instance the natural meaning is right, common sense and direct. I understand that there is no proposal for having indirect elections in these assemblies.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: The noble Lord is right. The meaning was precisely the same for elections for Scotland and England. There was no need for any embellishment. Everyone appears to have understood the situation.
Baroness Blatch: Although Parliament approved those Acts of Parliament there was a great deal of disagreement on the Bill. We had similar debates to our present discussion. Paragraph 4.29 on page 39 states:
"The assembly will appoint two members to each of the Boards of the local learning and skills councils … in its region, one of whom will have a business background, and will be consulted on other appointments".
Whatever the meaning of "directly elected" or "elected", in the area from which I come it is possible to have 25 members without one of them being a business person. How is it possible to make a business person's appointment to the local learning and skills councils if he or she has not been elected, directly or otherwise?
Earl Ferrers: I wish to come to the help of the Minister. Every single speaker has spoken in favour of including the words "directly elected". The Minister is keen to keep to his brief and he has been well advised, but it would not do any harm if he were gracious enough to say, "I will consider it". There is no harm or humiliation in that, and it would be a gesture to the Committee, suggesting that the Minister will at least

1495
consider what has been said. If, after consideration, he decides that his original view was right, he can stick to it.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I am grateful for that suggestion, and I accept it.
Baroness Hamwee: I am grateful for that acceptance, but I must respond to three points. I should declare an interest, because I regard myself as a directly elected member of the London Assembly—elected through the additional member system on the so-called London-wide list. I distinguish that from a previous position, when, as member of the London Planning Advisory Committee, I was indirectly elected. I had been elected to a London borough, and, as a member of the borough, I was nominated as a member of the London Planning Advisory Committee. I regard my responsibilities as a London-wide directly elected member of the London Assembly—
Baroness Seccombe: I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. Was she not directly elected by her party, rather than by the wider population?
Baroness Hamwee: I would not have become a member of the London Assembly had not the wider population—the electorate—voted for my party. I accept that the systems are different, but the electorate had the opportunity to vote for members who ended up as London-wide list members. I admit that the system is by no means easy for the electorate to follow, which is one of my difficulties with it.
The Earl of Onslow: Before the noble Baroness sits down—
Baroness Hamwee: I am nowhere near sitting down.
The Earl of Onslow: Should the elected hereditary Peers who have spoken declare whether they were directly or indirectly elected?
Baroness Hamwee: I shall leave that question hanging.
My second point is more serious and relates to the amendment more directly. The distinction between the proposals in this Bill and the measures made in relation to London, Wales and Scotland is that, when the referendums took place, no other assembly or body could be confused with the one about to be elected.
Finally, I understand that one must be careful with language and I take the Minister's point about there being no definition of "directly elected". I shall try to resist the temptation to return with such a definition. The preamble, which is intended to be straightforward and non-legalistic, refers to "central government bodies". Is that term defined anywhere? Perhaps we may take this matter forward before the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Greaves moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 7, at end insert "after the Boundary Committee for England have reviewed the numbers and boundaries of the regions specified in Schedule Ito the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 (c. 45) and reported their recommendations to the Secretary of State"
The noble Lord said: I return to the theme of the debate on Amendment No. 1 on regional boundaries. During that debate, we showed that we had considerable sympathy with the case made from the Conservative Front Bench. The boundaries of existing regions are not necessarily the boundaries that would command greatest support from the people in those regions in a referendum, and mechanisms should be available for changes to be made to boundaries.
The amendments offer three different options for consideration, which we believe are more straightforward and workable than the option suggested in Amendment No. 1.
Amendment No. 4 is similar to Amendment No. 1, but simpler. It would require the Boundary Committee for England to review,
"the numbers and boundaries of the regions specified in Schedule 1 to the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998".
The Minister will say that that would cause delay, which is true. However, in most cases, delays will occur anyway.
There is no suggestion that referendums will be held in the majority of English regions, and it is far from clear from our information that referendums in any English region can be won. There is a general view that a referendum might be won in the North East, but I am far from certain that a referendum would be won in the North West on the basis of existing government proposals. Those who believe that it will be a walkover are living in cloud cuckoo land.
If there is concern about regional boundaries, it would be more sensible for the concern to be aired before the referendums take place. The amendment would allow that to happen.
The other options are less severe. The option set out in Amendment No. 25 would allow a division of a region,
"into two or more areas",
if the Secretary of State believed that to be sensible.
The amendment would allow Cornwall, for example, to be treated separately from the rest of the South West region. If a referendum for a regional assembly is to be won in the South West, the Cornish question must be treated head-on. People in Cornwall feel strongly about the question, and there is an active campaign for a Cornish assembly, called the Cornish Assembly Campaign. There is little support in Cornwall for a South West Assembly, based on the Bristol-based South West region, of which Cornwall would be part.
What would happen if people voted "Yes" overall in a referendum in the South West region, but there was a substantial "No" vote in Cornwall? Presumably the vote would be known on more than just an aggregate

1497
basis—it would be known how different areas had voted. What would the democratic legitimacy be for that arrangement? Would it not set in train a series of tensions and problems in Cornwall and the new assembly? So our second option would allow the Secretary of State, where it was sensible, to say, "It is obvious that opinion in that area is that the region should be divided". It would allow referendums to proceed on that basis.
Amendment No. 142 allows the Secretary of State to vary the boundaries of a region before a referendum. So if the Cumbrian question were thought crucial and soundings there suggested that it should be detached from the North West region, the amendment would allow it to stand alone or to be added to the North East. We think that tackling these matters before they become real problems—lancing the boil and getting sensible solutions—is likely to lead to much more sensible regional government in the long run. I beg to move.
Lord Waddington: I must confess that, half way through the noble Lord's speech, I was slightly distracted by the furniture removing in which my noble friend Lord Carlisle was indulging. Now that he has finished his exercise, we can address our minds again to this amendment.
I am bound to say that I am thoroughly confused. I thought that the Liberal Democrat objection to Amendment No. I was that to have a thoroughgoing review of the regional boundaries before the Secretary of State could order a referendum was a complete waste of time. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, so forgot herself as to become very political and say that the whole thing was just a device by the Conservative Party to wreck the Bill. Here we have an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, which has almost exactly the same effect. The Secretary of State will he prevented from ordering a referendum in any part of the country until there has been a review of the boundaries of every region and a careful examination as to whether there should be more or fewer regions than at present. For the life of me, I cannot understand why there was such a fuss from the Liberal Democrat Benches about Amendment No. 1. Having said that, I shall probably support Amendment No. 4 if they press it to a vote.
Baroness Match: I am just as bemused as my noble friend Lord Waddington. As we had a touching emphasis on one part of the world where the Liberal Democrats happen to be fairly strong, I just wonder whether there was a bit of special pleading. However, I, too, support the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, although not on the grounds that this is a Liberal Democrat amendment. As I said, opinion on regional assemblies is divided among Members on all Benches and members of all parties. Some people have particular concerns about particular aspects of this approach—that is, putting the cart before the horse, with the detail preceding the Bill by a year or more. Nevertheless, the effect of this group of amendments seems the same as that of Amendment No. 1.
1498
Amendment No. 4 does not mention Cornwall or parts of Lancashire. It says that each of the regions could be reviewed by the Boundary Committee. So it has our wholehearted support.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: As the single Member of a party I would not dream of intervening in the dispute between the Liberal Benches and the Conservative Benches. However, I support this amendment, which does seem very similar in character to the first new clause. It really does give the Government an opportunity to think again about setting the existing boundaries in stone. The existing regional development agencies are not necessarily the right administrative areas for a democratically elected assembly. I am sorry to come back to that, but if the Government are going to do this—and I repeat that I think that they should not be doing it—it really is important that they should get it right. This amendment, like the previous one, gives them the opportunity to do so.
I know that I should not help the Government out like this. Nevertheless, this amendment would help them out. If they got the regions right first, they would be more likely to get support for regional government than if they got them wrong. Furthermore, in any referendum, those who will sway the vote are the big urban authorities. We need somehow to persuade the small authorities that they are in favour of regional government. I hope that that is helpful to the Government. If they do not take the large urban conurbations with them as well as the smaller areas within the region, they will be in dead trouble. The smaller areas will never accept that they are part of the region unless they are being treated fairly so far as concerns boundaries and voting strength. I urge the Minister to take account of this amendment. Before he rejects it out of hand, and before further stages, I hope that he will give it some thought.
Lord Hanningfield: I support the amendment. As I said, I know that it is unlikely that we will have a region in the East or the South East. Nevertheless, Essex, for example, has had discussions with Hertfordshire—with which we have much in common—and would like to break away even within the existing development agency. This amendment would allow Essex and Hertfordshire to break away from the rest of the East of England. On the other hand, Amendment No. 1 would allow a more thorough examination of the whole of the South East and—as I said—the Thames Gateway, which covers Essex, Kent and London. If we were to have a region, it might be more logical if Essex were with Kent. So although I support this amendment—which would allow Essex and Hertfordshire to break away from East Anglia, with which we have nothing in common—if we are to have regions, it might be right to have a good discussion about whether we should be with Kent.
I do not think that the Government realise the extent of the antagonism created by this issue across the country. I live daily with local government, where there is enormous debate and enormous unhappiness.

1499
With the exception of Yorkshire and Humberside and the North East, the country is in turmoil over these issues. The Government should recognise that they have opened a Pandora's box of dissatisfaction, and this debate is only adding to it.
Baroness Hamwee: I am sorry to have disappointed the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, by being political—but I am, as indeed is he. There is a major distinction between Amendment No. 1 and Amendment No. 4. Unlike Amendment No. 4, Amendment No. 1 would cause an inevitable delay. It is not just a matter of taking a rather broader brush approach and not spelling it out in detail, as the Conservatives have done. As we explained in that debate, we do not agree with some of the detail of their approach. They conclude that the Secretary of State has to make a further order, which is not inevitably the conclusion of Amendment No. 4.
Baroness Blatch: My understanding is that the order could not be made until after such a review. As it does not specify which part of the country is in question, it potentially could apply to any or every part of the country. If the order cannot be made until afterwards, my understanding is that both groups of amendments would produce the same result.
Baroness Hamwee: I do not read them in quite that way, and I did say "not inevitably". Yes, there is a possibility, but it is not inevitable.
The Earl of Onslow: The noble Baroness says that something could be understood in that way, but that that is not inevitable. Is it not a good idea to know what you mean before tabling an amendment? I know that the Liberals are unsound on home rule for Ireland, and I suppose that this is the same sort of thing. Would it not be possible for them to get their act together?
Baroness Hamwee: I know what I mean. I am going to explain in a moment why this amendment was tabled with Amendment No. 25 to which I do not believe any other Member of the Committee has referred. We have heard the Government speak of the "possibility"—I hesitate to use that word, but I cannot think of another at the moment—that after the first tranche of referendums there will be reviews of the boundaries of the regions which are not in the first tranche. There is a possibility—
4.30 p.m.
Lord Rooker: We have to be careful here in the use of words because we are legislating and this is important. The noble Baroness has not heard the Government say what she has just claimed: that after the first tranche of referendums it is possible that the boundaries will be reviewed. Nobody has said that and I have to knock that statement on the head straightaway.
1500
I draw the attention of the noble Baroness to paragraph 6.5 of the White Paper which makes our intention clear about the exceptional circumstances of future changes. It has nothing to do with the interim changes which the noble Baroness has just implied.
Baroness Hamwee: In that case I am having difficulty with language as well. I shall try to present it in a different way. I had quite genuinely thought that there was reference to exceptional circumstances. There are parts of the country which are exceptional because they are very different, with different requirements and where the strength of feeling is very different from that in the majority of the country. That is what I understood the Minister to say, but I am grateful for the clarification.
Nevertheless, I do not believe that it undermines the importance of Amendment No. 25. It may not be government policy, but having got through the first tranche, that will enable a review. I hope that I am not putting words into the Minister's mouth when I say that there is a general understanding that the Government want to get the first tranche dealt with. Then there will be a pause which, I hope, is not contentious, because when one pauses one generally reflects. During that period it would then be possible under our amendment for the Secretary of State and the rest of us to use the information, which will have come through the soundings exercise, to reflect on whether boundary changes would enable the advancement of regional government in other parts of the country. In that regard, these Benches are rather closer to the Government in that we are seeking to advance the cause of regional government.
Baroness Hanham: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Will she accept from me that we do not know what the soundings exercise has been set against? It has not come to Parliament—and it is finished. We do not yet know on what basis the Deputy Prime Minister, who has the sole responsibility for making a decision, will make his decision. Therefore, we have no idea whether the question of regions and regional boundaries has even entered part of the soundings exercise.
Baroness Hamwee: I accept that entirely; nevertheless it must be on the cards that some of the responses must have been, "We would like regional government but on different boundaries". That is all I am attempting to reflect through this amendment.
Lord Rooker: Someone said a little while ago that there was a lot of antagonism out there. I am being antagonised because this morning supporters of the Bill opposed what is very much a delaying tactic in Amendment No. 1. It does not matter how one looks at the wording, the meaning presents exactly the same picture. That leaves me in a very difficult position. I have a set of speaking notes, but the magic ink on the page calls out at me, "Don't bother with this. Go back and read the speech you read out this morning". If I could transpose for Hansard, it would be a great deal

1501
easier to say "Take out a couple of columns from the morning and stick them in here". That is because the arguments are exactly the same.
What the noble Baroness said as regards what she believed we had said about the longer-term possibilities of looking at boundaries is rather like what another noble Baroness said earlier about people elsewhere in the country making a much bigger issue of this matter than it is, having not read the words. I am not trying to over-sell the product, but to sell it honestly so that I am not "done" by the Office of Fair Trading later for misleading on the policy.
I have to draw the attention of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to paragraph 6.5 of the White Paper which states,
"The Government has not completely ruled out in the longer term the possibility of adopting boundaries for regional assemblies that do not follow the existing boundaries".
We recognise that they cannot be set in stone. But we would change them only under exceptional circumstances and in the longer term. We have no current intention of changing the regional boundaries in the short to medium term. People can argue—please don't!—definitions of short, medium and longer term. But it may be that a future government would want to change the Government Office structure for the country for various reasons. That is a possibility. One would look at the mechanism for that. But to build into the Bill the mechanism by which the Liberal Democrats seek to cast doubt about the boundaries leaves a clear implication.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, keeps inviting me to agree with him, but I shall not. He seems to know when the referendums will take place, but I do not. We have made no plans and there have been no public pronouncements whatever. One can argue as much as one likes, but until the Deputy Prime Minister makes an announcement after the soundings, nobody knows, including myself. If there were a referendum; a successful "Yes" vote and an elected regional assembly was set up, then, according to the thinking of the Liberal Democrats, the Government could look at the boundaries and it would be possible to affect the boundaries of the region which had just been created.
There would be a massive degree of confusion built into the legislation by accepting these amendments. If the noble Baroness remotely supports regionally elected assemblies—they are not home rule—I invite her to take what is on offer as set out. I have to tell the noble Baroness that acceptance of the amendments would leave the Bill dead in its tracks. Amendment No. 4 would mean that the order creating the referendum could not be made until the Boundary Committee for England conducted a review of the numbers and boundaries and reported its recommendations. However, there are no powers for
1502
the Boundary Committee to carry out such a review. I pointed out this morning that it would take four years to cover the whole country.
Lord Greaves: These debates range fairly wide. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said that the Liberals have always been unsound on home rule for Ireland.
The Earl of Onslow: I said that the party was split over home rule for Northern Ireland. I know my history.
Lord Greaves: The problem was that some of the Liberals were sound and some were not, so the party split rather disastrously. If the Prime Minister in 1885 had has his way Ireland would have been a much better place than it has been.
We regret that we are not talking about home rule. We are quite honest about this. We want to agree with the Conservatives here, but we do not. I return to the fact that we are living in the real world as defined by the Government. We are being offered a limited amount of as yet unspecified power for regional assemblies in unspecified places. I do not know whether any public announcements have been made about where the first referendum will take place. We believe what the department's civil servants brief when they talk to campaigners in the regions; we believe what the spin doctors say and what appears in the press and is not denied. We may be wrong to believe that, but until the Minister or anyone else in the Government tells us that we are wrong, we shall continue to believe that what the Government are saying privately is what they are going to do publicly in due course.
I do not want to discuss Amendment No. I again except to say that we did not agree with it because of its content. One can understand why when one looks at it.
The Government are doing everything the wrong way around. They should have started by considering regional boundaries. They could have done so for the past two years but wasted time. The Government ought to decide the first regions where referendums will take place, then consult on them. That is fundamental. If I am accused of special pleading for Cornwall or Cumbria, it makes a change from all the special pleading for Essex—though I do not blame those concerned because everywhere is important.
After deciding which regions are which, the Government ought to produce legislation that sets out the English assemblies' powers, duties and size, and the electoral system. In fact, they could do the two together. Then the legislation and decision to go ahead with referendums ought to follow, so that we—and, more importantly, the voters—know what the Government intend.
It is not clear why the Government are doing everything the wrong way around except that they did the same in Scotland, Wales and Greater London. Certainly there were lengthy discussions in Scotland, with a report and agreement on what would happen

1503
and how it was to work. That is not the case with the English regions. This debate is rambling on because the public do not know what is on offer. It is difficult to agree on vague proposals—especially when they will be the subject of referendums.
The Government say that the proposed electoral system is identical to those used for Wales, Scotland and Greater London but although they are all additional member systems, they differ in detail—for example, in the proportion of the top-up and the size of the top-up areas. All those things matter. The Minister says that people will know about the electoral system being used. How will they know? This Parliament might change the electoral system between the time of the referendum and establishing an assembly.
The Government should first examine the regions, but it does not have to be a long process. Secondly, the Government should build in a mechanism to change the regional boundaries if it turns out that they are not sensible. Not to do that will put obstacles in the way. People will say, "We might want a regional assembly but we are not going to vote for one in that area. We will vote for one in Cornwall but not in the South West". The Government should look at the options before decisions are made on referendums.
Baroness Hanham: The noble Lord, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and ourselves are moving along more or less the same lines—that there must first be a review of boundaries. What elements of our proposals for Clause 1 do Members of the Liberal Democrat Benches dislike? The noble Baroness suggested that she does not like the equal population size proposal. All the other measures invite proposals from representative bodies. We have also asked the Electoral Commission to table proposals and suggested that boundaries should reflect the identities and interests of local communities. We have further asked the Electoral Commission to publish the proposals. We have even suggested consulting with all the relevant interests, including the local electorate.
Lord Greaves: I set out some of our objections when speaking to Amendment No. 1. The first paragraph of the proposed new clause is a clumsy way to start the process. If the noble Baroness wishes to pursue the matter, perhaps we can discuss it with her before Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 not moved.]
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 8, at end insert—
"( ) The boundaries of a region subject to a referendum order under subsection (1) will be specified by the Secretary of State."
The noble Baroness said: This amendment requires the Secretary of State to specify the boundaries, and that proposition returns the Committee to the information that will be available to electors at the time of a referendum. Clause 1 makes no mention of
1504
what lies within the boundaries of the eight regions that are to be voted on when a referendum is called. We only have Clause 26, which informs us that a region is a region as defined in the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998.
Amendment No. 7 would ensure that the Secretary of State must specify a region's boundaries when he orders a referendum, so that voters are clear about what the region comprises. Amendment No. 143 defines regions in the same way as Clause 26.
I argued earlier that the preferable option was that there should be a comprehensive review of boundaries before any referendums are held. However, if we pursue the general thrust of the present provisions, we can take a rather different stance. While we do not believe in regional units as defined in the 1998 Act for the purposes of an elected region, it is abundantly clear that few electors even know what they are. Amendment No. 7 would require the Government to explain to electors at the time of a referendum what is encompassed by a region's boundaries and where they are defined at the beginning, outside and end. I beg to move.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am sorry to be a nuisance but my noble friend the Minister—together with two others—caused me a lot of nuisance in another place in respect of the 1977 Finance Bill, so I will take a little revenge.
This is possibly the last time that I will be able to raise a point about regional boundaries, which are of concern in relation to the European Union. My noble friend has not yet been able to convince me and others that there is not a connection. The map of the European Union shows eight regions in what we think of as England but England itself is not mentioned. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are mentioned as nations but not England. People have got the idea, rightly or wrongly, that England is being phased out—that there will be no such place as England. Forty six million people in England think that they are English. It should be made absolutely clear that regionalisation has nothing to do with eliminating England and the English.
The reason for my suspicion is that a few years ago, when Labour was in opposition, I listened to an interview on "The World at One" with Robin Cook when he was questioned about devolution and a Parliament for Scotland. The interviewer said, "That's all very well, Mr Cook, but what about England?" "England isn't a nation," came the reply, "It's only a collection of regions". That has remained with me ever since. There seems to be a view among some people that England can be divided into a group of regions so that it loses its nationhood, whereas the other countries of the United Kingdom keep theirs.
I hope that the Minister will understand why there is such great concern among so many people about the Bill. They believe that the tentacles of the octopus of the European Union—as the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, calls it—are about to engulf and

1505
squeeze the life out of England and replace it with convenient administrative units to be controlled and governed from Brussels.
I hope that I have put my remarks in a way that the Minister understands. I hope that many people who are worried on that basis will feel that their concerns have been mentioned and discussed in the place where they should be: Parliament. I hope that the Minister will not brush the matter aside and treat it with jollity, as so often happens, because it is a serious matter that is exercising the minds of many people who, we should not forget, are electors in this country.
Lord Hylton: I apologise for having been unable to attend Second Reading. I speak as one of the few Committee Members who lives in the south-west region. While that region as defined in the White Paper may be moderately suitable for the administrative purposes of central government regional offices, I cannot see that it makes any sense in terms of elected assemblies or better democratic control over the numerous quangos and institutions that presently escape from local government and are inadequately accountable to the national Parliament.
To have a region extending from Cheltenham via Swindon, Salisbury and Bournemouth down to Land's End is nonsense. There is no community of interest or regional identity in that elongated string of counties. I hope that the Government will think seriously about the matter long before we reach any referendum.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: When the Minister referred me to the White Paper on our last amendment he encouraged me to refresh my mind on what it says about the involvement of the European Union. I appreciate that he is unable to answer my questions now, but I look forward to it on a later part of the Bill. It seems appropriate at this stage in our deliberations to place on the record a couple of quotes from the White Paper, bearing in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said.
Paragraph 8.19 confirms my fears. It states:
"The relationship between regions and the EU has been heavily influenced by the desire to obtain Structural Funds assistance. Structural Funds have been the catalyst for strengthened links between the regions and the EU, and"—
slightly more controversially—
"are one of the most visible signs on the ground of the benefits of EU membership".
I repeat that EU funds do not actually exist. They are only the half of what we send through the corrupt filter of Brussels that comes back to us. The White Paper continues:
"Information on the role of elected regional assemblies in overseeing any structural fund expenditure for future programming periods is set out in chapter 4".
Paragraph 4.31 confirms my fears. It states:
"The general approach to EU structural funds in England … will continue. However, the assembly will take over the role currently performed by Government Offices on structural funds (including the European Regional Development Fund. the European Social Fund and rural programmes) for any structural
1506
fund expenditure for future programming periods. This would mean that the assembly will chair the programme monitoring committee, play a key role in drawing up the single programme documents, and lead in negotiations on these programme documents with the European Commission".
I trust that the Minister will agree that his White Paper underlines both my fears and the questions I put to him, to which I still hope for an answer some day.
The Earl of Onslow: Will the Minister help me? The Chancellor of the Exchequer wrote in an article in The Times the other day that we need to repatriate all EU regional funding. I have no difficulty in completely agreeing with him. How does that affect the Bill? If they are not going to be funded from Brussels, what is the need for the regions in the first place?
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: In order to help the Minister with my noble friend's rather difficult question, he can get off the hook by pointing out to his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there is no hope of repatriating regional funds to this country. It would require unanimity among all the member states. As we are large contributors it is simply not on the agenda. I do not know why the Chancellor bothered to mention the matter.
Baroness Seccombe: At Second Reading I mentioned the disappearance of England. Speaking to groups of people who feel as strongly as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, I have been horrified. I support his comment that we forget people at our peril. There are 48 million—I believe he said—electors in this country who feel strongly that the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly have given their people something, but England gets nothing; only division into regions.
Lord Rooker: I stick to what I said this morning but I will answer the amendment. Amendment No. 7 is interesting. I do not want to be cheap by saying that it is a consequence of a new clause that was withdrawn, although I see that a coalition of interests is forming on the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Benches. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, opened up a great pit into which the Liberal Democrats are clearly going to jump on Report.
I turn to the amendment's phrasing:
"The boundaries of a region subject to a referendum order under subsection (1) will be specified by the Secretary of State".
I am pleased to announce that they already have been specified. The amendment does not say where they shall be specified: it does not say in the Bill or anywhere else. But they have been specified ad nauseam. They have even been specified in visual form in maps in the infamous White Paper. One only has to look at pages 70 to 77 to see maps of every region designated by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord Hanningfield: Will the Minister accept that there is a mistake? The White Paper is supposed to be

1507
accurate, but it says that the eastern region has 20 unitaries. It has only four unitaries. If we cannot get that right, what can we get right? There are mistakes in the White Paper. The maps the Minister described are not right.
Lord Rooker: No, I believe that the maps are right. No one is arguing that the maps are wrong. On such detail, I cannot tell the noble Lord off the top of my head how many unitaries there are in each region. I accept the expertise of the noble Lord—that is one of the beauties of this place: if he says that there are four unitaries, there are four unitaries and there is a mistake. That does not alter the fact that the boundaries have been designated; they are blocks of county councils, are they not? That is how the regions are formed. No boundary crosses through the middle of a county council, so far as I am aware. They are the building blocks for the regions—the counties. They have been designated by the Secretary of State.
In the spirit of wishing to make progress—I assume that someone does; I certainly do—I say that the spirit of Amendment No. 7 has been met by the Secretary of State, who has nothing further to do. When the referendum comes, the same will apply as applies to every election in this country. I cannot discuss parish councils because I have no experience of them, but in ward, council and parliamentary elections, people swear blind afterwards that they have voted for you, but you know that they are not in your constituency. Others say, "I did not know that I lived in this ward until a polling card came through the door". I hate to mention the European parliamentary elections, which operate on a regional basis, but the same issue arises.
We will publish full information about the powers and duties of the regions if and when we go for a referendum. I assure Members of the Committee that because not the whole country will be involved—I believe that I can safely say that—the region or regions in which there are referendums will certainly know that there is an election. The spirit of Amendment No. 7 has been met absolutely and completely by my right honourable friend.
5 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I do not understand; perhaps I may press the Minister further. I believe that he has fallen into the hole created by my noble friend Lord Waddington. My noble friend said forcefully—I believe that it pleased the Minister—that when the Minister says something, he means it; that is what is going to happen and we all know it. The noble Lord said what the shape of the Bill will be when it has completed its passage through Parliament. If the Bill is unchanged in any way, and if Amendment No. 1—or Amendment No. 4 of the Liberals—is not agreed to, everything that the Minister said is absolutely right. However, we are at the start of a process in this House. It is always possible that the Bill will be rather different when it goes to another place. That is a possibility because we are part of the parliamentary process. If that is the case, Amendment No. 7 comes into its own.
1508
It will be pertinent to the Secretary of State, who will have to inform the relevant area of the country that, unlike the shape of the map in the White Paper, the situation in practice could be rather different.
The Earl of Caithness: The Minister is absolutely right to say that the maps have been put forward in the White Paper. However, as my noble friend Lady Hanham said, there are very few people outside this Chamber and outside local government who have actually read it. My question to the Minister is: how is the Secretary of State going to make certain that all those who are involved in a referendum know the full extent of the boundary and of what will happen?
I return to the boundary of the South East area, which I know well. How will the Secretary of State ensure that the people who vote in the boundary area know that the South East region goes right round to Margate? That question relates to this amendment.
While I am on my feet, will the Minister at some stage answer my question about functions in relation to Amendment No. 2, to which he has not yet replied? That is crucial to our future consideration of the Bill. Perhaps he could do so some time later today.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Is the Minister going to reply to or—perhaps I should put it this way—is he able to reply to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and myself about the implications of the Bill in relation to the European Union?
Lord Rooker: I apologise to noble Lords. It may be my fault, but I am working from this publication, Your Region, Your Choice, which was published recently and provided to all known people who received the White Paper. It contained some updates and took account of the reorganisation of local government in May 2002 and the change of responsibilities in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. An opportunity was also taken to correct a misprint. The document that I am looking at does not have the figures quoted by the noble Lord, although the original publication does. However, I am assured that the maps are all correct. Thank heaven for that.
I turn to the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. We said that we will issue a statement to voters before the referendum that will set out the points that I have already mentioned. At the risk of repeating myself, they will include the powers and how the assembly will work. We will also make clear in that statement the boundaries of the region. There will not be any misapprehension about that important point.
I turn to the point of principle raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I do not wish to fall foul of that. Everything that I say about the Bill is predicated on the basis that we are a Parliament and can change the Bill. That is what scrutiny is all about; I absolutely accept that. I go so far as to say that although the soundings exercise closed on 3rd March, the fact is that this House will spend several days giving views—party views and individual views. I do not know whether another place will do likewise; it depends on what happens here. I assure noble Lords that those views

1509
will be listened to. In other words, although the soundings closed before we started our scrutiny of the Bill, that does not mean that what anyone says in this House is ignored; that is, "You are too late, you did not speak up". That is fundamental. I absolutely accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said about that. The Bill could change and if it did there would have to be consequential amendments to take account of that.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Do I take it that because the Minister has not replied to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and myself, he is unwilling to give any answer to them, or does not wish to do so?
Lord Rooker: No. I rest my case on what I said and my references to the White Paper. I cannot go beyond what is in the White Paper regarding any of the questions that were raised about the council of the regions, the Chancellor's article—which I have not read—the European Union or regional offices. Either something is in the White Paper or the Government have not yet pronounced on it. If we do so in due course, we shall let the House know.
Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for his various replies. I refer to Clause 1, which is about the order that must be laid by the Secretary of State in order to cause a referendum. My amendment refers to that order. The amendment is all about the information that is available to the public at any given time. We keep on assuming that the electorate are in a fever about the Bill and are listening with bated breath all of the time to what we are saying. I have a more cynical disposition; that is, I believe that the electorate do not know about this and that it will never do them any harm to give them as much information as they need.
My amendment would not do what the Minister suggested. It states that within the orders that we know the Secretary of State must produce he must delineate the boundaries of the regions. I do not mind whether that is for the first or the umpteenth time, whether that involves an amendment of the boundaries, as my noble friend Lord Hanningfield said, or whether it involves those boundaries that are already in the White Paper or the White Paper as amended by the latest publication. When people vote in a referendum, the regions in which they live must be known. When the Secretary of State lays the provisions for that referendum, he should ensure that those boundaries are stated. That is what the amendment would do.
Baroness Hamwee: I am sorry to intervene at this point. I accept that the noble Baroness has tabled an amendment to Clause 26. Although I by no means decry the points that she made about information being available, is it not the case that Clause 26 specifies the regions in the same words as were presented to Parliament by the Deputy Prime
1510
Minister, who is also known as the Secretary of State? I am putting slightly differently what I he Minister said, but he has specified the regions in the legislation.
Baroness Hanham: He has not done that yet, and he has not specified the boundaries of the regions. Where are the pictures, maps and people? I believe they are necessary, and I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
5.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 63; Not-Contents, 114.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Biffen, L.

Lyell, L.

Blatch, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Bridgeman, V.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Marlesford, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Marsh, L.

Byford, B.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Caithness, E.

Monson, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Montrose, D

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Moynihan, L.

Chan, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Colwyn, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Onslow, E.

Cox, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Craigavon, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Rawlings, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rees, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Elton, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Ferrers, E.

Selborne, E.

Freeman, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Geddes, L.

Slim, V.

Hanham, B.

Stewartby, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Henley, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hooper, B.

Vivian, L.

Howe, E.

Waddington, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Walpole, L.

Hylton, L.

Weatherill, L.

Kirkham, L.

Windlesham, L.

Luke, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Christopher, L.

Addington, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Andrews, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Crawley, B.

Bach, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Barker, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Desai, L.

Bhatia, L.

Dholakia, L.

Billingham, B.

Dixon, L.

Bragg, L.

Donoughue, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Brookman, L.

Dubs, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Elder, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Carter, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

1511

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Methuen, L.

Falkland, V.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Mishcon, L.

Fitt, L.

Mitchell, L.

Gale, B.

Newby, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L

Goodhart, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Goudie, B.

Puttnam, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Radice, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Greaves, L.

Razzall, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Rea, L.

Hamwee, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Hardy of Haringey, L.

Rennard, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Richard, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Rogan, L.

Harrison, L.

Rooker, L.

Hayman, B.

Roper, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Sandberg, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Sewel, L.

Hoyle, L.

Sharp of Guildford,B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Simon, V.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Chancellor)

Turnberg, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Uddin, B.

Kilclooney, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Laird, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Walmsley, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Whitaker, B.

[Teller]

Whitty, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Wilkins, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

McNally, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Maddock, B.

Winston, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.21 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 1, line 10, leave out "each of the following two conditions" and insert "the condition"
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 11, 16 and 19. Amendment No. 16, which is the main amendment in the group, would delete Clause 1(5), which contains the condition that the Boundary Committee for England must have made recommendations under Section 12 on reviewing the local government structure.
These are by no means the totality of our amendments on local government and restructuring. I appreciate that Amendment No. 16 cannot make sense without taking out Clause 12 as well. I hope that the Minister will not rely on that technical point.
We want to decouple the establishment of regional government from consideration of the proper structure of local government. Regional government and local government are linked—and both are linked with national government, although we have heard no proposals to alter the structure of that.
I profoundly disagree with the Government's view that there is a natural limit to the number of tiers of government that are proper. Perhaps tiers is the wrong
1512
word. At the risk of extending the debate again into European issues, I shall use the term that is more commonly used elsewhere in Europe—spheres. Local government is not of subsidiary importance to regional or national government, nor is regional government subsidiary to central government. They all have their proper areas of work. It is not automatic that the more spheres—or, if you will, tiers—there are, the worse it is.
On Second Reading, the Minister said:
"the reason we do not want that extra tier may not be logical, hut political".—[Official Report, 20/2/02; col. 1332.]
We all know how straight and honest the Minister is. That was an entirely straight point. However, it does not begin to address the merits or demerits of the issue. It seems to assume that the more tiers, or spheres, there are, the more bureaucracy there is. I accept that more bureaucracy without better government being delivered would be a failure, but I do not accept that that is the natural outcome of having more tiers, or spheres.
The passion that was expressed on Second Reading about the restructuring of local government tended to be caused by the proposed loss of the counties. As we have just heard, the counties are the building blocks of the regions—building blocks that are then to be taken away from the building, which is a new concept.
There is also passion for districts, where there is local information, local knowledge, and, not to put too fine a point on it, local gut instinct about what is right for the district. We have heard a lot of noise from the Government about it not being appropriate for there to be more than two tiers of government—other than central government. I am resisting the temptation to talk about two tiers of local government, because regional government is not local government. However, we have heard no real explanation of the merit of the proposal, or even of the thinking that underpins it, other than that no one will stand for it. I beg to move.
Lord Waddington: As the Committee has heard, Amendment No. 16 would enable a referendum to go ahead without the voters being told that if they vote yes they will get unitary government. We have heard that the Liberal Party is in favour of a third tier of government in those parts of the country where there are currently county councils. I am glad that the Liberals say that frankly. I am not in favour of more government.
I do not want unitary authorities in Lancashire. Unitary local government in Lancashire would very likely mean three local authorities centred on big towns. Each of those authorities would be dominated by urban interests, with the interests of the country dweller and the people living in small towns being ignored. I do not want unitary authorities to take the place of Lancashire County Council.
Neither do I want regional government. I want the present local government structure to remain, which means local government as near to the people as possible and excellent small local authorities, such as Ribble Valley, continuing to flourish.

1513
The Bill is a disgrace, because it will mean local government further from the people as the price that has to he paid for regional assemblies with nothing to do. There could not he a bigger scandal than that. I therefore oppose the amendments, because they would make it easier for the Government to achieve their aim of foisting pointless regional government on us. With the Bill as drafted, I hope that the proposals for local government change will make plenty of people in Lancashire wake up to what is going on and think furiously before being daft enough to vote for a regional assembly.
The Earl of Onslow: I completely agree with my noble friend Lord Waddington. I am privileged enough, I think, in the event of riot to command the militia in Guildford. Luckily for the good burgesses of Guildford, Denis Healey disbanded the local militia battalions, so I am out of a job.
There are distinct differences between Guildford and Surrey. Long may they remain and long may they both be distinct. We do not want to be part of the South East region. That is a bad idea. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to spheres. There is another word for spheres, and that is balls. It is unfortunate that the Government are trying to reintroduce heptarchy by the back door. That should not be done and I shall do anything I can to slow it down or turn it spherical.
Baroness Blatch: We are discussing the Bill in two ways. First, we are going through the normal parliamentary process. The endgame that we would like would clearly be contrary to the Government's manifesto. This House loyally always honours the Government of the day. We therefore take the second tack. If this Bill, in its present form or in a modified form, is to he enacted, we would like certain things to he considered to make it work in a way that we would prefer.
I am baffled by these amendments because the noble Baroness has insisted that there should be only one condition, that the Secretary of State considers the level of interest in the region—end of story. If the Government are to go ahead with this in the way that they wish, I would like the number of conditions to be increased. Subsection (5) states
"The second condition is that the Boundary Committee for England have made recommendations in relation to the region in pursuance of section 12".
At least what will be Section 12 puts some detail on the conditions that the Government would be obliged to meet.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has put her name to a raft of amendments to Clause 12, although she ends by opposing the Question that Clause 12 stand part of the Bill. The noble Baroness appears to be arguing for unconditional regional government: "Let us have regional government and not worry too much about the nature of it". I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Waddington that if this measure is to go ahead. I would like the issue of the boundaries
1514
revisited. We would also want to ensure that regional government works in a way that is consistent, as much as possible, with the wishes of local people.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Greaves: My noble friend and myself are quite surprised by the reaction to these amendments from the Conservative Benches. We thought that this was an issue on which we might agree. I shall explain why. It may be the amendments that we have tabled are not well drafted, although they are simple; and it may be that noble Lords on the Conservative Benches have not understood our intentions.
We want to decouple the issue of the reorganisation of local government from the issue of whether there should be a regional assembly. The Government are saying that in order to have a regional assembly there has to be local government reorganisation whether one likes it or not. We say that those are two separate issues and that they should be dealt with separately; they should be decided upon separately by local people.
In the North East, for example, the vote on whether to have a regional assembly will involve everyone in the North East: Northumberland, Durham and the metropolitan areas of Gateshead, Newcastle, North Tyneside, South Tyneside and Sunderland. A vote across the whole of the North East on the two issues—whether to have a regional assembly and whether to reorganise local government in Northumberland and Durham only—may be decided by people in those five metropolitan districts. The decision on what form of local government there will be in Berwick-upon-Tweed, in Alnwick, in Durham or in other parts of County Durham may be made by people who do not live in those places. That appears to be fundamentally undemocratic.
The Government may be right and it may be sensible to go to a system of unitary local government in those areas if there is a regional assembly. There is an arguable case—maybe an overwhelming case—for that, but on democratic grounds that should be decided by the people who live in those counties and not by those who do not live there. Therefore, we are seeking to decouple the two issues. The reason for seeking to delete subsection (5) is to restrict the referendum on regional government to regional government. After the regional assembly has been elected, if it is thought necessary there could be a review of local government, but it should be down to the people who live there.
The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, does not want to see any changes in Lancashire—and that may be what happens. The good people of Lancashire may well agree with him. Lancashire County Council certainly agrees with him to the extent that the Labour Party in the region is tearing itself apart. Lancashire County Council has resigned from the existing regional assembly. There is talk of Cheshire following, but I have no idea whether that is true or not. However, Lancashire has voted to do that. Already a certain amount of mayhem is being caused by the proposals and the arguments are taking place among people in the Labour Party.

1515
The purpose of the amendment is to decouple the conditions. It may not be the perfect amendment; it may not be exactly the right way to do it. Indeed, my noble friend and I have tabled further amendments on this and my noble friend has said that we would like to remove Clause 12 altogether because it creates the mechanisms for the reorganisation of local government. In our view it does not belong in the Bill. Whether or not the interpretation of what we are doing is as noble Lords on the Conservative Benches have said or whether it is our interpretation, the intention is clear: it is to decouple the two conditions. I hope that later we can find common cause on that.
It is extraordinary that the only arguments that the Minister has so far put forward are practical, political arguments: if we do not do this, the Bill will not go through. Perhaps the Sun newspaper or the Daily Mail runs government policy nowadays. It sometimes looks like that in many areas, but I hope that in this area that is not the case. Winning the referendum is crucial. Unless this matter is decoupled, I do not believe that you can win a referendum in the North West. I believe it is the other way around.
Lord Rooker: 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. I do not think that the noble Lord has understood how serious this is: decouple and we shall not proceed. If you want to kill the Bill, carry on.
Lord Hanningfield: I do not necessarily agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has said, but surely it cannot be possible for Manchester and Merseyside to out-vote Lancashire, Cumbria and the other counties and create a regional assembly against the will of that great geographical area which does not want one. There must be some way to allow people to vote differently so that those great counties of Lancashire, Cheshire, Staffordshire and Cumbria do not have to be dominated by an urban unitary area that could out-vote them. Surely that would be against natural justice and the way in which democracy should work in this country.
Lord Greaves: We now have threats, bluster and blackmail from the Minister—not rational argument: "You decouple and we will withdraw the Bill. We will take our bat and ball home".
The Earl of Onslow: That is an excellent idea. Do let us decouple and take away your bat and spear!
Lord Greaves: Sometimes one finds Members walking through the same Lobby as oneself but for rather different reasons. That is politics!
The Minister's attitude is not acceptable. I do not believe that it is his personal attitude, but he has his instructions. 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
1516
Government. It is arrogance of the highest order for the Government of this country, elected on 43 per cent of the vote, to believe that the few checks and balances that remain, which by and large rest within your Lordships' House, should not be exercised. We believe that what we are doing is right, but the Government believe that they have some kind of automatic right to have every detail of their legislation.
I do not know why the Government take that view. As my noble friend Lord Shutt and I pointed out at Second Reading, the Labour manifesto at the last general election, Ambitions for Britain, said that,
"provision should be made for directly elected regional government"—
I am unsure why it uses the word "directly", which apparently does not mean anything—
"to go ahead in regions where people decided in a referendum to support it"—
I support that. The Government are entitled to that legislation—
"and where predominantly unitary local government is established".
We had a discussion with the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, at Second Reading about what "predominantly" meant and which regions it might apply to.
But it is clear that the policy on which the Government were elected was not that 100 per cent unitary government would be mandatory in places holding referendums on regional government. At the last general election, the Labour Party went to the country with the policy that there had to be predominantly unitary local government. At some stage since then, a smarted-suited young researcher or policy adviser, or perhaps the Prime Minister, came up with the idea that all government must be unitary. If one listens to the rumours and spin and reads the newspapers, it came from 10 Downing Street because people started to panic about the threat of more tiers and what the Daily Mail would say. The policy was changed.
Now the Minister in this House brow-beats us—it is the only way in which it can described—that if we vote against him, he will withdraw his legislation. If he wants the legislation, he will have to bend a little. 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.
Baroness Blatch: I wish to correct an impression that I may have created in how I spoke to the amendment. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that we should not be threatened by the Minister when he says that this would wreck the Bill. There are two questions: one on the organisation and the other on whether we have regional assemblies.
My concern is that it is wrong to base the question of whether there should be a regional assembly on only one condition—that the level of interest is tested.

1517
Amendments Nos. 9, 14, 17, 15, 22 and 23, which are tabled in my name, will acid to the number of conditions in Part 1 on referendums.
Lord Greaves: I did not reply specifically to that point because we are talking about the condition relating to a review of local government, which ought to be removed. I am aware that the noble Baroness has tabled some amendments creating other conditions. We will listen with interest to the debate on them and consider them dispassionately.
Baroness Maddock: I wish to make two points. Along with my noble friends, I am shocked at what the Minister has said today. Those of us who believe in democracy cannot really believe that the Minister will do what he says.
I wish to say more on what the Bill means to Berwick-upon-Tweed, where I live. The people of Berwick will now have to decide either to have devolution from London—with the Scottish Border four miles away and single-lane roads—they feel remote from London and are desperate to have local government that understands what their region needs. But they are not desperate to lose their local borough council. They feel remote from the centre of Northumberland County Council, which is 50 miles away. If they want power from the centre in London, they will have to give up local representation.
England and the British Isles have far fewer representatives across the board than almost any other country in Europe. Yet people are trying to convince us that we are over-governed and that that is why we cannot have both the system we want and regional government.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: The Bill is supposed to be about bringing real democracy to the regions. I indicated at Second Reading that I was in favour of having unitary local government authorities. Many aspirants to unitary status have not yet achieved it. I wish them well, because local government decisions made near the grassroots are the best ones. But it might not be right everywhere.
Why should the Bill involve local government? That confuses the issue. The referendum is about whether people want regional government; it should not be about local government. All local government members ought to be able to sleep well in their beds during this referendum. It should not affect them. It is another spoke in the wheel of big local government. The Government are bringing in the issue of local government, but local government members want to be out of the way. It will create a tremendous hurdle to campaigners if the issue is on the back foot to start with because it is loused up by local government reform also.
The Minister is wrong in not wanting another tier. The tier exists. In Leeds we have the Westminster Government with their pitch in City House and we have all the Yorkshire quangos. The Bill should be
1518
about pumping democracy into the existing tier. The business of local government should be dropped from the Bill. The Bill should be a new way of bringing democracy into those decisions that it is appropriate to make at regional level.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Usually, by this stage, one gets some clarification of what a Bill is about. The more I have listened to this discussion, the more bewildered I have become. Normally, the Government lay down a policy of government, including local government, administration and so on. But in this situation the localities will decide what sort of administration they have. We might be left with a situation where the North East has a regional assembly but the rest of the country does not.
I feel sure that the Government are banking on the possibility that, if they can get one region to vote for a regional assembly, there will be a domino effect whereby all the others will say, "if they have an assembly, we must have one as well". But that is by no means certain. So in England—I say England advisedly, because it is England—some regions will have a regional assembly and others will not. I do not know how on earth that will make things better or more democratic.
The Government say that they wish to devolve powers—we do not know which—and that they believe in devolution. On the other hand, they believe in pushing other services to Brussels. They are counter-devolving some things upwards to Brussels at the same time as they want to devolve other things downwards. As far as I can see, there is no joined-up thinking. No wonder local authorities do not know which way they are going. They are bewildered by what is happening and wonder what the Government's policy is.
I fear that, instead of achieving clarity, we will be just as bewildered at the end of the Bill's passage as we were at the start, if not more so.
Lord Rooker: I must make it absolutely clear that I have said nothing today that I did not say at Second Reading. I do not want to sugar-coat things. I do not want there to be any misunderstanding.
What we are discussing is the guts of the Bill. If we remove that second plank, the Bill is gone. That is the significance. I am not threatening the Committee—I would not be so stupid—but I am explaining the consequences of removing the guts of the Bill. We have made it clear from day one that the principal point is that regional assemblies in areas in which people have chosen to have them, on the basis of the information that we will supply, will operate on the basis of unitary local government.
There may be arguments about the wording in the manifesto. Not having fought the previous election, I did not read the manifesto as closely as I should have done, although I campaigned for my colleagues, needless to say. The White Paper is the mechanism for turning a manifesto commitment into practical policy. We can dissect the words in the manifesto, as we have done in both Houses. Ideas are put together that must

1519
then be converted into practical solutions and policies that work. Following the discussions that we had in government, the White Paper is the way of converting that commitment into practical policy.
Baroness Blatch: I believe the noble Lord and his colleagues in another place when they say that power is being devolved from national government to regional assemblies and bringing democracy to what is already there in the regions. However, if it is true that powers are not being taken from the bottom—the districts and the counties—upwards, why should it affect the counties or the districts at all?
It is possible for the Government to achieve their political objective, if they mean what they say. I do not doubt the noble Lord's word, but I think that the White Paper does not say the same. The White Paper cedes nothing from national government and will take a good deal of powers from local government. The hidden agenda seems to be the reorganisation of local government, not the devolution of power from national government.
Lord Rooker: Whether noble Lords believe me or not, no statutory powers that local government exercises at the moment will be removed to the regional assemblies. Local government can sleep easily, as the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland, put it.
Lord Hanningfield: We are about to receive the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, which will move virtually all planning powers from the county councils and some from the district councils to the regional assemblies. The noble Lord must acknowledge that some powers are being moved from local government to regional assemblies.
Lord Rooker: That is not a consequence of this Bill. That is not double-speak. The powers in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, which we will debate when it arrives here—it has not yet finished its passage through another place—will operate whether or not there are elected regional assemblies. That structure will stand the test of time with or without elected regional assemblies; one is not necessarily linked to the other. Planning authorities at district council level will be responsible for the control of development. There is no change there. I am not here to discuss that Bill, and those changes are not a consequence of this Bill.
The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill will stand whether or not this Bill is on the statute book. The changes will happen whether or not there are elected regional assemblies.
The Earl of Onslow: I search genuinely for information. Why is it essential that local authorities—some unitary, some county and district—should be unified to create a district that will have something totally different to do? How will the Bill affect the powers and duties of local authorities? I do not understand.
1520
I can see that if, as my noble friend Lady Blatch said, the Government were taking something away, there might be a need for an imposed unitary authority. If Alnwick wants to run things one way, Guildford another way and Scunthorpe a third way, why should not they be allowed to do so? According to the Government, their powers will not be affected by this Bill.
Lord Rooker: It is interesting to see how noble Lords dismiss the argument about whether tiers of government matter. We think that they do, which is why we are having no new tiers of government. The mantra will continue to be, "We are not having new tiers of government".
Lord Greaves: The Minister has—
Lord Rooker: I must finish the point. I am not going home or anything.
If we are to get a good working relationship with local government in whatever form at the level of a district council or, on the odd occasion, of a county council— I think that there is only one unitary county council, and I cannot pre judge what might come out of the boundary review—we need to streamline the local authority structure. We might be wrong, but that is our view. The way to do it is to have a unitary structure.
As we have made clear, no existing unitary authority will have its boundaries interfered with. There will not be wholesale review and change; that would be change for change's sake. It is only in areas in which the structure is two-tier that we need to consider which way to go to make a unitary authority. There are many different ways of doing that. We are not pre-judging what the Boundary Committee could do; it could recommend a unitary structure for current two-tier areas based on counties, districts or something different. That is up to the Boundary Committee, and we will assess the proposals, when they are published.
Lord Greaves: The Minister has again asserted that there cannot be an extra tier. He has not yet provided any arguments to support that assertion. Simply asserting something time and time again does not make it a better argument.
We need to understand why an extra tier would be so bad. If, as has been stated, no powers will come up from local government and there will be no change to the position of local government, what extra costs will be incurred by maintaining the status quo?
Lord Rooker: I am just asserting government policy. That is the point. We are entitled to have a policy, and the policy is "No new extra tiers of government". That is a policy, not an assertion.
Lord Greaves: The Government are entitled to have a policy, and we are entitled to question them on that policy and find out the reasons that lie behind it. If the Minister refuses to give the reasons, we are all wasting our time.
6 p.m.
Lord Rooker: We are not. One would not know where to stop. I have been involved with local government reorganisations in the past as a constituency Member of Parliament. There is art idea that the bureaucracy level would stay the same; that decision-making would be streamlined; that it would he cheaper; and that people would have a better relationship with different tiers of government and fully understand who is delivering what service. Tiers could be added ad infinitum.
Perhaps I may finish answering the question asked by the noble Lord. The Government have taken the view that a unitary tier underneath a regional tier—I do not like the term hierarchical—is efficient and can be streamlined and meaningful to communities. Local authorities can be the champions of their communities in this respect, as well as speaking with one voice. An area that is unitary would not have two organisations speaking to government or to the regional assembly, as happens at present. Therefore, there would be clarity of purpose and transparency. That is an important point.
Members of the Committee have spoken about the ordinary voters—our masters—not understanding what is happening. If we want them to understand, we need clarity and simplicity in our government structures. Adding more tiers of government is not the way to do that. The noble Lord may not like it, but that is the plain fact of the matter.
Lord Greaves: I am grateful for the patience of the Minister. In starting that reply, he has pointed out that reorganisation is what costs the extra money in local government. It is not a question of how many tiers; it is a question of reorganisation. It is the Government who are proposing to reorganise government in these areas with all the extra costs—I agree with him entirely—that will accrue. Why will maintaining the status quo cost an extra penny?
Lord Hanningfield: I should like to add to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. Independent work by the Audit Commission and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) suggests that turning England into a unitary organisation would cost well over £1 billion. That cost would be for just the reorganisation of local government—money that could be spent on schools and hospitals—to achieve nothing.
Setting up regional government and the regions would be much cheaper. The method proposed by the Government is by far the most expensive, as plenty of independent evidence will show. It could be done much more cheaply by creating regional assemblies above the existing local government.
Lord Rooker: I do not know anything about the CIPFA research—
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the Minister because my point dovetails with those being discussed.
1522
The Government cannot have it both ways. If the Government are genuinely making a case for regional assemblies—and that is what they must do in order to ask Parliament to agree to the Bill—the argument being put forward is that power from the national level will be ceded to the regions and democracy will be brought to existing bodies in those regions. No powers will move from local government to the regional assemblies.
If we have to accept that as an argument—and that is the argument being put forward by the Government—there is no case for the reorganisation of local government because it is doing now what the Government say that it will he doing post the introduction of regional assemblies. At Second Reading, the Minister promised me that we would know the cost of the abolition of a large number of councils around the country. It would be helpful to have that figure. Why should the councils be abolished gratuitously to introduce regional assemblies when the case put forward by the Government is about ceding powers from national government to regional assemblies and simply making sense of the bodies that already exist in the regions?
Lord Rooker: I do not think that the Government could make a case—I certainly could not make a case—for another tier of elected people in addition to those that we have already. I cannot make that case, whatever information I am given. I could not make a solid case for saying that we should have elected assembly "people"—namely, councillors, or whatever their title may be—in addition to those we have already. In two-tier areas with districts and counties, I would not be able to make a case for saying to people that in addition to electing Members for the UK Parliament and the European Parliament, they will have to elect yet more people.
As regards the point concerning CIPFA, the Government do not have a plan for local government reorganisation. Period. There is no plan.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Rooker: No, no, our plan is for elected regional assemblies. Perhaps I may finish my point. If the Government had a plan for local government reorganisation, there would have been an inquiry and a report that would have dealt with the whole of England.
The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, referred to the work being done by CIPFA. We do not have a plan for local government reorganisation in England. We have a plan for elected regional assemblies in areas where people choose in the referendum to have them. We clearly indicate that it will not be "big bang". That is the implication of the Bill. The whole country would not have regional assemblies at the same time—if ever.
We do not have a plan and therefore the issue does not arise. It is true that the manner in which we propose setting up and running elected regional assemblies, based on unitary local authorities, has a consequence for partial local government

1523
reorganisation in those areas which currently have two tiers. Our view is that regional assemblies will work only with a single tier. I do not call that a plan for local government reform.
The Earl of Onslow: What the Minister is saying is that we have an "accident" for local government reform. In other words, it may happen or it may not. The Government do not know whether they are coming or going. They are suggesting that we may have local government reform or we may have a local authority here or a local authority there. That is not grown-up thinking. It is like having a little pen with round balls on string to play with. I am sorry; I am flabbergasted.
Baroness Hanham: The Minister can have a go at two of us at the same time. I take issue with the Minister on his description of the local government review as being a partial local government reorganisation. The Minister will recall previous local government reorganisations. This is major. The Government will have to go to the electorate in a region and say, "Okay, now you are going to vote whether you want a county council or a unitary authority. What size do you want your unitary authority to be? In fact, your very loved town hall up the road is to he amalgamated with your deeply unloved town hall in the unitary district next door—the people with whom you have been fighting for donkeys years—because you will be amalgamated with them in a new unitary authority".
My understanding of the Boundary Committee is that it would be asked to form unitaries from the counties, councils or whatever else. However, as I understand it, there is a rider which is that they can review all the unitaries to ensure that they make sense. Therefore, not only the unitary authorities within the two-tier system would be reviewed to ensure that they make sense: the Boundary Committee would have the right to review them all. That is not a partial reorganisation; it is a major reorganisation of local government. I would hate the Minister to think that it was anything but that. This is "big-bug" stuff. There will be considerable opposition—and not just from this House.
Lord Rooker: I return to what I said at Second Reading. I know I made the statement based on advice. Where there is an existing unitary authority in a region, it will not have its boundaries interfered with as a result of this Bill. If I am wrong, I shall be told and I shall report back to the Committee. I repeat that because that is my understanding. It is what I said at Second Reading.
In some regions there are a lot of unitary authorities. They will not be interfered with. Their boundaries will not change. The review will take place in areas where there are two tiers to make them into one tier. However, there is more than one way of making the two into one, using a different formula.
1524
That will be the decision of the Boundary Committee. I do not want to prejudge. We have published draft advice to the Boundary Committee on the way in which that will operate.
Lord Waddington: The difficulty of the Government's case is that the Boundary Committee will not be a free agent. The Government are not asking the Boundary Committee to recommend what it believes would be the best system of local government. They are saying to the Boundary Committee that it may not advise the Government as to what it thinks is the best system of local government in, say, Lancashire. A unitary system must be decided.
If that is the case—and it clearly is the case under the Bill—the Government must take responsibility. They must tell us why they believe that in, say, Lancashire, it would be better for the citizens who now live in the county area to have a unitary authority rather than the existing county council. The Government have a duty to tell us why they believe that that would be better for the citizens.
Lord Rooker: At an appropriate time after the Boundary Committee has reported, in due course—my understanding is that it will take about a year to complete the review in a region—at the time of the referendum, the Government will put forward their views about the Boundary Committee's review. So we shall do exactly as the noble Lord says.
I do not know what the Boundary Committee will propose—
Lord Waddington: The Minister cannot be understanding me. The point is that, by that stage, the Government, as a result of their own policy, will have brought about unitary authorities—because they are telling the Boundary Committee that it must advise on the basis of there being unitary authorities. Therefore, the Government must tell us now—not when there is a referendum—why they believe that it will be good for the citizens of county areas such as Lancashire to have unitary authorities thrust upon them, rather than keeping the existing county council. It is as simple as that.
Lord Rooker: When we published the White Paper we gave it the title Your Region, Your Choice—a mistake, I suppose, so far as concerns the noble Earl. Lord Onslow, who cannot understand it. This is not a question of the Government coming to Parliament with a ready-made, bolted-down system of elected regional assemblies, and with all the answers to all the questions.
The Earl of Onslow: Perhaps I may—
Lord Rooker: Please let me finish. It is not possible to keep raising parallel questions; then I shall be accused later of not answering them.
We take credit for not having a ready-made plan. We want people in the areas to choose, on the basis of the framework set out in the Bill—that is, unitary local

1525
government as part of the package on which they will be asked to vote. There will be a big debate. Whether they choose to opt for local government changes as a price to be paid for having an elected regional assembly is a decision for the electors of the regions. They will only make that choice on the basis of all the necessary information, after a review has taken place, after the Boundary Committee has published its views and after the Government have given their views about the way forward based on the Boundary Committee's suggestions.
The Earl of Onslow: I should like to return to the question of Alnwick or Berwick district council, in a large regional area. If people in Wearside vote for a regional assembly, if the whole of Northumberland votes for a regional assembly, they vote to extinguish Alnwick and Berwick. That is why the Government are not offering a choice. They are saying: you will extinguish Alnwick and Berwick if you go for regional authorities. That is why it is wrong to say that the Government have no plan. The Government have a very clear plan. They are saying: you will have unitary local authorities and regional assemblies; you cannot have what you have at the moment, with a small amount of regional authority on top. If the Government have to recreate the Heptarchy brought into being by Ethelred the Unready, they should at least keep some of the counties that were created to replace it.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: I think it is worse than that. Let us take the example of Skipton, in North Yorkshire. The Boundary Committee may come up with the proposal that there should be a small Skipton unitary authority. On the other hand, it may say, no, Skipton and Harrogate should be amalgamated into a new unitary authority. The possibility of Skipton being placed with Bradford, which is a unitary authority, would not be available.
In 1973, Skipton was part of the West Riding county council, which looked to Wakefield. Bradford is nearer to Skipton than Wakefield. It is not impossible that that might be a way forward, and one which the people of Skipton would desire. But the Minister is suggesting—because the unitary boundaries will never under any circumstances be changed from the existing ones—that that would not be an option.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Rooker: On the basis that I have not received any advice contradicting what I said earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, is right. That is the point of the exercise. We are not looking for a wholesale local government reorganisation as a consequence of the Bill—merely to convert to unitary authorities where there is presently two-tier government.
Perhaps I may return to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. The Government are not in a position to implement any recommendation that the Boundary Committee may make for local government unless there is a referendum giving a positive result. As we have already said—this has been
1526
placed on record—there is a difficulty, and I understand people's suspicion about this. Before the referendum the Boundary Committee will have published its views for local government changes in an area, partial or otherwise. The Government will pronounce on whether they are content with those proposals, and that will be part of the information. If a referendum takes place and the result is "No", the plans of the Boundary Committee for local government in that area will not proceed. I want to make that absolutely clear. This is not a Trojan horse to bring about local government reorganisation. The Boundary Committee will put forward a plan as to how an area might work; but it will be taken forward only if there is a "Yes" vote in a referendum. If there is a "No" vote, we shall not proceed with the review. The county authorities and district authorities will stay as they are.
It cannot be clearer or fairer than that. We are not misleading people. It is consistent with the fact that we have no hidden plan for a local government review by proxy, for another reason. It is purely a consequence of choosing to vote on whether to have an elected regional assembly. If there is a "No" vote in a referendum, there will be no regional assembly: therefore, there will be no local government reorganisation.
Lord Hanningfield: I do not think that the Minister has a clue as to what local government reorganisation is like. Having been through this process in the 1990s, we can see this happening in Lancashire very clearly. Lancashire has pulled out of the North West regional assembly, but there is a great deal of fighting—mainly between people in the same parties. Fortunately, in Lancashire, it is now the Labour Party that is tearing itself apart; in the 1990s it was mainly the Conservative Party that was tearing itself apart.
The anguish will occur during the planning for local government reorganisation. We have gone through a great deal of anguish in Lancashire, with people fighting each other, and virtually hating each other, because of the unitary precedent or keeping Lancashire County Council. Then, we believe, the North West will probably vote "No". So we shall have to go through all the anguish of reorganisation, and then there will be no region anyway. Services will have been destroyed during that time. In local government we are supposed to be caring for the elderly and running the schools, not fighting each other all the time. The Government will create wars all round the country, and then possibly have no regions. I do not think that the Minister understands government reorganisation. It is a very bitter experience for those in the middle of it.
Lord Rooker: Local government reorganisation will not take place unless there is a "Yes" vote in a referendum.
Lord Hanningfield: But I am talking about the planning stage. Let us say that the Deputy Prime Minister announces a referendum for the North West.

1527
Then, there will be a year's planning. The in-fighting and difficulty will go on during the year prior to the referendum. People will be fighting each other to establish a unitary precedent or to keep Lancashire County Council. It is already happening. The problem is occurring at this moment, as we are debating these matters. It will happen during that year. So the Government are creating problems that could last for many years and destroy some of the services that local government is providing.
Lord Rooker: I do not accept that. The one thing that I am trying to avoid is answering specific questions about specific places, some of which I have heard of and know where they are. But I do not always know whether they are unitary or not. So I do not want to fall into the trap of commenting on particular areas.
This will not happen overnight. This is not the Big Bang. On the basis of the soundings, the Deputy Prime Minister may agree that a region or regions should proceed to a referendum; but the Boundary Committee will then be asked to carry out a review, which, as I have said, will take a year to complete. There will then be a gap before the referendum is organised. Let us say that there is a "Yes" vote. Nothing can happen until Parliament has passed a completely separate Bill setting up the regional assembly, with all the rules that will be required. Therefore, it is not a five-minute process. But there are enough quality people in local government to ensure that professional services are maintained. There might he political warfare and people jockeying for position but, given the checks and balances that exist through the Audit Commission and other local government assessments, I cannot possibly see how services could collapse in the way that is suggested. I do not accept for one minute that that would be permitted.
Lord Waddington: We have been all the way round the houses but is it fair to suggest that the Government are saying that in county areas a unitary authority structure is the price the people living there will have to pay if they want regional government, whether the Government of this country think that unitary government in that area is right or wrong for the people in that area? That puts it fairly, does it not?
Lord Rooker: I am tempted to say yes, but I qualify that given the noble Lord's final few words. I sensed a bear trap in the final few words. I have made clear—I cannot make it clearer—that unitary local government—in what shape I do not know, as the Boundary Committee will have to review it—is the political price to be paid for having elected regional assemblies. That is the Government's policy on which the Bill is based. It is not based on anything else at all. Without the one, the other cannot take place. I made that clear when I began to read what I thought would be a two-minute speech. The relevant brief has three paragraphs and is straightforward. We believe that the local government review of the regions should be carried out before the referendum so that voters are
1528
informed of the implications of a yes vote. It is important that they are informed of the implications of a yes vote.
Baroness Blatch: This is a terribly important debate. The Minister unwittingly just blew the lid on the Government. If his brief contains three paragraphs to address this particular aspect of the Bill, the Government have totally misread the importance of it. I cannot believe that the noble Lord is as naïve as he appears. He refers to a year's work on the part of the Boundary Committee in considering different options for a region such as amalgamating shire districts or getting rid of county councils. There is not one area in the country—I shall not discuss specific areas—that does not have a number of county councils and a much larger number of shire districts.
The Government say that they have no plans for reorganising local government. We know that they have no specific plans as they have passed the buck to the Boundary Committee. Whether the people vote yes or no, the work of dividing and ruling people at a local level—which we think is absolutely unnecessary if the Government simply want to devolve a bit of power from central government—will be gone through with all the pain and anxiety that that entails. That will be costly and painful and will be divisive. At the end of that process, people may vote no. If the noble Lord thinks that we are exaggerating, he has only to see what will happen when Mr Prescott decides which region will be approached.
My next point is very important in this context. The noble Lord, Lord Shutt, referred to Skipton. In vast areas of the country—certainly, Northumberland is one of them—people may vote no in a referendum. However, people in urban areas may vote yes. If the noble Lord thinks that losing their shire districts is the price rural areas must pay for having democratically voted no but then being outvoted by people in Newcastle, Birmingham, Greater Manchester, Leeds and Bradford, a large shock awaits him.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: I suspect that in places such as Skipton and other rural areas concern about the local government situation could produce a huge turnout as it is a matter that people understand. In the metropolitan areas nothing is going to happen to local government, and perhaps there is less concern about the matter. We all know that, although people are keen to have the opportunity to vote, they are less keen on actually voting. There could be high turnouts in areas where the real concern is local government reform, not the real issue of democratising the regions.
Lord Rooker: I shall stop being as frank as I have been. I have never read a speech in my life, as my officials know, irrespective of which Chamber I was a Member of.
The Earl of Onslow: I ask the Minister please to continue his old habit. We all enjoy it and also he is always much more convincing when he says what he

1529
thinks government policy is and we can watch the marvellous expressions of officials when they wince. I ask the Minister please to maintain his frankness.
Lord Rooker: All I usually ask for is a set of bullet points. I cannot read a narrative text; it is as simple as that. In future, I shall not count the number of paragraphs in my brief. However, I could have turned the page and read out more brief.
The nub of the matter is clear, as I explained to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, earlier. The two matters we are discussing are so closely linked in terms of the Government's policy that without one the other will not occur. As I say, that is not a threat. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that I have read the remarks of commentators who refer to the well-known propensity for very low turnouts in urban areas—where the electoral register is not as good as it could be—and to the well-known propensity for higher turnouts in non-urban areas. That will create some interesting battles in the regions.
I do not accept for one moment that what appears to be a smaller population in one area will necessarily be outvoted by what appears to be a larger population in another. One has only to consider the different rates of turnout in different areas to appreciate that much work would have to be done to increase turnouts in urban areas in order to outvote rural areas. At the end of the day it is up to people how they vote. I accept that it is the Government's duty to put before the electorate all the consequences of a yes or no vote. That is what we shall seek to do. But if subsection (5) is removed, it will be impossible to do that.
The Earl of Caithness: I listened with great care to what the Minister said. I commend him for fighting the battle almost single-handed on his Benches. Why are the Government preventing the Boundary Committee from looking at the unitary boundary and asking it to consider only counties and districts? Taking up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, it might be logical and sensible to alter the unitary boundary. Why cannot the Boundary Committee alter the unitary boundary?
Lord Rooker: That is an important issue. However, we shall discuss the matter later in more detail. We are debating the Second Reading aspect of the Bill. There are plenty of amendments tabled on which I can seek further information before we reach them. My understanding is that we do not want to cause more disruption than is necessary to the existing local government framework. That is why we gave a commitment that existing unitary authorities would not have their boundaries interfered with. That seems to me common sense and is part of the Boundary Committee's remit.
I appreciate that common-sense points have been made in regard to different parts of England with different boundaries and different histories. What has already happened in terms of previous boundary reviews is important in this regard. I shall ensure that
1530
when we reach the relevant part of the Bill I shall have specific answers to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: I hope to start on a non-contentious point. My noble friend Lord Greaves explained more clearly than I did that our amendments are not intended to be an attack on later Conservative amendments regarding further conditions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, raised the issue of votes in different areas. Our Amendments Nos. 40 and 47 relate to that. With universal franchise in this country, I am staggered that the Government are working on the basis that there will be differential turnout. That is appalling. That is the clear implication of the Minister's remarks. By telling us that there simply will not be a Bill, the noble Lord persuaded the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, of the validity of our amendment. I hope that it may persuade the noble Lord, Lord Waddington.
These are entirely separate issues. There may be arguments for local government review but they should not be confused with the functions and powers of regional government. If local government and regional government are separate—we believe that they are different types of government—to confuse the two in this way is a recipe for disaster.
My noble friend Lord Shutt referred to pumping in democracy to the existing regional tier. That is what we on these Benches seek to do. The Minister has been entirely consistent. He told us at Second Reading of the consequences of decoupling these issues: that there would not be a Bill. He explained the consequences: he has not explained the reasons. He says that the Government do not have a plan for local government. If that is so, why not? But it seems to me that they do. That plan is inherent in the Bill. It is central government plus two tiers and you can take your pick as to which those tiers will be.
We have touched on some of the nonsenses; I shall refer to another one. My noble friend has even given me a diagram which is as good as a White Paper, as we have been told. We have the existing unitary authority of Blackpool. Under these arrangements Wyre and Fylde cannot go in with Blackpool. That part of the Lancashire coast is built up almost all the way along. There is not that much of a division between Blackpool and Lytham St Anne's. M y grandmother is probably revolving in her grave. When she went to the Lancashire coast from Manchester she went distinctly to Lytham and not to Blackpool. However, the reality is that the situation is a nonsense.
I am picking up words used by the Minister. He said that the White Paper is a mechanism. Yes, it is, but the White Paper is not the commitment; the manifesto is the commitment. That is why we are all so exercised by the White Paper. He said that this is a mantra. Yes, it is. It is not an intellectually coherent argument. My noble friend Lord Greaves said that repeated assertions do not make the point better or worse. The Minister may care to reflect on that because repeated assertions today have made the point worse.

1531
The question to electors should be about regional government alone. The referendum should be about regional government alone. I hope that there can be some discussion on what underlies government policy. I profoundly hope that these Benches can find a way to support the Government's overarching policy which is so threatened by the way they are going about it.
The Earl of Onslow: Before the noble Baroness concludes, it is an important issue for the Liberal Democrat and Conservative Front Benches. Would it not be wiser for the Liberal Democrats occasionally to break their habit and vote now on the issue rather than wait until Report stage? I put the idea to the noble Baroness. It is not a fiddly point which will tweak the provision on Report. It is a fundamental part of the Bill. I see noble Lords shaking their heads.
Baroness Hamwee: The temptation to divide the Committee has been great but I do not think that tonight is the night to do so. The Government's arrangements ensure that their numbers are here. We are coming towards the home straight of today's Session. It is not the habit of a lifetime for Conservatives and Liberal Democrats to fail to co-operate. I know that the noble Earl did not say that. The time to divide will come but now is not the time to do so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 1, line 10, leave out "two" and insert "five"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 9, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 14 and 17. Amendments Nos. 9 and 17 are consequential upon Amendment No. 14. Amendment No. 14 requires the Secretary of State to publish a written report by an independent auditor verifying that the costs of establishing regional assemblies do not escalate above the costs of existing local government systems.
There are huge concerns about costs. We still await at least a ballpark figure of the costs of a reorganisation which would involve the abolition of councils. That seems fairly critical. Any area which agrees to have regional assemblies will incur huge costs. It is important that the people of the region, and of the country, know them. They may come from national taxation or local taxation.
The costs are large even if there is a no vote. During debate on the previous amendment, we heard that the detailed work about the shape of local government below the tier of regional government will involve visits, public meetings and discussions with councils and community people. There will be much discussion on one, two or perhaps more options. There will be feasibility studies. The Minister has been open with us and told us that that work will take at least a year. We know that it will be involved and detailed and extremely painful for the people at local level.
First, who will meet the costs of such an exercise? Who will meet them if it is a no vote? Who will meet them if it is a yes vote. There is a distinction between
1532
the source of funding if the vote goes different ways. It is abortive work if it is a no vote; and it will be fruitful if it is a yes vote. We know already that the soundings committee has been all over the country, to all eight regions, and completed its work. Will the Minister tell us how much that cost, and how detailed and involved the work has been, as well as telling us who has been consulted and who has not? We are beginning to find out that a large number of people in the region were not aware of the soundings exercise and did not receive any of the materials for it. Despite that, will the Minister tell us about the costs to date?
Will he also tell us the costs of the local government review and reorganisation, and the running costs of regional assemblies? That is the kind of information that needs to be available when the Boundary Committee has done its job. We know that the Welsh Assembly costs almost £150 million to run, compared with the running of the Welsh Office, which was a mere £72 million. That figure does not take into account the vast array of new buildings in London, Wales and Scotland.
For reasons of transparency, it is essential that people are aware of the costs before—I emphasise the word "before"—they vote in a referendum. They need to know the costs to the point of the referendum, and the predicted costs of moving fully to a unitary system below regional assemblies. The facts need to be broken down on the table, if people are to make an informed choice.
As the Minister said, the area most likely to be determined by the Deputy Prime Minister is the North East. If he does not determine that area, I cannot think what area he will determine as the first regional authority. One has only to consider the complications of Northumberland to realise that it will be an enormous exercise. It is important for the people of that area to know precisely what they would be voting for and what the costs would be.
The other amendments in the list under my name are consequential, and change the two conditions to five. I beg to move.
Lord Waddington: I should be surprised if the Minister accepted Amendment No. 14, because it is inconceivable that any independent auditor will come to the conclusion that,
"no additional expenditure overall would be incurred as a result or'
this exercise.
We know perfectly well that an enormous amount of public money is involved. We recently had a paper from the Cheshire County Council, part of which stated that the estimate of the cost of the local government review in Cheshire alone would cost Cheshire residents an estimated £60 million, which is an average of £204 for every household. As I said on Second Reading, the limited Heseltine local government review at the beginning of the 1990s cost about £600 million.

1533
No one can tell me that a great deal of public money will not he involved. Will the Minister take the opportunity to give us some figures from the Government's estimate of costs? Great sums are involved. I could go on at great length on this subject, but there is no point in doing so. The Minister has been helpful throughout our deliberations, so I hope that he will take some advice from his officials and give us a list of costs. We would love to know what the grand total is—it will surprise people, and the surprise will not be pleasant.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Greaves: This is an interesting amendment. We could not support it in its exact wording, not least because the vision we have for regional government might include limited increases in public spending if the money was spent on useful things, not simply on bureaucracy and reorganisation. Technically, we would find it difficult to support the amendment, but it is a useful probing amendment, and I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on moving it.
As the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, said, the amendment provides the Government with an opportunity to set out the costs of the exercise, which they have not done so far. That should be done, not least from the point of view of those who want regional government to be established because, if they cannot come up with credible figures, the Opposition will do it for them. The figures that the Opposition produce may be genuine, or they may be grossly inflated to support their case.
There are four main areas of costs relating to regional government. First, there is bound to be an additional cost of running the regional assembly, in terms of councillors, support services and those who provide the advice and reports. The costs will include all the ordinary support services that any organisation requires.
Secondly, there will be an administrative or bureaucratic cost of running all the regional bureaucracies, including the elected regional assembly when one is established. It is not clear why that sum should be higher than it is now, if the regional assembly takes over some functions of the regional quangos and bureaucracies and is not simply an add-on that will monitor, supervise, scrutinise and produce strategic plans without actually doing anything. All that would cost a lot more extra money. If, on the other hand, the new body was put in charge of running things, which the Government by and large do not want it to do, it could result in savings by integrating several separate organisations.
Thirdly, there will be the cost of the operations put under the control of the new body, if any are put under their control at all.
Fourthly, there will be the cost of local government reorganisation, consequent on the establishment of a regional assembly in a particular region. I do not want to go over that argument again, but there is clearly a cost to reorganising local government. In the longer term, that cost may be offset by new structures being
1534
cheaper than existing structures. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, shakes his head. Like him, I have been through local government reorganisations in the past, and I also doubt that that would be the case. The one cost that cannot be denied is the cost of the reorganisation itself.
There are four areas in which the Government must establish the costs, in any region where they are putting proposals to people through a referendum. If they do not do that, people like the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, will produce their own figures, which may be 10 times as high as the Government's.
Baroness Hanham: It would be a triumph of hope over experience to suggest that the costs after the reorganisation of local government and the introduction of regional government would be less than they are now. I was interested by the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that taking over quangos might reduce the cost. From my understanding of the White Paper, few of those quangos will be taken over; they will he left with a superstructure on top of them and a few elected members to oversee them.
I should declare an interest as a member of a local authority. It is abundantly clear from the experience of London that nothing has remained as a neutral cost. The cost to the council tax payer of the introduction of the Greater London Authority and the building of the new assembly city hall has risen 10 times since the assembly was introduced. That is the cost without a reorganisation taking place underneath—it is simply the cost of the superstructure.
Another aspect that has not been mentioned is that reorganisation means, by definition, putting people out of work. If you double up on unitaries, for example, you will probably not require the same number of people in local government. You will also have the oncosts of putting those people out to grass.
This is an important probing amendment to try to discover whether the Government have any idea of the total cost of a reorganisation. I know that the Minister will say that it depends on the size of the region, and I accept that; the cost in the North East of England will be entirely different from that in the South East. However, we need to address the issue. As the Minister is looking a bit weary, we do not expect him to produce the figures today. However, it would be useful if we could have at least an acknowledgement that those costs have to be spelled out while the Bill is still in Parliament.
Lord Rooker: I feel quite chipper. I have been to the gym twice this week and I will carry on as long as the Committee wants. I gave some figures on Second Reading and I will repeat them as they are the only figures that I have at the moment to share with the Committee. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said, Amendment No. 14 introduces an additional precondition before a referendum can be held. Although the amendment does not specify the time period, it would require the auditor to confirm that no additional public expenditure would be incurred. I

1535
freely admit that that is a quite onerous condition—which is probably why it was so drafted. As she said, it is a probing amendment. I will therefore not nit-pick about the details.
As I think I said on Second Reading, there will be costs in establishing the elected regional assemblies. However, we think that that is a price worth paying in areas where people have voted for them. Chapter 5 of the White Paper set out the direct costs of the assemblies that could be estimated at that stage, which was some time ago. We think that the assemblies will be public investments and will bring benefits to the people at large. Although I gave some figures on Second Reading, I realised that I was taking an inordinately long time to reply and may have missed out one or two.
The cost of the referendum, for example, will vary according to the number of people. Our view is that it costs bout 80 pence per elector for local authority mayoral referendums using all postal ballots. On that basis, the cost would range from about £2 million in the North East to about £6 million in the South East. Our best estimate of the average running costs of the assembly—one of the items listed by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves—is about £25 million gross. We think that about £5 million of that will be directly offset because posts will be transferred from various bodies such as the Government's regional offices. We think that the remaining costs could be absorbed within the assembly's programme budget through efficiency savings of about 5 per cent, although less in the larger regions. The assembly could therefore have a major impact on the region's productivity and prosperity.
I cannot even begin to give a figure for the potential cost of local government reorganisation. It is much too early to make such an assessment, which depends on a range of factors such as how many regions choose to have an elected assembly and the structures recommended by the Boundary Committee in each case. Reorganisation might result in cost savings if the structures recommended by the Boundary Committee led to economies of scale or reduced the number of partnerships in which public sector organisations had to engage. So I make no claim to being accurate. We do not have those figures because it is much too early.
The cost of the Boundary Committee's reviews prior to the referendum ranges from about £750,000 to £3.2 million. As the Boundary Committee's figures have been refined and are now more accurate, they are not the same as earlier figures. The Boundary Committee has continued to revise the figures since publication of the Bill's Explanatory Notes. These figures are therefore different from those in the Explanatory Notes in the House of Commons.
Given the thirst for detailed figures on costs and on cost/benefit analyses of the number of chief executives, bottle washers, cleaners and whether services are privatised or in-house, I realise that that is probably a wholly inadequate reply. I can think of loads of issues and may even table some amendments myself. However, it is just too early to provide that information. If the process continues and the Secretary
1536
of State makes his statement, and as we get closer to a referendum and publication of the Government's view and all the items we promised to publish, we will be able to give better and more up-to-date figures. If there were a successful "Yes" vote and we were closer to introducing legislation to set up a regional assembly, we would clearly be expected to give the House much more detailed figures.
Lord Waddington: I wonder whether the Minister can give me an answer to a question that I asked the other day. Clause 17 of the Bill enables the Secretary of State to make payments to the Electoral Commission for it to do its work. But who would foot the bill incurred by a local authority which had to go to all the expense of servicing a Boundary Committee review if there were then a referendum that resulted in a "No" vote? Can the Minister please assure me that the Government will foot the bill, not the unfortunate council tax payers in the area concerned when the council was put to enormous expense as a result of the Government's folly?
Lord Rooker: That situation would arise only if the council tax payers and others in the electorate voted "No". It is part of the cost of having a choice. I cannot answer the question, but I can assure the noble Lord that I will know the answer by the time we reach Clause 17.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I was naïve in taking the Government at their word. I think that my noble friend Lord Waddington has taken me to task for tabling an amendment that was impossible for the Government to meet. It is unlikely that they could ever include in the Bill a report that provided a guarantee that no additional expenditure would be incurred. However, I am taking the Government at their word. They have said on various occasions that the proposals would not only be neutral but might even he beneficial to local people. However, given what we have heard, that is very hard to believe. Not only on Second Reading, but in a subsequent Question, the noble Lord told us:
"I believe that the penny has dropped that there is no new money. If anyone is supporting the Bill in the hope that there will be more money, do not bother; stick with the status quo".—[Official Report, 20/2/03: col. 1328.]
However, we are talking about the preliminaries to a possible "No" vote, and those preliminaries will incur expenditure. Unless the Chancellor is being uncharacteristically generous, that money can be found only by top-slicing local authorities' budgets. It cannot come from anywhere else unless the Chancellor will set aside the funds. Given that this exercise could be under way in the course of this financial year, in the sense of giving the Boundary Committee work to do, it would be helpful to know the source of that money.
The noble Lord has not said who will pay for a "No" vote or a "Yes" vote or for the added costs of local authorities who had to defend their corner in the review. He said that that is the price that local authorities will pay for having a choice. However, as

1537
we have said so often today, many county and district councils will have voted "No" but been outvoted by the large urban areas. I am reminded by my noble friend Lord Hanningfield, who knows the global statistics of local government better than I do, that Greater Manchester has about 2 million people and that Northumberland has less than half a million people. The re-organisation has no effect on Manchester because it is a unitary authority. It could make the decision for the whole of the north-western region, and many of the shire districts will have voted no. This is a horrendous proposition in that a very large sum of money is going to fall on the review and boundary committee exercise. It has already fallen on the soundings committee exercise. The noble Lord did not refer to the cost of that committee. Can he say what was the budget allowed for the soundings committee and what has been the outturn of that budget? I can see now that my amendment is fanciful in a practical sense because there is no way in which expenditure will be contained at either a neutral or less than neutral level.
I shall think about what has been said. I shall give way to the Minister to come hack to me on some of these points because we need answers. I fully accept that the noble Lord cannot give the costings of re-organisation because each one will be different. We could not possibly second guess what it is going to be at this point. My amendment does not ask for that. It quite specifically says that at the point where people are being asked to make a choice they should know what all the costs are in some detail. They should know what the running costs will be and the capital costs. We know that the capital costs in Wales, Scotland and London have been horrendous. But it is after the event.
People were asked to vote before they saw any details of the Bills. They went through another place with very cursory discussion. We did our customary thing in this House and challenged and tested some of the propositions. The London Bill was changed quite considerably during its passage.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that many of the changes which were made to the Bill came about as a result of the Government running scared of what Mr Livingstone might do if he became Mayor of London. Very substantial changes were made by the Government themselves to make sure that his wings were clipped and he could not go too far in his excesses in London government.
Nevertheless, these are serious points. The Minister has given us outline expenditure figures which are helpful as far as they go. But I want at least one promise that all the costings will be put in detail before the people as they come to vote. It would be helpful to know whether it is to be top-sliced by local government. Who will pay for a yes or no vote? Has the Chancellor put money aside to cover these costs or is poor old local government going to see yet more money top-sliced from the local government budgets?
7 p.m.
Lord Rooker: I shall try to answer a couple of the points. As regards the costs of the sounding exercise, I shall take advice. But given the fact that there will be a major Statement made in Parliament in due course by the Deputy Prime Minister on the results of the sounding exercise, there will probably be documents published at the same time in summary form. I suspect that there will be a financial statement as well about the costs. That would be quite reasonable. but I do not know whether that is planned.
We are to have discussions with the Local Government Association about some of the one-off costs. Generally speaking, local government has a great deal of flexibility today as regards its budgets. In due course this House will receive the Local Government Bill, which gives much more flexibility as regards the power of local government over its own finance. I am not saying that there is a bottomless pit of money, but in some of the areas local government would be expected to carry costs of certain of its functions in responding, I suspect, to the boundary review or facilitating the administration of the boundary committee work. That would he quite normal local government expenditure.
A great deal of work will have taken place before the referendum. It would be wholly reasonable to give further and better estimates of the cost to the region. One cannot he absolutely precise. I take on board what the noble Baroness has said about the cost to Wales, Scotland and London. Lessons have to be learnt in a way which explains the potential costs to the electorate. We have already heard the free spenders among the Liberal Democrats saying that they would have wanted to increase local government expenditure anyway. That is what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said a few minutes ago. There are plenty of people who are set to put up costs, but the Government are not part of them.
Lord Greaves: What the Minister said is not an accurate rendering of what I said, which was that if regional assemblies were doing genuinely useful jobs and spending on useful things such as the local transport infrastructure, which the noble Baroness said would not be allowed under the plans, some increase in spending might not be a bad thing.
Lord Rooker: I withdraw what I just said with sincere apologies. I am trying to cause some division between the Liberal Democrats and the Tories because too much coalition work has taken place today. I do not have any further information, although I take on board the quite reasonable questions which have been asked about finance. At certain stages more information will be available. I do not suppose that there will ever be a stage when it will be possible to set out everything because it is a fairly drawn-out process. We are going through a Parliament in order to set up the assemblies. No one is forecasting that if there is a yes vote in a referendum an assembly would be set up in this Parliament. Indeed, the opposite is the case. This is not something which is going to happen

1539
overnight. Therefore, I do not suppose that there will ever be a point in time when there will be a snapshot of all the costs. But certainly there can be a running commentary on what the issues are costing, with the best estimates available. It is wholly reasonable to have that provided to Parliament let alone to the electorate.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may ask a question. I was out of the Chamber for a little while. Have we had any mention of the costs which will be incurred by the elected representatives? There will be 25 of them. If they are to be paid, together with administrative expenses and travelling expenses, the costs will be at least £100,000, which makes a total of £2.5 million. Has any estimate been made of these costs? Were they mentioned while I was out of the Chamber? I shall be very much obliged if the noble Lord can give me a reply on that.
Lord Rooker: There must have been within the global figure of an average of £20 million for running the assembly. I cannot find anything specific in Chapter 5 about the costs of the assembly persons, if I may be politically correct for the moment. I dare not call them councillors after the previous questions about local government. They will not be councillors but assembly persons. I hope that they will not be called that but that is the only name I can think of to get me off the hook at the moment.
I do not know the cost, but the overall estimate of the assemblies is about £20 million net. I gave a figure of £25 million, but £5 million is to be offset from other changes. Nevertheless, as the Bill progresses and it turns into the referendum, further information will be available to answer the very precise question which the noble Lord asked.
The Earl of Caithness: I take it from the Minister's reply that the answer to the question from my noble friend Lady Blatch is that the costs, even if there is a no vote, will be born by local government as it exists at the moment, but that the Ministry will see whether it can make it more equitable?
Lord Rooker: That is a fair way of putting it because I am not able to give a precise answer to that reasonable question. Some continuing costs are normal local government expenditure, whatever the outcome. I expect to have more information at a future date, but cannot promise to provide it next week in Committee.
Baroness Blatch: We are grateful and look forward to receiving that information at the next stage of the Bill. The Minister's comments will frustrate our local government colleagues throughout the country, when he says that local authorities will meet Boundary Commission costs as part of normal expenditure. All local authorities have to find an extra 1 per cent for their staff when the new national insurance contributions come onstream, meet inflationary pay
1540
awards and face enormous financial pressures relating to the requirements placed on them for new social security services.
In addition, the Bill to overcome bed blocking will mean local authorities incurring even more expenditure. The Secretary of State for Education and Skills has taken a direct power, which he plans to use this year, to make compulsory passporting of funding down to schools—irrespective of whether or not the amount of grant covers that passported money.
There is little scope for local authorities to access additional money to meet extra costs. That is especially true in the case of local authorities who say "No" to a referendum and who will be miffed and disappointed if they then have to meet the costs of the boundary commissioner and the review exercise. Nevertheless, the Minister has been as helpful as he can at this stage, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 10 to 14 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 1, line 12, at end insert—
"(4A) The fourth 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: With this, I will speak also to Amendments Nos. 22 and 23. Together they seek a guarantee that consideration by the Secretary of State of the level of interest in a region for holding a referendum will be a formal, thorough and in-depth process—and that there is some evidence to show that was the case.
Specifically, there must be wide consultation with the interested parties—including business, the cultural and voluntary sectors, local government and the wider community. Once the consultation process is complete, the Secretary of State must justify his decision to hold a referendum—this is most important—by placing the evidence that he has gathered before both Houses.
There is no mention in the Bill of the procedures that the Secretary of State must observe to determine the level of interest in any region. The amendments will safeguard all those directly affected by giving them the opportunity to have their voices heard prior to the decision to hold a referendum. The Secretary of State will be required to take time to consider the opinions of interested parties in every individual region. By ensuring that evidence is laid before Parliament, there can be no shortcuts by the Secretary of State so that false or subjective assumptions or prejudices determine the final decision rather than an open process of wide consultation.
The soundings exercise has been a secretive business. Although the Minister may rightly say that everyone knew about it, people and organisations in

1541
the business and voluntary sectors were not aware of that exercise and had no input. The noble Lord offered a fulsome apology to noble Lords who were not alerted to the soundings and so were unable to become involved. We only knew of it when the Bill was presented for its First Reading.
This important part of the Bill concerns the process that will trigger all the expenditure to which the last group of amendments referred and that part of the work of the Boundaries Commission which establishes an expensive review. Some parts of the country will be particularly aggrieved when, having not expressed an interest in regional assemblies, they will nevertheless incur costs. As the soundings committee is the starting point, the Deputy Prime Minister owes it to both Houses to know the scientific basis on which he makes his decisions. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: It is crucial to know what has been done by the soundings committee and where it has been. Remote hill areas of the North East and North West may not contain many votes, but it is crucial that their residents, whose livelihoods are vitally important, are consulted. I am sure that the Minister instinctively will want to publish all the material in question, but perhaps he will confirm that will be done in full.
The Earl of Onslow: There is a tendency among all British Governments—I do not exonerate my colleagues on the Front Bench when they were in office, because they were just as bad—to keep things secret. We are the only people who pass a freedom of information Act that allows one to find out absolutely nothing.
There can be no harm in the Government publishing as much information as they can on who they have consulted. It will only add strength to the Government's case if they show that they consulted widely and conclusively with all interests. Even though the re-creation of a heptarchy is a peculiarly stupid idea, if the Government want to make it agreeable or even possibly convert me, they should make absolutely clear who they consult, why they consult, when they consult and how they consult. That will do no one any harm but much good to the body politic and the doctrine of secrecy in this country.
Baroness Hanham: At present, the Secretary of State alone will carry responsibility for deciding the outcome of the soundings exercise. The criteria have been blurred, so it is hard to know the basis. The Nye bsites are not much more helpful.
It seems to us that sole burden should be shared by Parliament knowing the basis on which the Secretary of State is proposing to unleash a Boundary Committee review. I hope that the Minister agrees and, if not today, will return with the news that the Secretary of State will publish the evidence on which he makes his decisions region by region—not a broad overview but what the soundings have produced, what questions have been asked and who has been
1542
consulted. It is important that all the interests that the amendment lists, who will make up a fair part of a community, have the opportunity to say whether they would consider voting—which presumably will he the basis on which the Secretary of State will judge the level of interest.
Lord Greaves: This is an extremely helpful amendment because it introduces a very important matter. It is a peculiar situation: the soundings—they have been described as soundings rather than consultations—have taken place before the legislation has gone through Parliament. We understand that the Deputy Prime Minister intends to make a Statement soon after it goes through Parliament—that is, if he has not withdrawn it in pique at amendments approved by the Committee. We shall see.
It is important that the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, are taken on board. We do not need to know what the responses were in each region simply in the interests of openness and democracy but as the basis on which the Deputy Prime Minister will make his decision. It is important that he also publishes the criteria on which he has assessed that evidence so that he is seen to be taking an objective decision on the basis of the same criteria within each region and that the decisions stand up in relation to the soundings and the evidence. Otherwise, he will get into terrible difficulty defending decisions in the courts. There are high stakes here and this is the sort of matter aggrieved local authorities might take to judicial review. I would be grateful for those assurances.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I should be interested to know about the soundings that have been taken. I have had a number of complaints from people in various parts of the country that official or quasi-official meetings have been held to discuss the desirability or otherwise of regionalisation that have been limited to people who are in favour of them anyway. In many cases, people known to be opposed to regional government have been excluded from the meetings and refused admission.
I am sure that that is not hearsay, because I have some evidence of it. If soundings have taken place it would be useful to know how, why and when; whether they have been restricted to people known to be in favour of regional government; and whether local electors have been excluded from such gatherings.
Lord Rooker: In response to my noble friend Lord Stoddart, although this applies to any noble Lord, if anyone has any complaints about people being snuffed out of soundings, discouraged, or barred because of their views, we would like to hear about it. That is important. I am not challenging my noble friend to give chapter and verse now or at any other time, but if people have evidence of what amounts to maladministration I hope that complaints will be made.
In the spirit of the amendment, when the Deputy Prime Minister makes his statement to Parliament explaining his decision on which regions would

1543
undergo a review with a view to holding a referendum, we will publish a summary of the views that have led him to make that decision. It has to be published on a regional basis; it could not be mixed up globally as that would be unfair.
We said in the soundings document that unless people said otherwise we would assume that their views could be made public. If they wrote in confidence for some reason, we would respect the confidence but treat them in the numerical calculations by adding them to the figures according to whether they said yes or no. It is important, when the Deputy Prime Minister makes his announcement on the basis of the soundings for the regions, that it stands the test of parliamentary scrutiny or scrutiny by others. That is why we cannot rush the matter.
The date of 3rd March has been and gone. I have made it clear that we are listening to the Committee's views while the Bill goes through Parliament, but it will take time to carry out the analysis. It has begun and we have resources for it, but nothing has been supplied to Ministers and nor should it be until we are ready to make judgments, as my right honourable friend will be. But that will not be until after Royal Assent, if the Bill ever receives Royal Assent. I will move heaven and earth to obtain Royal Assent, but I stress to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, that I am not prejudging parliamentary scrutiny. It is up to Parliament, not me, whether the Bill receives Royal Assent.
We will be as open as possible about the basis on which the Deputy Prime Minister makes his announcement and decisions. That is the only fair basis.
The Earl of Onslow: The Minister is right to tell us that the Secretary of State will say who he has consulted. Some of us are worried that, for example, it is not like consulting only the League Against Cruel Sports when wanting to ban hunting. The consultation has to be sufficiently wide so he can give the undertaking that he will make sure that he obtains a broad view of those against and those pro.
Lord Rooker: It is crucial, notwithstanding the problem of issuing the soundings document. Just over one thousand copies were issued to various organisations and the establishment. I do not mean that pejoratively, but the distribution covered many organisations. It is important that when the Secretary of State announces his decision he can set out either in the statement or along with other documents the balance of argument on which he made his decision. That means making it clear where there is opposition to the form and structure proposed by various organisations and interest groups—of whatever size—in the regions. That is the only basis on which his decision can be judged.
In announcing his decision he will need to take comfort from the fact that he has clearly indicated that he has looked at the range of opinion and disclosed it to the people who will be scrutinising the decision. We will publish a summary of the consultation, but more
1544
than that is required in order to come to Parliament and say, on balance, in a particular region because of all the factors and views he has taken a decision proposing that we go one way or the other.
Perhaps there will be some disappointed faces; I do not know. I am not prejudging the matter. It is important that we do more than make a mechanical list of those for and against. We have to explain why we made our decision. Soundings are soundings, so it is important that we do a proper professional job in analysing the results and explaining them in such a way that we are comfortable with the decision we bring to Parliament and, I hope, Parliament is comfortable about the way we have gone about making the decision.
There will be a festering sore if there is a degree of dispute about how the decision was arrived at. It is much easier to disagree with a decision if one is comfortable about the way in which it was reached, otherwise the issue can fester. We will return to the matter during the Bill's passage and certainly after Royal Assent.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the Minister. The Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Prescott, would do well to heed his advice. In his reply he seemed to understand what we are asking for through the amendment and say that he believes there should be as much openness as possible when the Deputy Prime Minister decides which area of the country shall first be given the opportunity to choose whether it wants regional assemblies. I would like to have confirmation that he will come to Parliament to announce that decision and not do so in some glitzy-ritzy presentation outside Parliament. I also hope that he will do exactly what the Minister said; that is, produce the evidence on which he bases that decision.
We do not currently know what percentage of people will not have been seen. I live in East Anglia but I received nothing through my door. I was not aware of a sounding exercise until the Bill had its First Reading in this House even though I am very involved with local government colleagues and others in East Anglia. It would be helpful to know who has been communicated with. We do not know the criteria, which have never been set out—certainly not the criteria on which that decision will be made. It would be helpful to know that when the decision is made.
I will withdraw the amendment. In doing so, I thank the Minister for his good humour and patience throughout our debate. He will accept, but may not agree, that we see this as a very important constitutional matter. The Bill's Committee stage is the only stage procedurally that allows us the flexibility to tease out details from the Minister and to have an iterative process between each other. Such details will be crucial in terms of understanding the way in which the Bill and what flows from it will work in practice. With my fulsome thanks to the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 not moved.]
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

North Korea
7.32 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpoolrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their policy on the threat posed by North Korea to international security and to the human rights of its citizens.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am glad to have an opportunity to ask a Question that I tabled last November. It allows us to consider the international crisis sparked by North Korea's decision to reopen its nuclear reactor at Yongbyon and its continued serial abuse of human rights. I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who will participate in this debate, particularly the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, who must be under great pressure at the moment. Many of us greatly admire the way in which she is handling her onerous responsibilities during the present international crisis.
Unfolding events in Iraq have inevitably distracted us from the arguably even more dangerous crisis posed by North Korea. If North Korea reactivates its plutonium reprocessing plant, also located at Yongbyon, it could reprocess 8,000 spent fuel rods and would be able to produce weapons-grade plutonium within weeks, accumulating enough material for about six bombs before the end of the year. The United States Government believe that North Korea may already have such nuclear weapons.
Some noble Lords may have heard the report on the BBC' this morning from its state department correspondent, Jon Leyne. He reported that experts believe that the north could soon have a production line that could produce up to a bomb a month. The BBC also reported that sources in Tokyo believe that Pyongyang may be preparing to test a Rodong medium-range ballistic missile that is capable of reaching most of Japan.
As the former US Defense Secretary William Perry recently remarked:
"I believe that Korea is the most dangerous spot in the world today".
In 1994, the Clinton administration concluded the Agreed Framework with Pyongyang. From its inception, the accord, which had a price tag of some 5 billion dollars, fell significantly behind its schedule, most notably in failing to deliver two light-water reactors in return for the abandonment of the highly enriched uranium—HEU—nuclear programme.
By 2000, while the North Korean missile talks were collapsing, North Korea had clandestinely recommenced the HEU programme. That was exposed by US intelligence in July 2002. Kim Jong-il conceded that he had broken the agreement. He
1546
expelled the International Atomic Energy Authority monitors and pulled out of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Since then, Pyongyang has been demanding bilateral negotiations with the Bush Administration, characterised in Washington as "reward for had behaviour". The belief is that giving in to blackmail leads only to more blackmail. So far, the US response has been very measured not only to the provocation of the recommencement of the HEU programme and the recent intimidation of a US plane in international airspace but also to this week's ballistic tests in the Sea of Japan.
This evening, given the Prime Minister's declaration that he sees North Korea as the next challenge for the international community, I hope that the Government will share with us their view of this crisis. Do they, for instance, believe that there is any realistic prospect of a new comprehensive mechanism to replace the 1994 Agreed Framework and a commensurate abandonment of the HEU programme and any possible plutonium-based programmes in return for a non-aggression pact? Can the Minister tell us what progress is being made in engaging regional players, most obviously China, Japan and Russia? Following the recent visit of Mr Bill Rammell to the region, what role are Her Majesty's Government and the EU playing in creating conditions for negotiations? What is our view of the demands by North Korea for bilateral talks in contrast with the insistence by the US and others on a multilateral approach?
The Minister will have seen the view expressed earlier this week by Yoriko Kawaguchi, the Japanese Foreign Minister, that the UK could play the role of an honest broker. What is the Government's view of that and of the use of sanctions and isolation, containment and negotiation? I hope that she will share with us an analysis of the events that would pave the way for the use of force. For instance, does the Minister believe that the United States would be forced to intervene if North Korea attempted to export nuclear weapons or directly threatened the US mainland? Can she give us an assessment of the dangers that she believes are posed to South Korea and Japan? Could she also explain what Mr Rammell meant when he said last week:
"I think this is going to get worse before it gets better"?
The threat to international security posed by North Korea may best be considered by way of pernicious actions against its own citizens. North Korea's Stalinist dictatorship has treated its own people with unbelievable brutality and viciousness. The people are starving, the hospitals are without medicine and a whole generation has grown up stunted and mentally retarded because of malnutrition. Sixty per cent of the people starve. During the past decade, up to 3 million people are estimated to have died of famine, and aid agencies estimate that 70,000 children will die in the next few months. Those who dare to dissent are sent to re-education camps or to prisons.
I tabled this Unstarred Question because last October a North Korean Christian who had escaped from the country came to see me here at Westminster. His story was harrowing and disturbing. He told me

1547
how he had seen his wife, and all bar one of his children shot dead by Kim Jong-il's militia. He subsequently escaped across the border to China with his one remaining son. The boy died en route.
He encouraged me to read the prison memoirs of Soon Ok Lee. In them she describes in detail the brutality and barbarism of the system in North Korea. Anyone who believes it is right to appease this dictator should read Eyes of the Tailless Animals. It is Soon Ok Lee's account of the sham judicial system, the show trials, the starvation, the forced labour, the degradation, humiliation and rape of prisoners. Through her eyes we get a glimpse of this corrupt, paranoid and tyrannical regime. I will place a copy in the Library.
Other noble Lords will return to the plight of refugees repatriated by the Chinese into North Korea. Some have been executed. Up to 300,000 North Koreans are now living in China. When returned, they face torture, interrogation and humiliation. Any woman who is returned and became pregnant while in China is forcibly aborted, supposedly to avoid the birth of babies "contaminated" by foreign influences. There are reports of repatriated North Koreans being corralled and bound together, with wire being passed around their wrists and through their noses.
In January, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Jack Straw, about the failure of the UNHCR to enforce the 1995 agreement on refugees made with China. Mr. Rammell replied on February 12th saying that it was for,
"the parties involved to interpret their obligations under this agreement".
I am sure that I am not alone in not being entirely clear what this means.
I am sorry that we have not taken a more robust position on refugees. I hope the Government will also review their rejection of the suggestion I made to them that the United Kingdom should designate part of the funds that it provides to the UNHCR specifically for North Korean refugees in China. Organisations such as Jubilee Campaign and Christian Solidarity Worldwide have done us all a service by carefully documenting what is known about their plight. CSW's president, the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, had hoped to speak tonight but her commitments elsewhere have prevented her from being here. She wishes very much to be associated with what will be said about the plight of Christians in that country by my noble friends Lord Chan and Lord Hylton, the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby.
Becoming a Christian in North Korea is a serious crime. Many are thrown into camps or prison, where they are kept in horrific conditions. There is evidence of water torture, severe beatings, sexual assault and violation, as well as psychological and verbal abuse. Up to 1 million people are incarcerated in the gulags of North Korea. On 2nd March at the 4th International Conference on North Korean Human Rights and
1548
Refugees held in Prague, the catalogue of human rights abuses was systematically documented. Professor Man-ho Heo, Professor of Law at Kyungpook National University, listed the human rights abuses in the detention camps. Again, I will place a copy of this report in the Library. According to the Sunday Times of 9th March, children of the elite, and, bizarrely, children born as triplets, are taken from their parents by the age of two. They are placed in special schools to break family bonds and to indoctrinate them with the ideology of the regime.
The regime teaches its children to hate the outside world, especially the United States. Simultaneously, the late Kim Il-sung has been elevated and is revered as a god to be followed with unswerving devotion. In 1998, Médecins Sans Frontières pulled out of North Korea because aid agencies were denied access to the so-called 9–27 camps in which sick and disabled children were dumped under a decree issued by Kim to "normalise" the country.
This repressive and powerfully armed communist regime has subjugated its own people and now threatens and blackmails the world's democracies. It does so by threatening nuclear war unless the free world accedes to its demands. In particular, it insists that the international community recognises the permanence of its borders and continues to pay Danegeld. In any agreements made with this regime, human rights practices must be established and subsequently monitored. This was the process which was used by the US Government in negotiations with the Soviet Union in 1972, and it should form an integral part of any political security negotiations with Kim Jong-il.
By championing the cause of those who are suffering in North Korea, the international community will create the conditions for the establishment of democracy. The creation of secure borders to the Soviet Union in 1975, as the Helsinki process ensured, led to free exchange of people, open borders and family reunification. The people very quickly learned the true nature of their repressive government. Helsinki's animating genius was to elevate human rights into the most lethal weapon targeted at totalitarianism. The victims of the gulags became the icons for hope and liberation. This was also a standard around which the free world was able to unite.
Learning the lessons of Helsinki, we must do nothing to licence the regime in Pyongyang to commit further atrocities against its own people. We should enter negotiations which guarantee human rights, such as free exchange of people and religious liberties. We must also do more to promote democracy. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us something about what we can do to help, for example, through BBC World Service broadcasts to promote democracy.
By linking the present crisis with the human rights violations, a crisis can be turned into an opportunity. To do nothing about North Korea would be the most dangerous option of all.
7.44 p.m.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for providing the House with the opportunity of this short debate on the threat to international security posed by North Korea. It is a privilege to follow the noble Lord's excellent speech this evening. Like many others, I am deeply concerned by the Chinese Government's forced repatriation of North Korean refugees and the detention of North Korean asylum seekers in China who try to flee to third countries by boat.
Since early December last year, the Chinese Government have sent home about 3,200 North Korean refugees, following a 100-day campaign against those fleeing North Korea. All the refugees forcibly repatriated to their homeland face the real risk of detention, torture and execution. Much stronger action is required from our Government and all the agencies involved to pressure the Chinese authorities to stop the forced repatriation of refugees and to put more pressure on the United Nations High Commission for Refugees to perform its responsibility of protecting those refugees, including the urgent implementation of the enforcement mechanism of its bilateral treaty with China.
As a signatory to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, the Chinese Government are responsible for the protection and humanitarian needs of the asylum seekers. With thousands of refugees being repatriated in North Korea and thousands more refugee lives in serious danger, the UNHCR must be strongly pressed to enforce its bilateral treaty with China via binding arbitration. The treaty signed between the UNHCR and China states that the UNHCR has the right to unimpeded access to refugees in China at all times. It also contains a dispute resolution mechanism whereby UNHCR could enforce the treaty via binding arbitration. Surprisingly, the UNHCR has yet to attempt to enforce the bilateral treaty with China through binding arbitration. I hope that the British Government will urge it to do that.
Donor nations to the UNHCR have the right to designate part of the funds for particular projects, as has been mentioned. The British Government should force the UNHCR to act by specifically designating part of its funds to the UNHCR for North Korean refugees in China. The British Government's previous approach to the issue of North Korean refugees has not been effective in providing them with the protection that they urgently need. Thousands of those refugees have already been forcibly repatriated back to North Korea, where many face imprisonment or the likelihood of execution.
Official Chinese figures state that around 10,000 of these refugees were returned to North Korea in 1999. The Chinese authorities have even offered rewards for information leading to the capture of North Korean refugees and those who help them. Furthermore, the 'Chinese policy of forced repatriation creates a climate of impunity in which North Korean refugees in China
1550
are exploited or blackmailed and many of the women are trafficked for sexual purposes. The North Korean refugees are unable or unwilling to report these abuses for fear of being forcibly repatriated. With an estimated 300,000 North Korean refugees in China, much stronger action is now desperately needed. Britain and our European Union partners should be addressing this massive humanitarian crisis.
As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned, the British-based human rights organisation Jubilee Campaign recently reported that North Korea has one of the worst human rights records in the world. Among the many human rights violations perpetrated by the North Korean regime is extensive religious persecution. Thousands of Christians have been put in North Korean prison camps simply because of their religious beliefs. Christians are treated as political criminals and come under intense pressure to give up their faith and worship Kim Il-sung, the deceased founder of the Communist regime, instead. Christians are also regularly singled out for the most extreme treatment and toughest punishments in the prison camps. At least 100,000 Christians are believed to be among the 1 million prisoners of conscience suffering horrendous conditions throughout the country's 200 labour camps, where torture, starvation and death are commonplace. Some 300,000 Christians have disappeared in North Korea since 1953.
My friends at Christian Solidarity Worldwide, which was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, have produced several reports showing something of the horror of what is going on in North Korea. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned one case. It would bring tears to anybody's eyes to read of a father cradling a son who dies of cold in the night while trying to flee this persecution.
The inhumanity of the treatment meted out to the prisoners in the camps is indescribable. Many people suffer in the camps, but Christians tend to suffer most of all. They are seen as a particular threat by the regime. They alone are not sentenced to a specific number of years. They are imprisoned as long as they keep their faith. If they renounce their faith and acknowledge Kim Il-sung, the former North Korean leader, and Kim Jong-il, the present leader, as the supreme power, they may walk free. They can go if they give up their faith. In addition, prison guards are promoted if they succeed in rehabilitating a Christian prisoner. This gives them a particular incentive to target Christians with beatings, torture, harsh labour, rape and other unspeakable treatment. In the report to which I referred from Christian Solidarity Worldwide there is a description of a former prisoner who saw a guard pour molten iron over living Christians because they would not renounce their faith.
The Jubilee Campaign is one of several human rights organisations calling for stronger international action to protect North Korean refugees in China. The US human rights organisation, Human Rights Watch, released a report in November last year entitled, The Invisible Exodus: North Koreans in the People's Republic of China. In that report, a former North

1551
Korean prison guard gave detailed testimony about how the North Korean authorities deal with repatriated refugees. He said:
"They investigated whether the repatriated people had any relationship with South Korea. If a person met South Koreans or reporters or wrote articles, or attended church or escaped after committing a crime in North Korea, they would be secretly killed".
In 2000 a Korean pastor accused the North Korean regime of committing genocide against its own people. The clergyman, who preferred to remain anonymous for security reasons, made those comments in Germany at an annual Christian meeting. He pointed out that a million political prisoners and more than 100,000 Christians had to vegetate in concentration camps. According to the Korean pastor, the North Korean regime regards Christians as major enemies. Anyone caught with a Bible is dealt with as a South Korean spy and shot immediately. He said that 400 Christians had been executed in 1999. Many persecuted Christians are among those fleeing North Korea to China as refugees.
There can be no doubt that the forced repatriation of North Korean refugees from China puts them at serious risk of severe persecution and death. The international community should not simply stand idly by while hundreds of thousands of refugees' lives are put in grave danger by the actions of the Chinese and North Korean authorities. I hope that the British Government will take the action that I have suggested previously.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, the problems posed to the international community by North Korea are pressing and urgent. They may have been temporarily masked by the consuming preoccupation with Iraq but they are none the less real; and the need to address them effectively has not receded—rather the contrary. So it is timely that we should debate them in this House and that we should have an opportunity to hear the views of the Government on how they will be addressed. If I focus on the international security aspects, it is not out of lack of concern for human rights in North Korea, which can best be described, as the two speakers who preceded me have shown, as virtually non-existent, but because time does not permit me to do justice to two such complex issues.
In North Korea we have a country that voluntarily, if somewhat belatedly, signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Since then it has systematically and aggressively flouted the provisions of that treaty as well as those of the bilateral agreements that it entered into with the United States in 1994 after its breach of international obligations had been brought to the notice of the United Nations Security Council by the then director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Dr Hans Blix.
We may not know precisely how far North Korea has progressed towards acquiring nuclear weapons and the means of their delivery, but its intention to do that hardly seems in doubt. Moreover, it is a country
1552
which committed an unprovoked aggression against its neighbour; which in the past has been involved in committing acts of international terrorism; and which exports huge quantities of sophisticated military equipment, apparently to anyone who is prepared to pay. There are no grounds for complacency there.
Nor does the threat to international security stop there. A North Korea that has simply got away with flouting its international obligations and acquired a nuclear arsenal would have a profoundly destabilising effect on the whole north-east Asia and Pacific region. One only has to recall the number of countries in that region that possess the technical capacity to develop nuclear weapons, but have forsworn the right to do so—Japan, South Korea, Taiwan—to realise just how dangerous the situation could become if it is not now checked. The global implications for the whole nuclear non-proliferation regime of a country which, unlike countries like India, Pakistan and Israel, had forsworn nuclear weapons, but has now clandestinely acquired them and had got away with it, would be extremely far-reaching and totally negative.
So what is to be done now that the International Atomic Energy Agency has, quite rightly, come again to the Security Council to put the facts before it? On one thing there seems to be consensus: a diplomatic solution should be sought before anything else is tried. That must be right. But let us not delude ourselves that the practice of diplomacy with a country such as North Korea is simple or straightforward.
I recall from my own experience during the last nuclear crisis with North Korea in the early 1990s just how difficult and frustrating it can be. I remember listening to a lengthy exposé from the North Korean ambassador to the United Nations about the unprovoked attack his country suffered from the South at the outset of the Korean war. He was slightly at a loss to explain how his country's army ended up in the middle of the next-door neighbour's country; but he was quite sure that North Korea had been the victim of aggression. I remember the exposé being repeated several times when I had the temerity to suggest that the facts were not quite as the ambassador had suggested.
I also recall the frequent accusations of "aggression" and "act of war" if one suggested even that some airing of the issue in the Security Council might be worth while. That is Alice in Wonderland diplomacy, not the normal variety; by that I mean that one is dealing with people who say, "It is so because I say it is so".
One thing is clear: for diplomacy to be effective, it will require the wholehearted co-operation of China and Russia. Both countries have the capacity either to strengthen or to frustrate any diplomatic initiative. Both have a major interest in avoiding the nuclearisation of the Korean peninsula, in avoiding wider nuclear proliferation in the region, and, above all, in avoiding any escalation of the present critical situation beyond diplomacy. But their co-operation cannot be taken for granted. So, if the United States wishes to avoid being dragged into a bilateral negotiation with North Korea, in which it is pressed to

1553
make concessions as a pre-condition for North Korea to stop breaching its international legal obligations—and I have much sympathy with the view of the United States that it must avoid that—it will need to work closely at every stage with China, Russia and its own regional allies and not startle them with unilateral decisions and departures.
The other point to make about the search for a diplomatic solution is that, now that the IAEA has passed the matter to the Security Council, there is no choice between a multilateral and a bilateral approach. Both tracks must be pursued. An exclusively multilateral approach is not likely to produce results on its own, if only because of North Korea's suspicion and dislike of anything emanating from the United Nations. But nor is an exclusively bilateral approach likely to be fully effective. In hindsight, the US decision in 1994 to drop a multilateral approach and to pursue a purely bilateral one was not a good choice and did not produce lasting results. So bilateral and regional diplomacy need to be fitted together with an approach at the United Nations that addresses the wider, global implications of the problem. They should be mutually reinforcing, not contradictory.
It is now fashionable in some quarters in the United States to deride multilateral arms control regimes and the inspection systems that go with them. They are not in themselves a panacea, nor do they guarantee effective security. But let us not forget that it was Dr Blix's inspectors who first blew the whistle on North Korea's nuclear programme hack in 1993 when they discovered that quantities of nuclear material containing potentially recoverable plutonium were unaccounted for.
It is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and North Korea's membership of it that provide the legal base for any action, diplomatic or otherwise, that the international community might want to take. Should diplomatic action succeed in bringing North Korea back into the observance of rules guaranteeing that only civil applications of nuclear activity will be pursued, those same IAEA inspectors will have to police any undertakings entered into. After all, the North Koreans are unlikely to admit American inspectors.
So we must neither throw out the baby with the bath water nor misconstrue the real nature of the problems that we face over weapons of mass destruction. It is not the international multilateral obligations that are at fault or cause the problems, although they are not, as I said, sufficient on their own to prevent them. The problems arise because certain governments are determined to break their obligations and, above all, because we have yet to find fully effective ways of enforcing the obligations within a framework of international law. It is to that last dilemma that we must now address ourselves more actively and imaginatively than in the past.
Britain and the European Union have only a modest role to play in handling the problems posed by North Korea. Others have more influence and more clout in that part of' the world and are more directly concerned.
1554
However, we should not delude ourselves that the outcome will not affect us. That was the mistake made when the League of Nations looked the other way from Japan's activities in Manchuria in the 1930s.
It will be good to hear from the Minister how the Government see Britain, as a permanent member of the Security Council, and the European Union helping with the active diplomacy that must now, without delay, be put in hand.
8 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Alton of Liverpool for introducing the debate.
As my noble friend said, North Korea has suffered under regimes of a Stalinist character ever since the war ended in 1953. Not surprisingly, there are an estimated 1 million prisoners in about 200 camps, out of a population of only 22 million. Many prisoners are subjected to forced labour until they die. Despite or perhaps because of the state philosophy of self-reliance, the country cannot feed itself adequately. For several years, there have been severe food shortages. Famine relief supplies from other countries have been refused or stockpiled for government use.
Believers of all kinds have suffered greatly. Buddhism is semi-tolerated, and there are 60 temples, although many of those are little more than cultural showplaces. The 3,000 thriving Christian churches that existed in 1945 have been reduced to three. All of them—two Protestant and one Roman Catholic—are in Pyongyang. Even those remaining churches are reported often to be locked and are re-opened only for the benefit of foreign visitors. Some Christians have been executed for the offence of merely owning a bible. It is estimated that Christians comprise about 100,000 of the million people in the prison camps. Former guards who have escaped say that the Christians are often more harshly treated than others.
The tyranny and persecution that I have described have forced many to flee. Some have tried to leave by boat, but more have been successful in escaping by land into China. There, a large Christian or semi-Christian population of Korean stock is potentially sympathetic to the refugees. Estimates of the number of those who have succeeded in hiding themselves in China vary from 200,000 to 300,000.
The Chinese authorities recently decided to send back those whom they can discover. Those forcibly repatriated risk torture, execution or the labour camps. Sending them back constitutes a refoulement of genuine refugees who have crossed an international frontier. This winter, China is reported to have sent back 3,200 refugees in two months. Others are still in prison, awaiting forced return.
Fortunately, China has signed the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees. The Chinese Government are, therefore, responsible for the protection of those who have reached their territory and for meeting their humanitarian needs. In addition, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and China have agreed a bilateral treaty providing for unimpeded access in China and for dispute resolution via binding

1555
arbitration. Will Her Majesty's Government urge the UNHCR to seek access to all refugees in China and invoke arbitration, if that request is not granted?
The British Government are a major donor to the UNHCR and should, if necessary, reinforce their requests by specifically designating part of their donation for the benefit of North Korean refugees in China. Japan is the second largest donor in the world to the UNHCR. If necessary, will the Government ask Japan to make a similar designation of funds? That would certainly have the support of some Japanese non-governmental organisations concerned with refugees in the event of a request to their Government.
I conclude on the wider issues of basic human rights by asking the Government to study—if they have not already done so—the Statement of Principles on US/North Korean relations. That came from a distinguished group of American citizens and was reported on 18th January. In brief, it asked for a multilateral dialogue with North Korea, discussing simultaneously arms control, humanitarian relief and development, plus human rights. That closely follows the model of the Helsinki negotiations of the 1970s, which so greatly helped to end the Cold War and eventually to bring democracy to the former Soviet Union and its satellites. Will the Government discuss such an approach with the American Government? I very much hope that they will and urge them in that direction.
8.6 p.m.
Lord Chan: My Lords, I add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Alton of Liverpool on drawing the attention of your Lordships' House to the threat posed by North Korea to international security and to the human rights of its citizens. His record of concern for human rights in communist countries is well known. I consider it a privilege to join him and other noble Lords in this crucial debate that has particular significance for peace in East Asia.
I shall focus on the desperate plight of North Korean refugees in China and the intense anti-Christian persecution taking place in North Korea. In so doing, I declare my interest as chairman of the Chinese Overseas Christian Mission—a 50 year-old United Kingdom charity now based in Milton Keynes. I also acknowledge the valuable help of Wilfred Wong from the Jubilee Campaign.
North Korea has one of the worst human rights records in the world because of its autocratic leader who uses torture and forced labour camps to achieve the compliance of his citizens to his rule. Widespread famine since the turn of the 21st century has led to approximately 300,000 refugees fleeing North Korea into China.
Relationships between China and North Korea are tense. Therefore, the Chinese Government have responded to this large influx of refugees by forced repatriation to North Korea. During December 2002 and January this year, 3,200 North Korean refugees were repatriated. On crossing the border into their
1556
homeland these refugees were randomly arrested, tortured for fleeing North Korea, imprisoned and some executed for disgracing the reputation of their country and their leader.
A Chinese resident living on the North Korean border with China wrote to an overseas organisation describing the plight of North Korean refugees in Northern China:
"The refugees dare not give themselves up to the Chinese authorities for fear of repatriation. As a result some have died of starvation and exposure. Young female refugees sell themselves as prostitutes and others become slave labourers. When detected by Chinese police, many refugees commit suicide".
Humanitarian relief groups delivering food and clothing to North Korean refugees in north-eastern China have been hampered by a police crackdown after scores of refugees sought asylum in foreign diplomatic missions in China.
British human rights groups, including the Jubilee Campaign, have been calling on the United Nations High Commission for Refugees to fulfil its duty to protect North Korean refugees. Stronger international action is needed to convince the Chinese authorities to stop repatriating North Korean refugees. The UNHCR must do more to enforce its bilateral treaty with China through binding arbitration.
The UNHCR is currently not being allowed free access to North Korean refugees in China. These refugees are being denied their basic rights under international law to apply for asylum through the UNHCR. Like the noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Clarke of Hampstead, I appeal to the Minister to use Her Majesty's Government's influence on the UNHCR to insist on free access to North Korean refugees in China.
Finally, I want to focus on one of the many aspects of human rights violations in North Korea; namely, intense and systematic anti-Christian persecution by the state. Other speakers have given statistics. I shall focus on 23 Christians in North Korea who were reported to have been executed for their faith in the six months between October 1999 and April 2000. According to a US State Department report from witnesses before the US Congress in April 1999, those imprisoned for their religious beliefs were treated far worse than other prisoners.
A former prison guard in North Korea testified that prisoners believing in God were regarded as insane. He remembered an incident when a women prisoner was viciously beaten and kicked for praying for a child who was being abused in the prison. I therefore urge the Minister to raise the concerns of Her Majesty's Government with the North Korean authorities about the severe persecution of North Korean Christians and to take other appropriate measures to ensure that this persecution is stopped.
8.11 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Derby: My Lords, at this time of heightened tension in the Korean peninsula and crisis over the future of Iraq, our thoughts and prayers are with those who are suffering at the hands of unjust,

1557
oppressive regimes and with those who are charged with the momentous decisions affecting their future. The opening up, last June, of North and South Korean reunification talks makes the timing of this debate propitious.
Much of the focus in this short debate has been on human rights violations in the benighted land of North Korea. I am grateful to noble Lords who have shared accounts and evidence about Christians. I want to add my voice to those who have spoken on behalf of those who have endured, and still endure, so much suffering at the hands of the regime of Kim Jong-il.
The Korean Church grew in the late 18th century through the influence of Chinese Christian writings on young Korean intellectuals; it was initially a Church without clergy or Western mission agencies. In 1785, a French connection led to the first baptisms. There followed two centuries in which the Church was often underground, with many thousands of martyrs.
During the 20th century, more happily, the Church grew throughout the Korean peninsula. In the south, it continues to be vibrant and numerous: some 12 million out of the total population of 48 million.
The picture in the north is altogether different. Before the Korean War the north had already suffered Stalinist religious oppression following the Second World War. The US-based Cornerstone Ministries observe that since 1953, the end of the Korean War, some 2,300 congregations have disappeared.
Accounts shared this evening resonate with the US State Department's 1999 annual report on international religious freedom. which states that in North Korea,
"genuine religious freedom does not exist".
Some who have escaped tell of how they had never seen a church or a bible before leaving the country. They tell of how those in camps and prisons are kept in horrific, overcrowded conditions. Lee Soon Ok, aged 55 and not a Christian, spent seven years in a political prison camp. Safe now, I quote her words:
"The torture and the worst ways of execution were most harsh on the Christians. They didn't give them clothes. They were considered animals".
Others described witnessing Christians refusing to recant their faith and being publicly, arbitrarily executed.
I speak as a bishop moved by the suffering of sister and brother Christians, but my concern is far from special pleading—religious liberty must be defended as a universal human right. In contrast, in North Korea to be a Christian is said to be a serious crime.
Capricious treatment has created a culture of terror. The practice of torture and violations of the right to life appear to be frequent and systemic. Propaganda is pervasive; even freedom of thought is invaded. Any action or statement deemed to fall short of total support for the regime is harshly suppressed.
We have a duty to speak out on the basis of what reaches us about this intolerable situation. The new talk of possible north/south reunification opens windows of hope and opportunities for the
1558
international community to examine first hand these allegations of massive and serial abuses of human rights.
Prompted by this debate, I spoke today to the Secretary General of the Anglican Communion, Canon John Peterson, who has very recently visited South Korea, where he met with the Reunification Committee of the Council of Churches of South Korea. New work is getting under way. The churches in the south perceive signs of change for churches in the north. There is a long way to go, but let us seize opportunities to obtain first hand possibly more reliable information from the north. The churches are well placed to become channels for aid and for dialogue.
Let us here, in partnerships, make the new prominence of North Korea on the world agenda an occasion to work together, addressing endemic suffering and persecution wherever they are found.
8.17 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I add my thanks to those extended to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his initiative in prompting this debate, which is of great importance. I add my congratulations also for his persistent commitment to human rights in all parts of the world and the sheer energy and determination with which he pursues the rights of our fellow human beings.
We have heard extremely moving accounts of the human rights position in North Korea. It is perhaps worth adding to that terrible litany—one which makes even Dante's Inferno seem like an attractive place in comparison—the fact that we should recognise the sheer courage of North Korean Christians and, for all I know, other religious believers too, in being such an example to the rest of us in such terrible conditions and situations.
Before I turn to the main thrust of my speech I wish to say that I hope that our own Churches will give greater recognition than has been given so far to what the right reverend Prelate so rightly called the martyrs of Korea. It is, indeed, in the tradition of what happened in the 19th century that today in the 21st century in North Korea religious believers maintain their dedication in the face of the most tremendous oppression and bitter treatment.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, however, I want to pursue a little further the very serious challenge that North Korea presents to the peace of the world. I refer to one dimension that we have perhaps not talked about quite as much as others. A number of speakers referred rightly to North Korea as a Stalinist state. It is the correct description because it implies an element of paranoia which goes beyond even the cruelties of extreme ideological politics. There is clearly an element of paranoia in North Korea, exemplified not least by the way in which the former leader is treated as some kind of secular god. People are forced literally to worship his corpse because that has become a test of loyalty of a kind that makes the worship of Lenin's corpse look almost modest in comparison.

1559
It is also important to say that North Korea, even more than the Soviet Union in its worst years, is an almost totally isolated state. There is virtually no exchange of peoples, academics or scientists, between North Korea and the outside world, and no tourism. Their government have chosen deliberately to imprison it within the borders of that country. Frankly—it is easier for me to say this than for the noble Baroness, Lady Symons—it is one of the most difficult countries in the world to influence in any way. It does not wish to be influenced. It divorces itself from the international community. Up to now it is not clear that it wishes to be part in any sense of the international community.
As did the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, I sum up the security challenges. I believe them to be even worse than he implied. This is a country which has expelled United Nations inspectors; started up a frozen nuclear reactor at Yongbyon; sought to enrich uranium; test fired cruise missiles in the past few weeks alone; proposes to test a medium-range missile, and the so-called Taepo Dong-2 missile which has intermediate capacity and, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, can reach all the major cities of Japan; is currently threatening its neighbours; has left the nuclear proliferation treaty; and has been shown to be out of compliance with UN regulations related to it. It is, I believe, a more dangerous and worse case even than that of Iraq.
What is particularly troubling is that in the past few weeks North Korea has specifically issued to the world outside clear threats and indicated its willingness to violate its neighbour's air space. Let me quote the chilling words of the spokesman for the Foreign Ministry of North Korea.
"The United States says that after Iraq, we are next".
said Mr Ri Pyong-gap, the deputy director of the Foreign Ministry,
"but we have our own countermeasures. Pre-emptive attacks are not the exclusive right of the US".
I declare an interest as a member of the Belfer Centre for Science and International Affairs at Harvard. Ashton Carter, the former Assistant Secretary for Defence charged by the United States with special responsibility for discovering the security position and how far it is challenged in North Korea, mentioned a few days ago to the United States Senate that five or six nuclear bombs were within weeks of being built on the basis of the fuel rods removed from the Pyongyang nuclear reactor and now moved out of the scope of such inspection as there might have been had the inspectors not been expelled which makes verification almost impossible. Mr Carter reckons that not only can North Korea make up to five or six nuclear bombs in a relatively short period of time but—I quote his extremely troubling words—
"North Korea might sell plutonium it judges excess to its own needs to other states or terrorist groups".
As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, one of the only exports of North Korea happens to be weapons of mass destruction and other sophisticated weapons. It
1560
is almost certainly the most dangerous state in the world in terms of its willingness to consider such sales to other countries in succession to the many sales of highly dangerous weapons it has already made.
What is the impact on the region? The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, referred to this very serious matter. As he said, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and other neighbours foreswore developing their own nuclear capacity many years ago, and all of them have abided by that commitment. None of them has attempted to build or start at all on the process of developing nuclear weapons. That has been extremely important for peace in the Pacific, not least because there have been some obvious areas of tension, of which China and Taiwan is only one. However, the Japanese were recently so frightened by the evident development of weapons of mass destruction in North Korea and by the means of delivery associated with that, which might bring such weapons within its neighbours' area, that Mr Shigeru Ishiba, Japan's Defence Minister, said:
"Our nation will use military force as a self-defence measure if North Korea starts to resort to arms against Japan".
Already, the non-proliferation regime in the Pacific is seriously threatened because of North Korea's threats.
The evidence produced in studies by Mr Carter and others suggests that North Korea has embarked on serious attempts to produce biological weapons such as anthrax and the plague. I am concerned more about North Korea than about Iraq, because North Korea has no inspectors but it does have the means of delivery.
What can be done? It is clear that North Korea was troubled by the association of its name with others in the "axis of evil" speech, and regards itself as under attack. I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Alton, that we should pursue the diplomatic track, as we are doing. However, we should recognise that North Korea must be persuaded that it cannot be attacked, as the counterpart to moving towards an era of denuclearisation in that country. I do not hold out great hopes of that happening. but we should pursue the possibility of containment much more vigorously than we have done.
8.27 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, as so often, the House owes a large debt to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for raising again an issue of immense timeliness. He did so with a mass and wealth of detail and reinforcing evidence that must have chilled us all—and is right to do so.
I have no doubt that North Korea is a growing threat to international security. Those who think that the Korean peninsula will be reunited like West and East Germany are living under an illusion; I see no prospect of early or happy unification. The situation is quite different.
I shall concentrate on the security situation, not because other aspects are not equally crucial but because the noble Lords, Lord Alton, Lord Chan and Lord Clarke, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop

1561
of Derby, have given us as eloquently as anyone could the details of the appalling torture, human rights abuses, refugee problems, religious persecution and all the other medieval and dark habits and customs of this pathetic, isolated but dangerous state.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, reminded us about recent security transgressions, such as the resumed uranium enrichment, the reactivated plutonium-based nuclear plant, the jet fighters cruising into South Korean air space, and missiles of various shapes and sizes being fired into the Sea of Japan and near Japan. As several noble Lords said, North Korea is a huge supplier of missiles and weapons of various evil kinds to world markets. Even more notably, it has withdrawn from the non-proliferation treaty at a delicate time, and a nuclear bomb is probably not very far away, as we have heard in reports. We have all been given various estimates; I was told that by July North Korea will have enough plutonium to build five or seven weapons. That is close to what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said.
What do we do—a question which the noble Baroness. Lady Williams, rightly raised? When I was in Tokyo the other day, a senior US official sighed and said. "What do we do? There are four options, all of them bad", and went on to wring his hands. The sad thing about all this is that, until a year or two back, or maybe a month back, the North Koreans seemed to be getting a little more co-operative. There were the links with Seoul. There was the Koizumi visit and the bizarre release of the abducted Japanese who were allowed to return to Tokyo for a while. It is in the past few months—maybe it is related to the distraction of Iraq; I do not know—that Pyongyang and the North Koreans have begun to behave like a difficult child wanting attention on the world stage or perhaps seeing what they can get away with while others focus on the Middle East.
I think that the Americans and all others recognise—I hope that we recognise it—that doing nothing is not an option. It would be easy to hope that it will all go away. However, the "do nothing" option means that others who do not want to start acting will overreact. The pressure will be particularly on the Japanese leadership, although they hate the idea, to go nuclear or at least to develop a full antiballistic missile system to protect themselves. I think that that would be the inevitable and rather rapid consequence of the evidence that the world was going to do nothing very much for the moment.
On the other hand, I think that the Americans are totally right not to be dragged into a sort of bilateral blackmail session by the North Koreans, although they have been urged to go that way. The truth is that as long as you pay the Danegeld, you never get rid of the Danes. That would certainly be so if the Americans got into that sort of bilateral deal with Pyongyang.
It seems to me that the sine qua non of any progress on the diplomatic side is that North Korea must close down the HEU and plutonium reactor programme before any question of a deal, compensation, new angles or reassurance is provided in any form of talks,
1562
whether bilateral or on the five-and-five basis that others are urging. In other words, diplomacy yes—but the diplomacy must be tough and there must be no nonsense about the Americans being cajoled into signing some non-aggression pact on North Korean terms.
Nor should the message somehow get out that North Korea is "safe" because it nearly has nuclear weapons and already has missiles. That would of course be sending the most terrible message to the rest of the world that countries that were in the near-nuclear state or had nuclear weapons or were heading that way—and we all know that several others are trying to—somehow become safe and have to be handled with kid gloves. Great care has to be taken, not for the nuclear reason, but because of sheer geography. North Korea is extremely near Seoul. It does not need nuclear weapons. It hardly needs missiles. It just needs to chuck the weaponry that it does have over the border to threaten Seoul, one of the world's greatest cities. So there is an immense danger. Any approach has to bear that in mind.
What would one suggest? It seems to me that this is, as the Chinese say, both a crisis and an opportunity. It is an opportunity to bring minds in Beijing and in Moscow to focus on the problem of this rogue state. I should like to think that the beginning of a tough diplomacy would be for Beijing, Moscow and Washington to agree to guarantee the stability of the whole peninsula. I think that that probably has to be how the diplomacy starts. Then would have to follow the moves by the North Koreans—that will be the difficult bit for these people in their prickly state—which is to give up their HEU and plutonium programmes and possibly draw down their enormous conglomeration of troops on the DMZ border. That is a place where UK diplomacy—if our diplomats have the energy and the time off from dealing with all their other problems—could play a role. We have an embassy and a conduit passage—a link system for passing messages to the North Koreans. I believe that we could play a useful linking role in this kind of unfolding stage diplomacy.
After that I believe that it would be time not for giving into blackmail, because it would not he that, but for Japan to restore normal relations and think about compensation. There is still a substantial case in the eyes of both South and North Koreans for some kind of payback for the atrocities which Japan committed during the world war. I believe that that is a reasonable item to resurrect in the context of any sign that North Korea is beginning to see sense and is being co-operative.
I believe that that is the kind of diplomacy which might be worth trying. I had a chance to talk to Mr Koizumi a few weeks ago. I was immensely impressed by how calmly he was looking at this situation and how he emphasised that one of the keys was partnership with China and that things had to be taken very gradually and carefully which, considering that Tokyo is only 1,000 kilometres from Pyongyang and well within missile range, was creditable.

1563
We greatly look forward to hearing the noble Baroness's view of how the Government see the possibilities. If that procedure fails, sterner measures will have to be applied. That may mean sanctions, which North Korea said that it would regard as a hostile act. After all, China provides 80 per cent of North Korea's fuel and the US is a major food donor. The ambivalence of the South Koreans over US troops does not help. At first they wanted them to go and now they want them to stay.
All in all, North Korea must be dealt with. As I said earlier, inaction is not an option. One hopes for compliance—if it is the right sequence of carrots and sticks—and a better life for all Koreans before the world is forced to fall back and consider much tougher measures and the far greater dangers that go with them.
8.37 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for raising the Question of North Korea in your Lordships' House this evening.
While so much international attention currently focuses on Iraq, he is right to remind us that it is important that we remember that we face in North Korea another serious challenge to international security and to the international efforts to restrain and counter the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. I thank the noble Lord very much for his well-researched and excellent contribution this evening.
North Korea is a uniquely isolated country, so graphically described by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. She is absolutely right. It is a country which has often appeared even to make isolation a matter of almost national pride and national philosophy. That self-imposed isolation has continued against the background of the shifting landscape of the rest of the world in the post-cold war era.
On the principal issues of this debate, proliferation and human rights, North Korea's record is undoubtedly utterly abysmal. All noble Lords this evening have provided substantial evidence of that. Perhaps I may add to some of the points made on the nuclear programme. North Korea admitted in discussions with US officials in early October that it had been pursuing a clandestine uranium enrichment programme. However, we have no hard evidence that North Korea has actually produced nuclear weapons. But I say to the noble Lord. Lord Howell, that we assess that they have sufficient fissile material already to make one or two nuclear weapons and the technical capability to produce them. So it is a very grim picture indeed.
Perhaps I may pick up on some of the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, made about missiles. North Korea has some hundreds of Scud missiles in service with ranges of up to 500 kilometres. It can produce these itself and, appallingly, they are available for export. Also in service are No Dong missiles, with a
1564
range of up to 1,300 kilometres. In August 1998. North Korea launched a three-stage Taepo-Dong 1 as a satellite launch vehicle, which demonstrated that North Korea could produce a missile with a range of 2,000 kilometres and expertise in multi-stage missile technology. The Taepo Dong-2 is also under development and it is assessed that variants could have ranges in excess of 5,000 and 10,000 kilometres. This is indeed an extraordinary weapons programme.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked about the UK position on negotiations. Engagement with North Korea is enormously difficult, but it is necessary in order to encourage North Korea to become a responsible member of the international community, from which it is so isolated. We decided to establish diplomatic relations with North Korea in December 2000 and to open an embassy in Pyongyang in July 2001. We are convinced that it is better to talk to each other rather than past each other. We are still trying to do so—even given the difficult position described by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams.
The noble Lords, Lord Alton, Lord Hannay and Lord Howell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, outlined the events that led to the current situation on the Korean peninsula and the threat posed by North Korea to regional stability and international security. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, implied, the agreed framework was a solution, but only temporary. It contained the problem but certainly did not solve it. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that the regime has become much more aggressive recently. We believe that that stems from the admission about its uranium enrichment programme last October. Since then, North Korea has taken a number of increasingly provocative steps—as clearly indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. North Korea insists that the issue can be resolved only with the United States, through bilateral dialogue and agreement on a non-aggression treaty.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked whether the Government believe that that matter can be dealt with bilaterally. We do not think that it is a bilateral issue between North Korea and the United States, as North Korea claims. I agree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Howell. The issue is of deep concern to the entire international community and one that we hope can be resolved in a peaceful way through multi-lateral dialogue—as a number of your Lordships indicated. As a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council and a depository state of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the UK has a role to play in resolving the issue alongside and in support of countries with a particular and immediate stake in the stability of the region—the Republic of Korea of course, Japan and the United States.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that we believe in the importance of proceeding with others in the region. We are closely engaged with them as well as with Russia and China. We will play a full role in the United Nations Security Council discussions that are likely to take place in the near future. All speakers in this evening's rather solemn debate would agree with the Government that the Security Council should send

1565
a firm message to the North Koreans. We should make it clear that North Korea can choose to co-operate and to engage—but also that if it chooses not to engage, the Security Council is prepared to look at tougher measures.
Tougher measures are by far the less attractive approach and imply a policy of containment, which would postpone rather than solve the issue. We all want a durable solution. We believe that there remains the possibility of persuading the North Koreans to sit down with their neighbours and the other countries concerned and talk constructively about the future security of the region—in much the way that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, indicated. While we believe that, we can and must look for a peaceful and diplomatic solution to the problem. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that bilateral pressure has to be applied as well as the multilateral pressure to which many of your Lordships referred.
I turn to human rights. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, my noble friend Lord Clarke, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and the noble Lord, Lord Chan, spoke passionately and knowledgeably about the widespread serious violations of human rights in North Korea, including the appalling use of the death penalty, hideous tortures, the dreadful labour camps, the sanatoria for non-conformists and the extreme religious persecution on which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby focused. The regime has a shocking and brutal human rights record.
The need to acquire reliable information on human rights is one of the driving factors behind our policy of engagement with North Korea. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Clarke for his detailed descriptions of human rights abuses. Such evidence is extremely valuable. We raise this issue regularly, although noble Lords will know that the nuclear issue has inevitably taken away the focus from human rights in North Korea. That is regrettable, but it is a fact of life. It has been difficult to engage with the North Koreans on any issue other than nuclear proliferation over the past six months, important though human rights issues are. I assure your Lordships that the concerns expressed in the debate have not been forgotten by Her Majesty's Government. They are integral to any dialogue with North Korea.
We are also in regular contact with British and international NGOs, including those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Chan, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby. We deeply value the contribution and commitment of the NGOs in contact with us and we will continue to discuss with them ways in which we can work together on these issues.
A number of noble Lords, in particular my noble friend Lord Clarke, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, the noble Lord, Lord Chan, and the right reverend Prelate, focused on Christians in North Korea. Most recently, the new ambassador to North Korea, David Slinn, expressed concern about the situation during a high-level introductory call in December last year. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has financed a human rights training course for North Korean
1566
Government officials in the United Kingdom and hopes to build on it with the DPRK authorities this year.
As your Lordships would expect—I hope it goes without saying, but I want it on the record—I make it clear that we condemn all instances where individuals are persecuted because of their faith or belief wherever they are and whatever religion they practise. I agree with the right reverend Prelate that the issue goes wider than Christians, but as we have heard Christians in particular are suffering deplorable treatment in the camps.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, raised the role of the EU. At last year's meeting of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights the EU presidency statement clearly reflected the European Union's deep concern about continued and serious violations of human rights in North Korea. If the EU decides that there is no evidence of any improvement since last year we will consider further action during this year.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, my noble friend Lord Clarke, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and the noble Lord, Lord Chan, urged the Government to take action in respect of the 1995 agreement between UNHCR and China. I understand the concerns expressed on this issue. As a bilateral agreement rather than a treaty it is for the parties involved to interpret their obligations. But noble Lords are right that we should exert pressure. I assure my noble friend Lord Clarke that we will continue to encourage greater co-operation on this issue between China and UNHCR at every opportunity.
Noble Lords also suggested that the Government should designate part of their contribution to UNHCR specifically for North Korean refugees in China. We believe that UNHCR is best placed to decide how and where to deploy these funds within its annual programme, but I draw to your Lordships' attention that DfID responds to direct appeals from UNHCR for assistance with specific short-term refugee emergency situations and long-term reintegration programmes. In 2002, our assistance amounted to almost £4 million. I listened carefully to the points raised by noble Lords on this issue and I undertake to go to my colleagues again in relation to it because I realise the widespread support it has around your Lordships' House.
This is indeed a terrible regime. Some will ask why we do not act now in the same way as we are acting over Iraq. Our underlying approach to Iraq and North Korea—indeed, to all other proliferation threats—is the same. We will pursue peaceful diplomatic means for as long as it is possible to do so, as was discussed by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. The fact is that our experience over 12 years of evasion and obfuscation from Iraq tells us that full co-operation is an unlikely outcome.
We are not approaching North Korea on the basis of 12 years of frustrated effort. The North Koreans tell us that they do not want to develop nuclear weapons. However, they said that at the same time as announcing their withdrawal from the NPT. Which

1567
may seem perverse and unconvincing to many noble Lords; frankly, it is pretty unconvincing to me as well. We will continue to engage with them and tell them that they are missing an opportunity to put things right with regard to their weapons of mass destruction and in respect of disarmament and the considerable concerns that noble Lords raised in relation to human rights. We may not persuade them. If we do not, we need to be ready to show that we can increase the diplomatic pressure.
1568
However, we will continue the efforts to convince North Koreans that their security lies not in nuclear weapons programmes, which further isolate them from the international community, but with deeper co-operation and integration with that community. We need to see a dramatic improvement in their record in terms of weapons of mass destruction and their appalling human rights record.
House adjourned at eight minutes before nine o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the

  European Parliament (Representation) Bill
  Thursday, 13th March 2003.
  The Committee met at half-past four of the clock.
  [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale) in the Chair.]
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale): Before I put the Question that the Title be postponed, it may be helpful to remind your Lordships of the procedure for today's Committee stage. Except in one important respect, our proceedings will be exactly as in a normal Committee of the Whole House. We shall go through the Bill clause by clause; noble Lords will speak standing; all Lords are free to attend and participate; and the proceedings will be recorded in Hansard. The one difference is that the House has agreed that there shall be no Divisions in a Grand Committee. Any issue on which agreement cannot he reached should be considered again at the Report stage when, if necessary, a Division may be called. Unless, therefore, an amendment is likely to be agreed to, it should be withdrawn.
  I should explain what will happen if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting. The Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division bells are rung and then resume after 10 minutes. For the avoidance of doubt, the Chairman's watch is always correct, even when it is wrong.
  Title postponed.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal) moved Amendment No. 1:
  Before Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
  "REFERENCES TO CHANGES UNDER COMMUNITY LAW
  (1) In this Part "change under Community law" (in relation to a change in the number of MEPs to be elected for the United Kingdom) means a change made by—

  (a) a treaty provision that is part of the Community Treaties; or

  (b) any provision of a Council Decision, or of any other instrument, made under a treaty provision that is part of the Community Treaties

  (2) In this Part a reference to a treaty provision being part of the Community Treaties is to it being, or being included in provisions which are, specified in section 1(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 (c. 68) by virtue of an amendment made by an Act (whether passed before or after this Act).
  (3) In this Part "treaty" includes any international agreement (however described) and a protocol or annex to a treaty or other international agreement."
  The noble Baroness said: This clause has been introduced by the Government to meet the concerns of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. In its report, it expressed the view that,
  "the scope of clause 4 should be expressly limited to changes arising out of Treaties which have already been the subject of an earlier Act of Parliament".
  The Government have accepted that recommendation and this clause has been drafted to achieve that end.
  Any treaty which itself provides for a change, or which authorises such a change to be made by a Council decision or other Community instrument, would need to be included in Section 1(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 by an amending Act before any change in the number of United Kingdom MEPs could be implemented in UK law under Clause 4.
  The protocol on enlargement annexed to the Treaty of Nice has already been included in the list of Community treaties in Section 1(2). Therefore, any change made by or under that protocol may be implemented under Clause 4.
  We believe that this clause will satisfy the recommendation of the Delegated Powers Committee and I commend it to the Committee. I beg to move.
  Baroness Rawlings: We welcome the Government's amendment. We are very supportive of their efforts to build on the consensus reached in another place. I have a few questions that I would like to put to the noble Baroness the Minister later on in the debate. On Amendment No. 1, however, I welcome the clarification that Clause 4 should apply only to changes arising out of the existing treaties and we support it.
  Lord Goodhart: We, too, welcome the amendment. We are pleased to see that the Government have accepted the advice of the committee.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Rennard moved Amendment No. 2:
  Before Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
  "RECOMMENDATION BY ELECTORAL COMMISSION RELATING TO METHODS OF ELECTION OF UNITED KINGDOM MEPS
  (1) Before making any recommendation as to the distribution of MEPs between the electoral regions under section 2, the electoral commission shall—

  (a) review the methods of election of MEPs currently used;

  (b) make an assessment of the efficiency of the methods of election in ensuring—

  (i) proportionality,

  accountability, and

  effectiveness of representation;

  (c) make such representations to the Lord Chancellor as it shall determine.

  (2) Any representation under this section must be published by the Electoral Commission and laid before Parliament by the Lord Chancellor."
  The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 2 goes to the heart of the issue of Britain's representation in the European Parliament. It is a little more fundamental than any of the issues we might consider today. Therefore, if Members of the Committee will forgive me, I will spend a little more time on this issue than on others.
  The amendment suggests that the Electoral Commission should have a significant role in determining the precise method of election, while Parliament has set the basic principle that it is to be a system of proportionality.
  It is appropriate, in my view, that the independent commission looks at the detail in an impartial way—rather than leaving the matter entirely to politicians, who may be accused of acting in a partisan way when setting our electoral laws.
  Three years ago, there was cross-party support for the establishment of the independent Electoral Commission. Noble Lords and Members in another place all argued it was right that recommendations about electoral laws should be made independently from politicians who may be dependant upon those laws.
  It was agreed that the broad principles should be determined by Parliament, but that detailed proposals for their implementation should be made by the commission. Parliament retains its right to vote on the details, but at least people can see openly where politicians are departing from the recommendations of an independent commission.
  The principle of proportional representation was accepted in 1998, although the precise system was not agreed in the House of Lords. Since then, the Electoral Commission has been created and it should be appropriate for it to consider some of the details.
  It is, of course, very concerned, as all democratic politicians should be, with low and falling turnout in elections. The 23 per cent turnout in 1999 reduced the legitimacy of those elections. I do not believe that making every vote of equal value in those elections—in other words, introducing PR—was itself the problem. However, I believe that people bitterly resented the degree of party control represented by the closed lists. The system puts much power with the parties and not enough with the voters.
  The principle of PR was included in the programmes of the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish and Welsh nationalist parties in the 1997 general election —parties that between them attracted well over 60 per cent of the vote and won over 70 per cent of the seats in the elected Chamber. So I do not think that it would be right to try to overturn the principle of proportionality. However, it would be right to allow the Electoral Commission to look at the details and perhaps conclude that, with minor adjustment to the system, we could make people feel a great deal happier about it.
  The issue of open or closed lists or a compromise system in which parties recommend lists and voters have at least the theoretical power to vary them could
  GC 32
  be considered. Details such as the operation of the mathematical quota system to determine the allocation of MEPs would be much better looked at by the commission. I have no doubt that when this issue was dealt with in 1998 it was not dealt with satisfactorily by the then Home Office procedures. Therefore, let us see what the Electoral Commission might have to say and then let Parliament consider those recommendations. I beg to move.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I cannot say that I am surprised to see this amendment, which was lost in another place, reappearing here. I sympathise and empathise with the reason that the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, felt it appropriate to raise it. I am aware of his anxiety to see a different voting system in place not just for elections in the European Parliament but for certain other UK elections. The new clause is an attempt to make a step towards that goal and it is therefore inappropriate in this Bill, whose focus is much narrower. Whatever the arguments for different voting systems, they go well beyond the scope of this Bill and, if they need airing at all, this is, in my view, neither the time nor the place to do that.
  The effect of the amendment would be to mire the Electoral Commission in a long and complex review of a system which Parliament put in place only five years ago after protracted and detailed debate. I remind Members of the Committee that to date there has been only one election under that system. That was successful. If the amendment were passed, it would delay the work of the commission on the redistribution of MEPs to a point which would threaten its delivery in time for the elections in 2004. This new clause is misconceived and out of place and I ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.
  Lord Rennard: I thank the Minister for that reply. I regret the narrow focus of the Bill. What has changed since 1998 is the establishment of the Electoral Commission. It is a shame not to use the commission to look at the first elections under the system in 1999. However, as a result of the procedure in this Committee, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 2 [Recommendations by Electoral Commission relating to changes in number of United Kingdom MEPs]:
  Lord Rennard moved Amendment No. 3:
  Page 2, line 28, at end insert—
  "( ) Northern Ireland is allocated at least three MEPs;"
  The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 deal again with maintaining a degree of consistency with the principle of proportionality and also with the effective representation of smaller regions.
  In the European Parliament, the number of MEPs allocated to each member state reflects largely the number of voters in that member state. But special provision is made for the smaller member states to have slightly greater representation than their voter numbers alone would suggest is their entitlement.
  This is necessary to ensure that the voice of smaller regions is not lost and that the basic principle of proportionality can be sustained. For this reason, it is right that Northern Ireland should continue to have three MEPs with only 1.2 million voters. With the STV system in Northern Ireland, this will ensure reasonable proportionality and allow Northern Ireland's voice to be heard effectively in the European Parliament.
  But the current proposals in the Bill could see the northern region, with almost 2 million voters, left with the same number of representatives in the European Parliament as Northern Ireland, but with a different voting system. The voting system that applies in the remainder of Great Britain is unlikely to maintain fair representation and proportionality within the region if there are only three seats. That could have a distorting effect on the proportionality of the result throughout the remainder of the country.
  Either the Labour Party, the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats could lose out as a result—but, more importantly, the region would lose out and the principle of having MEPs broadly representative of the voters in the region is put at considerable and unnecessary risk.
  Four MEPs is the barest minimum number to have a reasonable chance of ensuring proportionality within a region. The problem of ensuring proportionality is made more difficult by the quota system. I do not propose to deal with the matter in detail, but let us refresh our memory of the debate in 1998.
  In determining which of the various quota systems that could be used for turning the votes cast into seats allocated, the then Home Secretary, Mr Jack Straw, chose the d'Hondt system and made much of the fact that this was the system used in many other member states using list systems and that it delivered a proportional result for them.
  In these members states, however, the lists are generally much larger than they are in Great Britain and much larger than the three to which the northern region could be reduced. This quota system certainly should not be used for list elections for as few as three elected places. So, if the quota system remains as at present, the minimum number of MEPs in each list should be four. That is the simple and fair purpose of these amendments.
  I would again ask the Government to consider them in the light of these comments and in particular my remarks on quota systems. I appreciate that this is a technical issue. I would therefore be very happy if the Government might agree, by way of a further amendment, to let the Electoral Commission determine how best to sustain the agreed principle of proportionality within and across the regions, as well as the effective representation of each region. I beg to move.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The clause sets the minimum representation for any region after a redistribution exercise to three M EPs. The purpose of that is to ensure that there is fair representation while
  GC 34
  preserving a minimum amount of proportionality. The amendments to the clause raise the minimum threshold for representation in any region-except for Northern Ireland—to four MEPs. I recognise the intention of the amendment to ensure that representation in any region— except Northern Ireland—does not fall below four. However, in my view, the amendment strikes at the principle of fairness which underscores this part of the Bill.
  Of course, we will have to wait to see what the Electoral Commission recommends when it completes its review, but I think it is fairly clear that the north-east region of England is the most likely region to be affected by this, at least for 2004.
  The North East—with an electorate of just under 2 million—currently returns four MEPs and this figure may well reduce to three under the Bill's provisions, depending on the Electoral Commission's recommendations. But if the noble Lord's amendment were to be accepted, the North East region would continue to return four MEPs at the expense of an MEP from another region. The North East would therefore be over-represented and that other region under-represented. Electoral equality—that is, the ratio between MEPs and electors—would diverge even more across the regions of the UK and the job of the Electoral Commission in trying to equalise that ratio would be increased in difficulty. The amendments would also significantly cut down the Electoral Commission's flexibility.
  The Bill is structured to achieve, as far as possible, equality of representation across the UK, with the proviso—a safety net, if you like—that no region should fall below three MEPs. I cannot see a strong argument to treat any region of the UK differently from any other. Indeed, I see strong arguments in favour of treating them all similarly. To single out Northern Ireland on the face of the Bill as specifically and uniquely qualified to receive lesser representation than any other region seems to me to be unjustifiable and we could not support it.
  The basis of this Bill is equal treatment—as far as is possible—for each region, while preserving the safety net of a minimum number of three MEPs for all. There are compelling arguments to share the reductions equally between all the regions of the UK and not to let some regions benefit at the expense of others, while recognising a sensible minimum level of representation. We believe that the Bill strikes the right balance in that regard and I hope that upon consideration the noble Lord will see the wisdom of that argument and agree to withdraw his amendment.
  4.45 p.m.
  Lord Rennard: I thank the Minister for that reply. It seems to contain inconsistencies, however. While saying, for example, that every region should he treated equally, it is said that Northern Ireland should be treated differently. We appear to be saying that in Northern Ireland, with 1.2 million voters, three MEPs would be quite reasonable and each MEP would represent 400,000 voters. However, we are saying that

  GC 35
  as regards the northern region it would be wrong to suggest that there should be four MEPs for 2 million, where each would have 500,000 voters. There is clearly a difference between the treatment of Northern Ireland and the northern region.
  As Northern Ireland has the STV system, three is sufficient to ensure proportionality within the region. But under the regional list system, especially with the d'Hondt quota, four is the minimum required to ensure proper representation of the northern region, irrespective of the number of voters per MEP. On the basis I explained earlier, I ask the Government to consider whether the Electoral Commission should look at these technical issues of quota and the minimum number on a list to ensure proportionality. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4 [Order implementing changes in the number of United Kingdom MEPs]:
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 5:
  Page 3, line 33, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert—
  "(2A) An order making an amendment to section 1 of the 2002 Act may be made before the provision making the relevant change has entered into force.
  (2B) If the relevant change is made by a provision of a treaty, an order making such an amendment may also be made before that provision has become part of the Community Treaties and, if the treaty requires ratification, before it is ratified by the United Kingdom.
  (2C) But no amendment to section 1 of the 2002 Act may be made so as to come into force—

  (a) if the relevant change is made by a provision mentioned in section (References to changes in Community law)(1)(b), before that provision has entered into force; and

  (b) if the relevant change is made by a treaty provision, before that provision has both entered into force and become part of the Community Treaties.

  (2D) In subsections (2A) to (2C) "the relevant change", in relation to an order under this section amending section 1 of the 2002 Act, means the change under Community law being implemented by the order."
  The noble Baroness said: The purpose of Amendment No. 5 is to enable action to be taken to debate and put in place, although not bring into force, the order necessary to effect the change in the number of MEPs and their redistribution in advance of the Community law provisions making the change coming into force. The order cannot, however, be made before the relevant treaty change or Council decision has been agreed or adopted.
  This power is needed because the Treaty of Accession which will set the number of MEPs for 2004 will not come into force until 1st May 2004; only five or six weeks before the election. Furthermore, if one of the accession states should fail to ratify the treaty, a Council decision under the protocol on enlargement annexed to the Treaty of Nice will make a pro rata correction to the number of MEPs which could also
  GC 36
  enter into force at a similarly late stage. For the same reasons, Amendment No. 5 will also enable a Clause 4 order to be debated and made, but not to come into force, before the Act amending the European Communities Act to include a relevant treaty provision has come into force.
  We expect, however, to know what the numbers will be shortly after all the referendums in ratifying states are completed in September 2003. Clearly, all those with an interest in elections will want to know what the position will be as soon as they can, so that planning for campaigning can begin and administrative arrangements can be made. We therefore expect to be able to debate and make the order well in advance of 1st May 2004, even though it will not come into force until that date.
  Amendment No. 5 therefore solves a small timing problem, and will enable the political parties' candidates and electoral administrators to proceed on a firm basis early in 2004.
  Amendment No. 6 simply moves two subsections displaced by Amendment No. 5 to a more logical place in Clause 5, consistent with similar provisions in Clauses 12 and 17. I beg to move.
  Baroness Rawlings: I am grateful for the clarification that the amendment provides and that the Minister has given. We support its inclusion in the Bill.
  Lord Goodhart: We, too, support the amendment.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 5 [Section 4: supplementary]:
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 6:
  Page 3, line 40, at end insert—
  "(2A) Such an order may make consequential. transitional or saving provision.
  (2B) Provision made under subsection (2A) may modify any enactment."
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 6 agreed to.
  The Schedule [Schedule 1A to the 2002 Act]:
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 7:
  Page 15, line 1, leave out second "not" and insert "to"
  The noble Baroness said: The amendment simply attends to a fairly obvious typographical error. I hope that we need not spend any time correcting or debating it. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.
  Clause 9 [Electoral Commission recommendation as to the electoral region to be combined with Gibraltar]:
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 8:

  GC 37
  Page 5, line 16, leave out "and the Chief Minister" and insert ", the Chief Minister and the leader of each political party represented in the House of Assembly"
  The noble Baroness said: Clause 9(2) requires the Electoral Commission to consult the Governor and the Chief Minister of Gibraltar before making its recommendation to the Lord Chancellor about which electoral region Gibraltar should be combined with for the purposes of the European Parliament elections.
  The choice of region with which Gibraltar will make up a combined region is a key element in achieving the enfranchisement of the people of Gibraltar, and one which the Government recognise will be very close to the hearts of the people of Gibraltar and the Government of Gibraltar. There will be many others too with a keen and legitimate interest in the matter, in both Gibraltar and the United Kingdom, but we do not think that it is necessary to have what purports to be a comprehensive list of consultees in the Bill.
  There are two very good reasons for that. The Electoral Commission intends to consult widely within both England and Wales and Gibraltar to enable it to receive views from as wide a range of interests as possible. In particular, it will wish to provide an opportunity for the people of Gibraltar to express views. Given the fine record that the commission has for coming up with an authoritative view on such important electoral matters, I am confident that that will be the case.
  The commission will not wish to be hamstrung by what might purport to be a comprehensive list. That brings me to my second reason for resisting an extension to the list of consultees, which is the danger that we miss someone by trying to make it comprehensive. Until the Electoral Commission begins its preliminary work, it will not necessarily be entirely clear who should be consulted.
  As my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary made clear in another place, we believe that the statutory list of consultees should be a balanced and representative one. Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 approach the subject with the same thought in mind.
  The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, tabled Amendment No. 9, which would add the House of Assembly and representatives of political parties in Gibraltar, whom the commission might expect to seek registration so as to participate in the European Parliament elections. That is similar in some ways to the government amendment, but it would present a considerable difficulty for the Electoral Commission in trying to predict which parties might seek registration.
  While I am confident that the commission will want to be in touch with all the political parties that may wish to field candidates in the European parliamentary elections, I would not want to place it in a position where it had to be entirely accurate in its crystal-ball gazing in order to meet its statutory obligations.
  On the other hand, Amendment No. 10, tabled by the noble Baroness, seeks to add only the Government of Gibraltar to the existing list. The clause already
  GC 38
  includes the representatives of the Government of Gibraltar. I hope that she will feel content with that. I beg to move.
  Lord Goodhart: Amendment No. 9, the second amendment in the group, is tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Rennard. I am glad that the Government have taken up the point, and I am happy to accept the government amendment.
  Baroness Rawlings: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 10, which is in the name of my noble friends Lord Howell of Guildford and Lord Astor of Hever and is part of this grouping. We have long been urging the Government to ensure that the Electoral Commission widens its circle of consultation before deciding which regions should be combined with Gibraltar, and we fully support their decision to do so. It seems entirely fair that the commission should consult representatives from other political parties as it would in the UK.
  At that point, I would also like to ask the Minister whether she would make available at a later date, but possibly well before Report, the population statistics of Ceuta and Melilla, with which region they are combined and whether Gibraltar's enfranchisement is comparable.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I will certainly use my best endeavours to do so. I do not know whether we have those figures, but I am sure that we can look for them. If they are available, I would be most happy to try to make them available to the noble Baroness.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 not moved.]
  Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 10 and 11 agreed to.
  Clause 12 [Sections 10 and 11: supplementary]:
  Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 11:
  Page 6, line 28, leave out "subordinate legislation" and insert "by subordinate legislation provisions which are necessary or expedient in consequence of or in connection with the inclusion of Gibraltar in an electoral region"
  The noble Lord said: The amendment arises out of the fifth report of the Constitution Committee, a Select Committee of this House. Clauses 10 and 11 confer on the Lord Chancellor power to make orders. Clause 10 relates to the establishment of the combined region, and Clause 11 to the power to make consequential provision.
  Clause 12(2) states that orders under Clauses 10 and 11 are to be made by statutory instrument. Clause 12(3) contains a rather unusual power, because orders made under it may themselves confer a further power to make subordinate legislation. That legislation would not only be delegated but re-delegated legislation.
  The Constitution Committee was somewhat concerned about that, and on 13th February wrote to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor a

  GC 39
  letter printed in appendix 1 to its fifth report of the present Session. In paragraph 3 of the letter, the committee raised the following questions:
  "On whom would such power be conferred? What are the limits of that power? When is it envisaged that it would be necessary to confer such a power? Would such sub-delegated legislation be subject to procedure for ensuring parliamentary approval and scrutiny? And would such sub-delegated legislation be required to be exercised by statutory instrument?".
  The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor replied at some length on 19th February, and his letter is set out in appendix 2. I think that I need refer to only one sentence of it, in which he said:
  "The use of the power will be limited to provisions which are necessary or expedient in consequence of or in connection with the inclusion of Gibraltar in an electoral region".
  In paragraph 4 of the report, following that exchange of correspondence, the Committee said:
  "This limitation is not, however, incorporated on the face of the bill. As it stands, we consider that this provision is very wide, and that it would be better were the power to be more narrowly drawn".
  The purpose of the amendment is to implement the views of the Constitution Committee, which we support. We believe that it did a service in drawing the issue to the attention of the House and the Grand Committee. We think that the amendment represents an improvement to the Bill. I beg to move.
  5 p.m.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: We certainly understand the concern that was outlined by the Select Committee and the noble Lord. However, I hope that I can reassure Members of the Committee that the amendment is not necessary, because the Bill already contains such a limitation.
  Clause 12(3)(a) is supplementary to Clause 11. Although Clause 12(3)(a) does not itself contain the limitation, the exercise of the power for the purposes of Clause 11 will be limited by its subsection (1). That subsection provides specifically that:
  "The Lord Chancellor may by order make such provision as he considers necessary or expedient in consequence of, or in connection with, the inclusion of Gibraltar in an electoral region for the purposes of European Parliamentary elections".
  Although Clause 12 is also supplementary to Clause 10, there will be no need to use the power in Clause 12(3)(a) to give effect to the purpose of Clause 10. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said in responding to the letter of the noble Lord, Lord Norton, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that he had no intention of doing so.
  I hope that that explanation and reassurance satisfies the concerns that have been expressed by means of the amendment.
  Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the Minister for raising that point. I think that she is right, but as the point was raised by the Constitution Committee, I thought it right and proper that it be aired in the Grand Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 12:
  Page 6, line 37, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
  "(5) Such an order may not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
  (5A)Subsection (5) does not apply to an order (not being an order which specifies the existing electoral region to be combined with Gibraltar) if it appears to the Lord Chancellor that by reason of urgency the order should be made without being approved in draft.
  (5B)Where an order is made without being approved in draft, by virtue of subsection (5A)—

  (a) it must be laid before Parliament after being made; and

  (b)if it is not approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament within the period of 40 days after the date on which it is made, the order shall cease to have effect at the end of that period."

  The noble Baroness said: The amendments in this group are all inspired by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee which recommended in its 11th report that the delegated powers in Part 2 of the Bill should all be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I take the opportunity at this stage to compliment the committee on its hard work. As regards the recent comments of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, he is right to raise the issues so that they are in the record for the purposes of clarity.
  In his response to the committee, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor accepted its recommendation and said that he would table amendments so that an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny would be ensured. Government Amendments Nos. 12, 14, 15, 19 and 22 seek to achieve that.
  The amendments relate to the delegated powers under Clauses 12, 17 and 20 of the Bill. They require the Lord Chancellor to use either an affirmative procedure, whereby a draft is laid and may not come into force until parliamentary debates have been held, or, in cases of urgency, an alternative but well-established affirmative procedure whereby debates may be held within 40 parliamentary sitting days after the instrument has been made.
  This procedure recognises the concerns that have been expressed that the detailed secondary legislation we will be making should receive the full scrutiny of both Houses and the Government's concern that we should not find ourselves in a position where, because of timetabling difficulties, we will not be able to put the final details in place to enable all parties concerned to prepare properly for the elections in June 2004.
  The timetable for making the necessary secondary legislation under the Bill will be tight and complicated. We shall need to consult the Government of Gibraltar on the practical details to ensure that the application of UK electoral law to Gibraltar for EP elections can work properly. We are also required to consult the Electoral Commission as the independent body which can give an authoritative view on what is proposed. Ideally, the secondary legislation needs to be in place by the autumn of 2003 so that electoral administrators,

  GC 41
  political parties and electors alike can prepare effectively. This already dictates a fairly tight procedural timetable which is not assisted by the Summer Recess.
  I can assure the Committee that it is our firm intention to use the draft affirmative procedure wherever possible. Indeed, we shall probably combine the making of as much as possible of the legislation with the general European Parliament regulations that we would in any case be preparing in advance of next year's elections. But, as the amendments set out, for "reasons of urgency" there may be some cases where we need to decide to opt for the alternative affirmative procedure. I do not expect this to be used for the main tranche of secondary legislation precisely because it is by way of a reserve procedure, but it is necessary if we are to ensure that the application of the detail of UK electoral law can work effectively in Gibraltar.
  By way of further assurance, I should point out that it will not be possible to use the alternative affirmative procedure for the key order under Clause 10 which will specify the electoral region with which Gibraltar is to be combined.
  Amendments Nos. 13, 15 and 20, which have been tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Rennard, are clearly intended as probing amendments which seek to introduce an affirmative resolution procedure. I hope that, having seen the Government's amendments and having heard how they will work, both noble Lords are reassured that we have responded appropriately to the concerns expressed in another place and by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and are content. I beg to move.
  Lord Goodhart: Amendments Nos. 13, 15 and 20 are tabled in the names of my noble friend and myself. As the Minister rightly said, the amendments were tabled with the view to achieving the objective proposed by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. As the Government have effectively taken those recommendations on board. we are happy to accept the Government's amendments in lieu of our own. That also applies to the proposal to make it possible to use the urgency procedure for the affirmative resolutions, although, obviously, I hope that that will not be necessary.
  Baroness Rawlings: We on these Benches welcome these amendments, which will ensure that the important provisions of Part 2 receive an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny. We should be interested to know in which circumstances the Lord Chancellor envisages having to make orders "by reason of urgency". However, it is essential that we get these processes right, and they must be carefully thought through. I wonder whether making orders in circumstances of "urgency" will be the best approach, and I am interested to know why the Government believe it is necessary to plan for such circumstances.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I had hoped that I had outlined the issue as we saw it. Of course we hope that there will be no need to use the affirmative procedure
  GC 42
  by reasons of urgency, but, bearing in mind the fluid nature of the way in which issues arise, we think that this is a cautious and appropriate step to take. I agree with the sentiments expressed by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in that we hope that such reasons of urgency will not in fact arise.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: There is a Division in the Chamber. Therefore, the Committee stands adjourned for 10 minutes.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 5.11 to 5.21 p.m.]
  [Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 14:
  Page 6, line 41, leave out "mentioned in subsection (5)" and insert "which specifies the existing electoral region to be combined with Gibraltar"
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 15:
  Page 7, line 1, leave out subsection (7).
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 13 [The Gibraltar register]:
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 16:
  Page 7, line 12, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
  "(2) The Clerk of the House of Assembly shall (by virtue of his office) be the European electoral registration officer for Gibraltar."
  The noble Baroness said: Clause 13(2) makes provision for the appointment of an electoral registration officer for Gibraltar who will have the task of creating a register of European parliamentary electors in Gibraltar. That person is to be appointed by the governor of Gibraltar.
  In our initial discussions with the Government of Gibraltar, we asked about their arrangements for compiling the register and who was responsible. From this, it became clear that it would make sense for the same person who was appointed to compile the House of Assembly register to compile the European Parliament elections register for Gibraltar. Basically, why reinvent the wheel when there is someone available who has the necessary skill and expertise to do the job? To achieve the same results, in drafting Clause 13(2), we used exactly the same arrangements as are provided for in Gibraltar's House of Assembly Ordinance for the appointment of the House of Assembly electoral registration officer. In practice, it is likely that the Clerk of the House of Assembly will be the person the Government of Gibraltar will appoint to this position.
  When this matter was raised in Committee in another place, my honourable friend the parliamentary secretary gave an undertaking to reconsider the current drafting of the subsection, taking into account the views of the Government of Gibraltar. As a result of that further consideration, we

  GC 43
  have concluded that the Bill should adopt a simpler, clearer approach. and that subsections (2) and (3), which set out the proposed arrangements for appointing the European registration officer, should be dispensed with, to be replaced with a clear statement that the Clerk of the House of Assembly should hold that post. That, we hope, removes any doubt about who will be responsible for this work, both now and at future elections. I am sure that Amendment No. 16 will therefore find favour with noble Lords present. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 14 and 15 agreed to.
  Clause 16 [Regulations relating to sections 13 to 15]:
  Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 17:
  Page 8, line 29, leave out paragraph (d).
  The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 17, I propose also to speak to Amendment No. 18.
  The amendments would amend Clause 16, which is consequential on Clauses 14 and 15. Clause 14 provides for the entitlement to vote in a European election in Gibraltar. Clause 15 provides for the entitlement to he entered on the register of voters.
  Clause 16(1)(d) gives power for the Lord Chancellor, by regulations, to prescribe the circumstances in which a person is legally incapable of voting in Gibraltar at a European parliamentary election. Clause 16(1)(g) gives power for the Lord Chancellor to impose a disqualification for registration in Gibraltar as a European parliamentary elector. In other words, Clause 16 gives power to deny registration to someone who would otherwise be entitled to register under Clause 15 and denies the right to vote to anyone who would otherwise be entitled to vote under Clause 14.
  In its 11th report, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee asked whether powers under paragraphs (d) and (g) of Clause 16(1) were proper for delegation at all. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor replied to the committee's query in a letter set out in Annex 4 to the 12th report. The reply is long but can be summarised by saying that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor pointed out as a precedent that legislation in the United Kingdom provides for secondary legislation to extend to European parliamentary elections disqualifications for voting or registration provided by other statutes for other elections.
  The committee remained unsatisfied by that reply and pointed out that for European parliamentary elections in the United Kingdom the main provisions for disqualification were set out on the face of statutes and that Clause 16 was not limited to making provision for Gibraltar which corresponded to that for the United Kingdom.
  The Government have accepted the committee's recommendation that any orders under any provision of Clause 16 should be made by the affirmative procedure. But I believe there is force in the argument
  GC 44
  that paragraphs (d) and (g) should be deleted and replaced either by a disqualification set out on the face of the Bill or by a restriction to a provision corresponding to that for the United Kingdom.
  The amendment does not seek to replace the wording of paragraphs (d) or (g) because, at this stage. no vote is possible. We tabled the amendment in this incomplete form so that we could hear the Government's response on the point of principle. I beg to move.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I understand, of course, that Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 are probing in nature, and I shall try to give as full a response as I can to enable the noble Lord to consider whether the Government have satisfied the concerns that he has raised.
  Clause 16 enables regulations to be made supplementary to Clauses 13 to 15. The aim is that that provision will substantially correspond, so far as possible, to provision relating to European parliamentary elections under existing UK law, which will apply for the purposes of Gibraltar.
  Clause 16 therefore provides for regulations which will supplement the core principles set out in those clauses by mirroring detailed UK provision, adapted as necessary to take into account the particular circumstances of Gibraltar. The issues that will need to be addressed by Clause 16 are matters dealt with in UK law by primary and secondary legislation, much of which is applied indirectly in the case of European parliamentary elections by virtue of the fact that the franchise for European parliamentary elections is derived principally from the parliamentary franchise. As a result, these regulations will need to cover issues addressed by a large amount of legislation that is not set out in the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002 and regulations made under that Act. For Gibraltar's purposes it has been necessary to establish a separate franchise which of course cannot depend on the parliamentary franchise.
  That means that all that primary and secondary legislation will need to be expressly dealt with under this Bill, and adapted where necessary to take account of the particular circumstances of Gibraltar, which can be done only after detailed consultation with the Government of Gibraltar. That would all of course mean that to try to divide up the issues dealt with under Clause 16 into matters which are dealt with extensively by primary legislation and secondary legislation in the UK, and then replicate the provisions of primary legislation with appropriate adaptations on the face of the Bill, would substantially compromise the timetable where our aim is to have the relevant measures in place in good time for the June 2004 elections. That will include, among other things, a canvass of Gibraltar electors in October 2003 by the electoral registration officer for Gibraltar in order to set up the Gibraltar register. Clearly, that means that the Bill and the relevant secondary legislation made under it will have to be in place by the end of the summer.

  GC 45
  Therefore, the nature of the Bill is such that the powers under it should be used as far as possible to provide for European electoral law applicable in Gibraltar substantially corresponding to that in the UK. That is effectively an implied limitation, leaving little scope to do otherwise. For that reason also, the matters addressed are more suited for delegated legislation than perhaps some of the original powers which they are intended to mirror.
  Accordingly, the Government's view is that these matters are suitable to be dealt with under delegated legislation and indeed it would not be feasible to attempt to do otherwise. However, Parliament will have the reassurance that it will be subject to an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny by way of the affirmative resolution procedure. We hope that that reassurance will suffice.
  5.30 p.m.
  Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the Minister. She has not been quite as persuasive as she was in the case of Amendment No. 11. I take her point that for various reasons, including time, it may be desirable to deal with this matter by secondary legislation, rather than by a mixture of primary and secondary, which applies in the United Kingdom. However, I shall need to consider further whether I wish to bring the matter back on Report to try to include a restriction of the kind proposed by the Delegated Powers Committee; namely, a restriction to provision corresponding to that for the United Kingdom. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
  Clause 16 agreed to.
  Clause 17 [Section 16: supplementary]:
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 19:
  Page 9, line 25, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
  "(4) Such regulations may not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution, of, each House of Parliament.
  (5) Subsection (4) does not apply to any regulations if it appears to the Lord Chancellor that by reason of urgency the regulations should be made without being approved in draft.
  (6) Where regulations are made without being approved in draft, by virtue of subsection (5)—

  (a) the regulations must be laid before Parliament after being made; and

  (b) if the regulations are not approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament within the period of 40 days after the date on which it is made, the regulations shall cease to have effect at the end of that period."

  The noble Baroness said: I spoke to Amendment No. 19 with Amendment No. 12. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
  Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 18 agreed to.
  Clause 19 [Returning officers]:
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 21:
  Page 10, line 7, leave out subsection (4) arid insert—
  "(4) In subsection (7) for the words from "the council" to "must" there is substituted

  (a) in the case of an electoral region other than the combined region, the council of a relevant area falling wholly or partly within that region; and

  (b) in the case of the combined region, the council of a relevant area falling wholly or partly within that region and the Government of Gibraltar,

  must"."
  The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 21 is of a fairly technical nature. Therefore, it is worth my outlining briefly the purpose of the provision as a whole in Clause 19.
  Clause 19 provides for the returning officer for the Gibraltar part of the combined electoral region. In Gibraltar, the local returning officer will be the Gibraltar European Parliament electoral registration officer provided for—as we have already discussed today—under Clause 13. In the United Kingdom the local returning officer is usually a parliamentary acting returning officer, who is also usually the electoral registration officer for the local authority in which the constituency is situated. In the UK, Section 6(7) of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002 requires the local authority of the relevant area to place the services of its officers at the disposal of the returning officer.
  Clause 19(4) is intended to make similar provision to that in the 2002 Act so that the Government of Gibraltar place the services of their officers at the disposal of the Gibraltar local returning officer. It has been pointed out, however, that in its drafting subsection (4) as it stands fails to distinguish appropriately between the status of Gibraltar and that of a local authority.
  Amendment No. 21 remedies that situation, without altering the effect of the provision, and I commend it warmly to the Committee. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 20 [Disqualification from office of MEP]:
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 22:
  Page 10, line 28, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
  "(3) In section 13 of the 2002 Act (Parliamentary procedure for regulations and orders under that Act), after subsection (3) there is inserted—
  "(3A) An order under section 10(4A) may not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
  (3B)Subsection (3A) does not apply if it appears to the Lord Chancellor that by reason of urgency the order should be made without being approved in draft.
  (3C)Where an order is made without being approved in draft, by virtue of subsection (3A)—

  (a) it must be laid before Parliament after being made; and

  GC 47

  (b) if it is not approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament within the period of 40 days after the date on which it is made, the order shall cease to have effect at the end of that period.""

  The noble Baroness said: I spoke to Amendment No. 22 with Amendment No. 12. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  On Question, Whether Clause 20, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Goodhart: My purpose in objecting to Clause 20 stand part is to raise a fundamentally similar point to that raised by Amendments Nos. 17 and 18. In the United Kingdom the disqualification of holders of certain offices from serving as a Member of the European Parliament operates by the combined effect of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 and Section 10 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002.
  The offices that lead to disqualification are set out in schedules. There is power to add to that list by statutory instrument or to designate some offices as not disqualifying the holder from serving as a Member of the European Parliament, even if disqualified from serving as a Member of the House of Commons.
  While statutory instruments have a role to play in the United Kingdom in deciding who is to be disqualified from office, the Delegated Powers Committee was not satisfied that the entire list should be left to secondary legislation. It remained of that view even after receiving the response of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in the letter to which I referred in the earlier debate. We believe that it is appropriate not to leave the list to secondary legislation. I object to the clause standing part.
  Baroness Rawlings: I support the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in relation to Clause 20 stand part. It is my understanding that an order under Section 10 of the 2002 Act can only remove a disqualification, not impose one. A disqualification can be made to an order only under the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. Would it not be accurate, then, to include Gibraltar in both the 2002 Act and the 1975 Act? I understand that the Delegated Powers Select Committee advised that to be the case. I ask the Minister where the Secretary of State can in fact impose a disqualification under Section 10 of the 2002 Act?
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I note what the noble Baroness and the noble Lord say about clause stand part. Clause 20 amends the European Parliament Elections Act 2002 so as to give power to the Secretary of State, or the Lord Chancellor, to disqualify certain classes of individuals from being entitled to stand as MEPs, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said.
  As with all aspects of the Bill, our approach in the clause has been to ensure that we have the necessary powers as far as possible to apply UK electoral law to the Gibraltar part of the combined region in the same
  GC 48
  way as to the UK part of the region. Thus the power enables similar classes of individuals in Gibraltar in the UK to be excluded from being MEPs.
  The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, outlined the case that it would be more appropriate for such provision to be made in the Bill rather than by delegated legislation. The Government do not agree. The list of those who are disqualified in the UK from serving as MEPs includes various classes of person, some of which could apply to Gibraltarians without further provisions—for example, those disqualified for being under 21—and some of which could not—for example, UK bankrupts.
  In short, the picture is not straightforward and it will be crucial to discuss in detail with the Government of Gibraltar how we can fulfil our intention to disqualify similar classes of people with a connection with Gibraltar to those that apply in the UK.
  As I said, the timetable for getting all the provisions in place to fulfil the UK's obligation to enfranchise the people of Gibraltar is very tight. We could not afford to delay the introduction of the Bill in order to enable such detail to be set out in it. However, thanks to other government amendments to which I have already referred, the power will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, which will enable the detail of the matter to be aired before both Houses.
  The noble Baroness was correct about Section 10 of the 2002 Act, which only removes disqualification. That was given simply as an example of delegated legislation that affects disqualification. I know that the Committee is aware of sensitivities in this area and of the need to take consultation with the Gibraltarians very seriously and carefully indeed. We wish to get that absolutely right, so that the synergy between the UK and Gibraltarian positions is properly mirrored and reflected. We shall have grave difficulty in doing so in the present timetable unless we take the course that we suggest. The affirmative resolution procedure will enable both Houses further to consider the matter once we have decided, after consultation with Gibraltar, on the most appropriate way forward. I hope that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness will be content with that explanation.
  Lord Goodhart: We shall consider what the noble Baroness has said and decide whether to return on Report to ask for the clause to be left out or amended. At present, I cannot give an undertaking that we will not do so.
  Baroness Rawlings: I thank the Minister for that full response. I hear what she has told us. We believe that that point is fair and reasonable. However, we may, like the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, have further concerns and may want to return to the matter later.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I commend the clause, as amended.
  Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
  5.45 p.m.
  Clause 21 [European Parliamentary election regulations]:
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 23:
  Page 10, leave out lines:38 to 42.
  The noble Baroness said: Again, I sense that Amendment No. 24, tabled by the noble Baroness, which would remove from Clause 21 the power to exclude matters from the jurisdiction of Gibraltar courts, is a probing amendment. I hope that I have understood that correctly. There was much discussion in Committee in another place of the same amendment. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary explained the Government's intentions concerning jurisdiction in matters relating to European parliamentary elections and Gibraltar, but said that she was keen to examine the details further to see whether the Bill's provisions could be clarified.
  That we have now done. Taken together, Amendments Nos. 23 and 25 remove the provisions on jurisdiction from Clause 21 and insert a new clause dealing with that matter alone. The new clause makes it clear that Gibraltarian courts and UK courts can both have jurisdiction over certain matters that give rise to issues that are local to either Gibraltar or the United Kingdom part of the combined region, in order that the appropriate local court can be allocated to the matter.
  Further, matters that will affect the whole of the combined region, and the rest of the United Kingdom, can be allocated to United Kingdom courts—and thus the United Kingdom election court, dealing with election petitions, and the High Court, when, for example, dealing with claims that MEPs are disqualified, would deal with the new matters of substantive law that they usually deal with, once they are applied to Gibraltar under the Bill.
  It is also made clear that provision can be made so that the election court can include a judge of the Supreme Court of Gibraltar in addition to two UK judges. Necessary supplementary powers have been provided to treat the Gibraltar judges as High Court judges for those purposes only. We believe that the new clause is a substantial improvement on its predecessor and will provide the necessary flexibility and clarity to ensure that matters of jurisdiction are appropriately dealt with. I beg to move.
  Baroness Rawlings: We again welcome the amendments. The Chief Minister was concerned that the Government of Gibraltar's status would become ambiguous under the 2002 Act. However, I should appreciate clarification on the status of the Government of Gibraltar with regard to matters of electoral law. If they are to be treated as an entirely separate, unique entity, what will be their position in relation to returning officers, and so on? How do the Government envisage that two entirely separate entities—the relevant local authority and the
  GC 50
  Government of Gibraltar—will work together to represent the interests of the electors in the two areas? I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I have set out how we believe that the two will work together. I have tried to explain the division between the work that will be undertaken by the Gibraltarian courts and the UK courts the—separation of those matters—and that the United Kingdom courts will be responsible for dealing with all matters that affect the whole of the combined region. We accept that this is a new venture, but it has enabled us through the consultation to clarify with the Government of Gibraltar how those two issues will be appropriately dealt with.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
  Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 25:
  After Clause 21, insert the following new clause—
  "JURISDICTION OF COURTS
  (1) Subordinate legislation to which this section applies—

  (a) may make provision for a judge of the Supreme Court of Gibraltar to be appointed as an additional judge ( with the two judges acting under section 123 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (c. 2) as applied for the purposes of European Parliamentary elections) for the trial of an election petition relating to the election of MEPs in the combined region; and

  (b) may, for the purposes of such an election petition—

  (i) confer the powers, jurisdiction and authority of a judge of the High Court on any Gibraltar judge who is so appointed; and

  (ii) make any other provision necessary to secure that a Gibraltar judge so appointed is treated as if he were a judge of the High Court.

  (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the power under which it is made, subordinate legislation to which this section applies may—

  (a) confer jurisdiction over any matter connected with the election of MEPs in the combined region on an election court constituted under section 123 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (c. 2) (as applied for the purposes of European Parliamentary elections);

  (b) confer jurisdiction over any such matter (not being a matter within the jurisdiction of the election court) on—

  (i) one or more courts in the United Kingdom,

  (ii) one or more courts in Gibraltar (whether specified in the regulations or left to be determined by or under the law of Gibraltar); or

  (iii) one or more courts in the United Kingdom and one or more courts in Gibraltar.

  (3) This section applies to

  (a) an order under section 11;

  (b) regulation under section 16; and

  (c) regulations under section 7 of the 2002 Act."

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 26:
  After Clause 21, insert the following new clause—
  "EFFECT OF STATUTORY POWERS ON CAPACITY OF GIBRALTAR LEGISLATURE
  (1) The capacity (apart from this Act) of the Gibraltar legislature to make law for Gibraltar is not affected by the existence of a power under this Part or the 2002 Act to make subordinate legislation extending to Gibraltar.
  (2) Subsection (1) does not affect the operation of the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 (c. 63) in relation to subordinate legislation made under such a power."
  The noble Baroness said: The new clause proposed in the amendment is intended to confirm expressly that the Gibraltar legislature can play a role in making legislation that relates to the European parliamentary elections provided for under the Bill. How that might be done was discussed in some detail in Committee in another place, and my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary undertook to consider whether there was a way in which we could achieve that on the face of the Bill.
  Generally speaking, the law relating to European parliamentary elections should operate throughout the United Kingdom and Gibraltar on the same basis so far as possible. Only the United Kingdom is able to make law for both parts. That means that Gibraltar's scope for legislation is unavoidably limited to consequential and supplemental measures. However, we want the Government of Gibraltar to play a role and, as we prepare secondary legislation, we shall work with them to identify areas where that will be possible.
  We have already considered some areas and how both Westminster and Gibraltar might be able to play a part in making the further legislation. For example, if we look at Clause 11, there are likely to be issues that could be addressed by the Gibraltar legislature, such as those relating to the regulation of political broadcasting in Gibraltar. However, equally, much of the UK law at issue under the clause, such as that relating to the registration of political parties, will need to be amended by further UK law or applied as part of the coherent and uniform system provided for by the Bill extending to both the United Kingdom and Gibraltar. Such matters will need to be dealt with by the Lord Chancellor under the powers in the Bill.
  The new clause clarifies the basis for the making of secondary legislation by both the United Kingdom and Gibraltar and it forms a sound basis for future decisions. It does not affect the Lord Chancellor's powers to make provision in exercise of his powers under the Bill, but it confirms that those powers in themselves do not remove the capacity of Gibraltar to legislate in areas where it would otherwise be able to do so. I commend the amendment to the Committee. I beg to move.
  Baroness Rawlings: It is entirely right that the legislature of Gibraltar should play a part in ensuring
  GC 52
  that electoral law is applied in its own territory. However, I should be interested to know what are the practical implications of this drafting. Would it not be possible for the Bill to make explicit provision about the mechanics of the electoral regime to be legislated for in Gibraltar? Could a situation exist in which the Government of Gibraltar replicate some provisions in a Gibraltar ordinance, whereas others would remain solely in UK statute? I should be interested to hear how the mechanics of this welcome amendment will work out.
  Lord Goodhart: Some concern arises in my mind in relation to Clause 20 and this new clause. There is a division between matters which are and are not broadly for Gibraltar law, although it is obviously desirable that, as nearly as possible, they should be in the same form as UK law—in particular, with regard to the qualification for registration and voting. However, there are other aspects in which it seems clear that United Kingdom law must control the matter to the exclusion of Gibraltar, particularly with regard to the disqualification of candidates. Obviously one cannot have a candidate who is disqualified in relation to Gibraltar but not in relation to the rest of the region to which Gibraltar is attached. Does the noble Baroness envisage any problems with the proposed new clause as regards that type of issue?
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I do not see a problem about that. Of course, there will be a need to consider UK law and Gibraltarian law and ensure that they mirror each other appropriately. That is what I alluded to earlier in connection with the consultation on the issue. As to whether Gibraltar can duplicate, that would usually not be an appropriate course legally, as it might provide for confusion of laws. The amendment will clarify the position and make it easier.
  I believe that I answered the noble Baroness's general question when I outlined how the law will work. As I hope that I said earlier, generally speaking, the law relating to European parliamentary elections should operate throughout the United Kingdom and Gibraltar on the same basis, so far as possible. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart said, only the United Kingdom can make law for both.
  Unfortunately, that means that the scope of Gibraltarian legislation is unavoidably limited, particularly in the case of provision in exercise of the powers which are part of the electoral process itself, such as the franchise and conduct of the election. Provisions in that respect will have to be made by the Lord Chancellor. As I told the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I believe, if I may say it colloquially, that we are all right on that one.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 22 [Financial provisions]:
  Baroness Rawlings moved Amendment No. 27:
  Page 11, line 16, leave out subsection (3).
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 27, I welcome yet another government amendment. As the Bill stands, it is wholly inappropriate and constitutionally retrograde for the UK Government to influence directly Gibraltar's Consolidated Fund. I am told that no legislative instrument has deployed or committed Gibraltar's public funds since well before the first modern constitution in 1964. We are relieved to see that the Government have made changes which will allow all expenses to be covered equitably, while permitting the Government of Gibraltar full decision-making powers.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I very much welcome the support of the noble Baroness on the matter. The Committee will know that Amendment No. 27 would exclude the provision that allows other order and regulation-making powers under the Bill also to include financial provisions. I took that in the spirit which the noble Baroness has now explained—that is, as a probing amendment.
  In Committee in another place, my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary explained that Clause 22 enabled provision to be made for expenditure in relation to the holding of EP elections in Gibraltar. The full details of the financial arrangements were yet to be worked out, and she made clear that there would be further discussion with Gibraltar on the matter.
  Amendment No. 28 is the fruit of that discussion. The basic intention was, and remains, that the UK Consolidated Fund would pay for the Gibraltarian returning officer's expenses—the bulk of expenditure at an election—and that Gibraltar would pay for the local registration officer. Neither we nor the Government of Gibraltar have any problem with that. Clause 22 contained a certain amount of flexibility, including provisions for money to be paid into or out of the Gibraltar Consolidated Fund.
  Our further exploration of the issue with the Government of Gibraltar has helped to clarify exactly how the expenditure will be accounted for. We find that it is unnecessary to make such provisions in Clause 22. Instead, Gibraltar will use its own legislation to enable it to pay for the Gibraltar registration officer's expenses out of the Gibraltar Consolidated Fund. As a result of leaving it to Gibraltar to make their own legislation on the matter, in consequence it has also been possible not to include expressly the provisions in Clause 22(3)(a). With that, I hope that the noble Baroness has received the reassurance that she seeks.
  Baroness Rawlings: I thank the noble Baroness and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 28:
  Page 11, line 16, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
  (3) Subordinate legislation to which this subsection applies may make provision—

  (a) for sums required to meet any expenditure (other than expenditure to be met from funds provided by Gibraltar) to be—

  (i) paid out or money provided by Parliament; or

  (ii) charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund; and

  (b) for the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund."

  The noble Baroness said: I dealt with this amendment when I spoke to Amendment No. 27, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 22, as amended. agreed to.
  6 p.m.
  On Question, Whether Clause 23 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Goodhart: My noble friend Lord Rennard and I have tabled a purely probing objection to Clause 23, which, on the face of it, is very peculiar. It is unusual to see that all the functions of the Lord Chancellor under the Bill are exercisable concurrently with a Secretary of State. I wonder why that is. What function is it intended that the Secretary of State—and, indeed, the Secretary of State of which department—will exercise?
  It is clearly not intended to cover the possibility that at some future time the responsibility for European parliamentary elections might be moved from the Lord Chancellor to the Home Secretary. If that happened, no doubt it would be dealt with by the usual transfer of functions order. It must be intended for something different and I should like to have on record the reason why this strange provision appears in the Bill.
  Baroness Rawlings: I have some sympathy with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. The Lord Chancellor is unelected and yet he is responsible for a range of important provisions with regard to electoral arrangements. Whatever we may think about the transfer, responsibility for the provisions has already been transferred to the Lord Chancellor's Department.
  The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has made some important points and it is right that we should question the Lord Chancellor's responsibilities. I shall be interested to know whether the provision for concurrent powers between the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State is because much of the subordinate legislation which exists in electoral law is the responsibility of the Secretary of State.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hope to be able to shed a little light on these issues. Clause 23 exists to

  GC 55
  reflect the way in which responsibility for electoral law is currently allocated between government departments. It mirrors the position which currently pertains to all electoral law. Removing the clause without replacement would cause immense confusion about who could carry out what function and make further transfer of responsibilities for electoral law more difficult to achieve.
  As the Committee may know, following the machinery of government changes in May last year, the functions relating to electoral law previously exercised by the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions was split between the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor. Roughly speaking, this means that responsibility for local elections lies with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, and for Westminster and European Parliament elections with the Lord Chancellor's Department. To reflect this concurrent responsibility, the transfer of functions order which came into force on 25th November of last year allows for the various powers in, for example, the Representation of the People Acts and the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002 to be exercised by either the Secretary of State or the Lord Chancellor or both.
  It is already therefore a recognised fact that it is within the Lord Chancellor's competence to exercise powers in relation to electoral law. The Bill reflects that by, for example, providing for him to lay orders before Parliament to implement the Electoral Commission's recommendations regarding the redistribution of MEPs and the region with which Gibraltar should be a part. At the same time, however, because the powers in the Bill will enable other related electoral legislation to be amended, it is appropriate to allow for the powers to be exercised concurrently with the Secretary of State for those functions for which he is responsible.
  I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, does not regret asking his questions and that my explanation has given him a full answer.
  Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the Minister for her helpful reply. I can see possibilities for confusion. As Gibraltar is a dependent territory, the Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office may also get involved. I only hope that the wires do not get crossed too often.
  Clause 23 agreed to.
  Clause 24 [Interpretation]:
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale): Before I call Amendment No. 29, I should inform the Committee that there is a mistake in the Marshalled List. The amendment should refer to inserting the words after the first "in" in page 12, line 6.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 29:
  Page 12, line 6, after -in" insert "or for"
  The noble Baroness said: This is a minor, technical amendment to ensure that the references in Clause 24(3) to law passed or made in Gibraltar also include references to legislation made for Gibraltar.
  The purpose of the subsection is supplementary to Clauses 12(4) and 17(3)(c). Those clauses provide that modifications can be made to relevant legislation in conjunction with the use of the power under Clauses 11 and 16 to make delegated legislation under the Bill. Those provisions are intended to refer to all legislation that may be affected, including any legislation applicable to Gibraltar. Clause 24(2) refers to Acts and subordinate legislation and subsection (3) was intended to catch other legislation applicable to Gibraltar. The amendment confirms that intended effect. I beg to move.
  Baroness Rawlings: We accept this technical amendment and welcome all the improvements that have been made to the Bill this afternoon.
  Lord Goodhart: As someone who sat through six days—I think it was—in Grand Committee on the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill, it is a great pleasure to have dealt with the whole of consideration in Committee in, after allowing for time out for a Division, an hour and a half.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I thank both noble Lords and the noble Baroness for their expedition. Without their happy and helpful approach, none of that could have been achieved.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 25 agreed to.
  Bill reported with amendments.
  The Committee adjourned at nine minutes past six o'clock.

  Local Services
  Local Services
  Local Authorities: Transactional Websites
  Local Authorities: Transactional Websites
  Pension Schemes
  Pension Schemes
  Hull: Unemployment:
  Hull: Unemployment:
  Hassan Said, Marwan al-Banna and Nowaf al-Rosan
  Hassan Said, Marwan al-Banna and Nowaf al-Rosan
  Prison Service: Race Equality Investigation
  Prison Service: Race Equality Investigation
  Court Orders: Domestic Violence
  Court Orders: Domestic Violence
  Gulf: NBC Protection and Missile Defence
  Gulf: NBC Protection and Missile Defence
  Gulf: Local Supplies to British Troops
  Gulf: Local Supplies to British Troops
  Gulf: Immunisation against Anthrax for Service Personnel
  Gulf: Immunisation against Anthrax for Service Personnel
  Harrier Jets: Norwegian Commission of Inquiry
  Harrier Jets: Norwegian Commission of Inquiry
  Royal Irish Regiment
  Royal Irish Regiment
  IDEX 2003
  IDEX 2003
  Depleted Uranium
  Depleted Uranium
  FIST Programme
  FIST Programme
  Armada PFI Project
  Armada PFI Project
  Iraq: Contingency Planning
  Iraq: Contingency Planning
  University Fees
  University Fees
  Public Health Laboratory Service Media Services
  Public Health Laboratory Service Media Services
  Managed Pathology Networks
  Managed Pathology Networks
  NHS Laboratories: Accreditation
  NHS Laboratories: Accreditation
  Genetically Modified Cotton Crops
  Genetically Modified Cotton Crops
  Kava-kava Ban
  Kava-kava Ban
  Abortion Clinics
  Abortion Clinics
  Deafblind Children
  Deafblind Children
  Deafblind Support
  Deafblind Support
  Lord Chancellor's Salary
  Lord Chancellor's Salary
  Senior Appointments: Pension Entitlement
  Senior Appointments: Pension Entitlement
  Lord Chancellor, Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer: Salaries
  Lord Chancellor, Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer: Salaries
  Ethnic Minorities in the Labour Market
  Ethnic Minorities in the Labour Market
  Drivers: Eyesight Tests
  Drivers: Eyesight Tests