Sitting of 20 March 2003

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions

  TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I call Lynne Jones.
  Lynne Jones: Now we know that Bush is lying to the American people—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Why does the hon. Lady not say "Question 1"?
  Lynne Jones: I will ask my question, but—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister must reply. The hon. Lady has been here long enough to know that she should call Question 1.
  Lynne Jones: I do believe that this House should be suspended—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Valerie Davey.

  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Postal Services Commission
    Valerie Davey: Whether the appointment of the chairman of the Postal Services Commission will be renewed; and if she will make a statement. [103881]
    The Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness (Mr. Stephen Timms): The term of the current chairman of Postcomm, Graham Corbett, formally ends on 31 March. I am glad to be able to tell the House that he has agreed to an extension of his term of up to a year, to complete the current phase of Postcomm's work and allow time for the appointment of his successor. Having consulted Mr. Corbett on the future composition of Postcomm, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has agreed to begin the process now to recruit a new chairman. She has also agreed to reappoint Janet Lewis—Jones for a further three—year term.
    Valerie Davey: I thank the Minister for that reply. I am concerned to know how his Department will ensure
    1068
    that the successor, the new chair and, indeed, members of the commission will be appointed with some relevant experience of the postal service. How can he ensure that?
    Mr. Timms: The current commissioners have been successful in establishing Postcomm as a postal regulator with a strong, independent voice. That was no mean feat and I congratulate them on it. There is a case for the commission reflecting direct experience of postal markets. We have agreed with Graham Corbett on a balance of continuity and change as the work of Postcomm goes forward. We will seek to appoint a new commissioner with specific experience of postal markets to reflect my hon. Friend's point. We also need to reflect on the overall balance of Postcomm in considering candidates for the new chair.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: Will the chairman of the Postal Services Commission look specifically at the Government's broken promises and ensure that elderly people can continue to collect benefits in the way that they have always wished to—from post offices? Postmasters and customers in my constituency are complaining bitterly that the Government have not kept their promise and that they are under huge pressure and influence to open new bank accounts. The Government made clear promises, but they have broken them. Will the new chairman look into that?
    Mr. Timms: Those promises have been maintained and will be maintained as the new arrangements roll out from next month. In particular, it will be possible for anybody who so wishes to continue to receive their benefit in cash weekly at the post office without charge either through a basic bank account, an ordinary current account, where the bank has a contract with the post office, or through a Post Office card account. That requirement, which was set out three years ago, is fundamental to the way in which the automated credit transfer change has been implemented.
    Colin Burgon: I am slightly disappointed that Mr. Corbett has an extension to his position. He has not been the force that we needed, although I may be in a minority of one on that. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Thank you. May we have an assurance that his successor will have ideas that are rooted in reality and not be obsessed by the market approach, down which Mr. Corbett seems to be leading the Post Office?
    Mr. Timms: In my view Mr. Corbett has done a good job in establishing Postcomm with an independent voice. Nobody should be surprised that he has sometimes taken views at variance with those of the Royal Mail—that goes with this terrain. Maintenance of the universal service obligation is Postcomm's key aim. That will certainly be at the forefront of the aims of the new chairman, as it has been for Graham Corbett.

    Animal Welfare
    Linda Gilroy: What steps she is taking to prevent imports of products containing cat and dog fur. [103882]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Miss Melanie Johnson): The Government are investigating the possibilities for the labelling of any products containing domestic cat or dog fur. This will give consumers the information they need about what they are buying and enable the Government better to determine levels of imports.
    Linda Gilroy: I am pleased to see that my hon. Friend is aware of the concerns of people such as Sarah O'Leary in Plymouth and of the Western Morning News. Does she share their revulsion at this vile trade, in which cats and dogs are beaten and clubbed to death for fur for toys and ornaments? Will she do everything she can to bring this awful trade to an end?
    Miss Johnson: I would like to commend the campaign of the Western Morning News and the work that my hon. Friend and others are doing. The Government are serious about addressing cruelty to animals in third countries that do not have the same high welfare standards as the United Kingdom. My noble friend the Minister for Trade and Investment will meet interested non—governmental organisations and the relevant industry associations in the next month or so, to discuss their views on labelling. She has undertaken to report back on progress before the summer recess.
    Mr. Mark Field: I welcome the Minister's initiatives on cat and dog fur, but there are many long—established and legitimate mink furrier industries in the UK, many of which are in my constituency. What discussions are taking place with the Home Office to ensure that such people can go about their legitimate business?
    Miss Johnson:I am sure that the Home Office is undertaking its duties in respect of these matters, as it always should.

    Rural Post Offices
    Mr. Mark Simmonds: If she will make a statement on the provision of Government services by rural post offices. [103883]
    The Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness (Mr. Stephen Timms): Every community is entitled to good access to postal and Government services. We will continue to ensure good access through the post office network, in particular through the rural network.
    Mr. Simmonds: Does the Minister acknowledge that, with the imminent commencement of the universal bank and the withdrawal of 40 per cent. of rural post offices' business, many rural post offices will have to make staff redundant and, ultimately, close as the Government withdraw the lifeline that allows those post offices to continue in business? How will the Government replace that lost income stream? Is this not just another example of the Government's disdain for rural post offices and local small businesses?
    Mr. Timms: Following the publication of the performance and innovation unit's report, we made a commitment to end avoidable closures of rural post
    1070
    offices. As a result, we have seen a dramatic reduction in the number of closures. The hon. Gentleman talks about withdrawing a lifeline, but it is quite the contrary. We have just announced £450 million to maintain the rural network up to 2006. We have invested £500 million to provide the platform for ACT from next month. That will allow post offices to provide modern services of the kind that people want, which will secure a successful future for the post office network. Over a long period, there has been a decline in the old—fashioned business of the Post Office. That is why we have had to make the changes that we have made, laying the foundations for the successful future of the whole network, including the part of the network that is in rural areas.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Would not rural post offices be assisted if the Post Office card account system was run on a decent and full basis? Why is it so difficult to obtain a Post Office card account, despite the issuing of new literature today? Why cannot an account simply be obtained from a post office by people who are known there, or why cannot people simply tick a box to get a Post Office card account, as they can if they want to get a bank account? That is what is wanted.
    Mr. Timms: We are ensuring that those who wish to choose a Post Office card account can do so. However, it is important to take the opportunity of this change to address the problem of financial exclusion. Many people in rural and other areas are disadvantaged because they do not have a bank account. We want those people to have the opportunity to consider whether, given the change, they now want to open a bank account. That is the reasoning behind the helpline. However, if people decide that they would prefer to have a card account, they will get their card account.
    Mr. Richard Page: Despite the gloss that the Minister puts on the situation, is it not a fact that—and this applies to urban as well as to rural post offices—post offices' income is dropping, the value of sub-post offices is dropping, the footfall is dropping, and the number of services to the elderly and vulnerable is dropping? Only 311 out of 3,000 sub—post offices that are facing compulsory closure know their fate. When will the Minister let those sub—post offices know whether they are going to have to close? He cannot keep them in limbo for ever.
    Mr. Timms: It is true that custom at post offices has been declining. The Government that the hon. Gentleman supported did nothing; by contrast the Labour Government are addressing the problem and ensuring that there is a successful future for the Post Office. In 1996, 40 per cent. of benefit recipients received their benefit in cash at the post office, but today that proportion is down to just over a quarter, as a result of the choice that people have made. The Post Office has to reflect the changes in the wishes of its customers and provide services that meet their needs, so we have invested in technology for the post office network the

    1071
    very large sum that I mentioned. The Post Office will be able to use that as a platform to deliver modern services that people want.
    Mr. George Stevenson: May I return my hon. Friend to the issue of the Post Office card account and ask that he hold further discussions with our ministerial colleagues at the Department for Work and Pensions? Some of my constituents have received forms from the DWP regarding their benefits after the changes take place, which have no reference whatever to the Post Office card account as an option. That is seen, rightly, as discrimination against the account and the matter ought to be put right.
    Mr. Timms: If my hon. Friend looks at the leaflet that accompanies the form to which he refers, he will see that the position is clearly spelt out. However, the point that he made has been drawn to our attention and a change will be made to ensure that there is a reference to the Post Office card account on the form.
    Mr. Tim Yeo:Is not the truth that thousands of vulnerable people who have hitherto relied on receiving benefits in cash at post offices will find it harder to do so? Post offices will lose thousands of customers because the Government have made it almost impossible for them to open a Post Office card account. The Government's disastrous double whammy is more post office closures and more problems for pensioners, young mums, disabled people and other vulnerable people in the community.
    Mr. Timms: No, the hon. Gentleman is wrong about that. He should not mislead and worry people, especially the elderly, who will be concerned about what he said. People who want to continue receiving their benefit in cash from their local post office will be able to do so through one of the means that I mentioned. We built that requirement into the process from the start and it will be delivered when the arrangements are put in place next month. Given our investment in technology and the fact that post office services will use modern technology in the future, as opposed to the old-fashioned systems left behind by the previous Government, there will be a much better future for the Post Office and the services that it provides for the benefit, especially, of elderly and vulnerable people in every part of the country.

    Carbon Fuels
    Dr. Brian Iddon: What action she is taking to lessen use of carbon fuels. [103884]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): On 24 February, we published a White Paper that puts climate change at the heart of our energy policy. We have accepted the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 60 per cent. by 2050 and to be on a path to that by 2020. The White Paper sets out the measures needed to achieve that target.
    Dr. Iddon: Tragic events in the middle east have, once again, highlighted the fact that we need to reduce our
    1072
    reliance on fossil fuels, such as oil, and even gas, as our major energy sources. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to invest significantly more in renewable energy sources, such as wind and tidal power, in order to secure energy resources for future generations, in addition to meeting our Kyoto commitments?
    Ms Hewitt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that we need to do far more, not only on renewables but also on energy efficiency. We have set out in the White Paper exactly how we shall do that. In particular, we are investing a third of a billion pounds over four years in capital grants for new renewable projects, including wave and tidal power. I am pleased that the United Kingdom has the first—indeed, the only—commercial wave power station in the world. With that, and with the expertise that we have in wind power and offshore technologies, we will be able not only to achieve our CO2 targets, but to create a new renewables manufacturing industry that will deliver new jobs and new exports for Britain.
    Michael Fabricant: Given the fall in farm incomes by more than two thirds over the past six years, what discussions has the Secretary of State had with her counterpart in DEFRA about the possibility of producing fuel through alcohol? Is she aware that in Brazil more than two thirds of the fuel that is used is alcohol fuel, which is generated from crops? Why cannot we do that here in the United Kingdom?
    Ms Hewitt: There is no reason at all why we should not do that. Indeed, the White Paper to which I referred was a joint production by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural. Affairs, me, and the Secretary of State for Transport. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, we are investing substantially in helping farmers and other members of the rural community to diversify. There are clearly huge potential benefits to the farming community, as well as to the whole country, in helping to increase the production of fuel from biomass and bioethanol. Of course, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is assisting in that through differential fuel duties.
    Mr. David Chaytor:Friend accept that although the ambitious measures in the White Paper in respect of renewables and energy efficiency are extremely welcome, they are not matched by the ambitious scale of investment that is needed? Does not energy efficiency provide the quickest and easiest way to cut carbon emissions, and will she assure the House that there will be increasing support for energy efficiency measures in the next few years?
    Ms Hewitt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We say in the White Paper that energy efficiency is by far the cheapest and simplest way of meeting all our policy goals in this area. If I may say so, however, he somewhat underestimates the scale of the investment that is being made. I have already referred to the third of a billion pounds over four years, and we shall have to see what we achieve in future spending reviews. By 2010, the renewables obligation, which is central to the policy, will deliver support to the renewables industry that is worth some £1 billion a year. On top of that, by 2005–06 we

    1073
    will have put in place a new carbon emissions trading scheme, which will create further strong incentives for much greater energy efficiency and more investment in renewables.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: The Secretary of State will know David Green, who is a member of the Government's energy advisory panel, and who said:
    "There is a complete absence in the White Paper of any significant new measures to reduce the damage done to Britain's green generators over the last three years by weak and inconsistent delivery of the Government's policies".
    How on earth has he come to that conclusion?
    Ms Hewitt: The energy White Paper not only confirms the Government's commitment to the target of installing 10,000 MW of good quality combined heat and power by 2010, but sets out several new measures to support CHP. State aid approval for the exemption of CHP electricity from the climate change levy—a policy for which David Green strongly pressed—has now been given. It is frustrating that it took some time to get that state aid exemption, but it will undoubtedly help. Although I well understand the frustration of CHP producers—although not necessarily consumers—about falling electricity prices, we are on target to meet the 2010 target for good-quality CHP.

    Pharmacies
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: If she will make a statement on the Office of Fair Trading report on pharmacy services. [103885]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): We received the OFT report on 17 January and we are considering our response across Government, in consultation, of course, with the devolved Administrations and relevant stakeholders. As part of that process, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), wrote to all hon. Members seeking their views.
    Mr. Dismore: May I tell my right hon. Friend that I have received objections from hundreds of constituents who are outraged by the OFT's proposals? They vigorously protest that their local pharmacies are convenient, that they know and trust the pharmacist, that they often have no transport to go elsewhere, and that they are not pushed into buying unnecessary products. Does my right hon. Friend agree that good health is supported by a trusting relationship between pharmacist and public, and can she assure me that the vital network of local pharmacies—which commands a high level of confidence and satisfaction from our communities, as is recognised in the OFT's report—will be protected and that nothing will be done that will prejudice the local pharmacy services that so many of our constituents value highly?
    Ms Hewitt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Of course, I have had similar representations and discussions in my constituency. I welcome the OFT's report, which is a useful analysis of the competition aspects of the control of entry regulations, and of the
    1074
    benefits that greater competition can bring. I am also clear, however, that there are limits to markets, particularly in the delivery of health services. It is essential that pharmacists should be able to fulfil not only their present valued and trusted role but the wider role envisaged for them in the NHS plan: simply deregulating the market will not do that. We therefore need a balanced package of measures, and that is precisely what we will draw up, in consultation, as I have already indicated.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: I welcome the Secretary of State's response to that question. I suggest that the OFT was simply wrong in believing that pharmacists are merely shops; in fact, they are a network of primary health care professionals who play a key role in preventive health and in distributing drugs to the elderly and the sick. The Government will not be forgiven lightly if she allows the pharmacists to go the same way as the post office network.
    Ms Hewitt: The OFT's remit is to look at the effect on competition, among other things, of Government regulation. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman—who, at least some of the time, is a supporter of competition policies—would welcome that role for the OFT. It is not part of the OFT's remit, however, to look at the much wider health service objectives or the role that community pharmacists can play—an even greater role, as I have indicated—in supporting modernisation and improvements in the national health service. That is our job in government, and, as I have indicated, we will come forward with a balanced package that will achieve those health and community aims.
    Mr. Michael Weir: The Secretary of State will know that in Scotland the situation is slightly different, because health is dissolved—[Interruption.] Health is devolved, but competition policy is not. She will also be aware that the Scottish Parliament is due to be dissolved at the end of next week for the forthcoming election. Will she give an assurance that no decision will be made on the OFT policy until there has been consultation with the new Scottish Parliament and new Scottish Executive following elections on 1 May?
    Ms Hewitt: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was suggesting that the NHS might be dissolved if the nationalists won the elections. Let me make it clear: of course we are already discussing this issue with our colleagues, not only in Scotland but in Wales and Northern Ireland. We will arrive at the decision in full consultation with the devolved Administration, who, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, are responsible for the health service in Scotland.
    Ms Candy Atherton: There are strong concerns about this issue in Cornwall, where many of our supermarkets are out of town, and I receive petitions almost daily opposing the proposals. I am glad to hear the Secretary of State say that nothing

    1075
    will be done that would hurt local pharmacies. May I reiterate, however, that real concerns exist, and we urgently need reassurance?
    Ms Hewitt: I entirely understand not only my hon. Friend's concerns but those of her constituents. Every Member has had similar representations. Let me stress that although competition can clearly bring benefits to consumers, the crucial issue is that pharmacists should be able to enhance their role within the NHS plan and meet the health care needs of all our constituents, particularly those living in poorer areas and rural areas.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: Since the OFT's report confirms that community pharmacies do an excellent job, are trusted by their customers and are accessible to the vast majority of people, is it not clear that were the recommendations accepted it would show once more that this Labour Government care nothing either for those small and often family-run businesses that are the backbone of many communities, or for their customers, who rely on them as a valuable source of health advice?
    Ms Hewitt: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not hear my earlier answers on precisely that point. I am glad that the Conservative party now recognises that there are limits to markets, especially in health care. I hope that Conservative Members will support the other policies that our Government have introduced to promote social inclusion and to ensure that markets work for everyone's benefit. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will soon tell us that he supports policies on the minimum wage, rights at work and improved health and safety in the workplace, which are other policies that set limits on uncontrolled markets.
    Mr. Martin O'Neill: Will my right hon. Friend take account of the phrase, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"? In Scotland, there is no question that Labour will not lead the Administration after May, as it does at present, and the Scottish Pharmaceutical General Council, the professional body for pharmacists, is working with the Scottish Executive on an extremely ambitious programme for the expansion of community pharmacies, which goes far beyond anything envisaged in England at present. It would be highly dangerous for those ambitious plans to be frustrated by a cack-handed approach by the OFT to what is currently an excellent service for communities.
    Ms Hewitt: The service is indeed excellent in Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom. It can be improved further, as my hon. Friend said, by the plans that are being developed in Scotland. As far as England is concerned, the NHS plan sets out a full vision of the greater role that pharmacists can play not only in helping to ensure that patients get the full benefit of medicines, but by undertaking some of the initial diagnosis and advice work. We value pharmacists' work and think that it can be improved and strengthened further in the NHS plan. However, let me stress that decisions will not be made by the OFT because its role in these matters is advisory. The Government will make
    1076
    the decisions in the full context of the NHS plan and equivalent developments in the devolved Administrations.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Secretary of State be a little more open about when she expects the announcements to be made? Whether she likes it or not, the OFT's proposals have caused great unease among our constituents and communities. She said that the report was published on 17 January and that she is in discussions with the devolved Parliaments, but they are about to dissolve before elections. When will we get an answer to this particular problem?
    Ms Hewitt: As soon as possible.

    EU Regional Funds
    Joyce Quin: If she will make a statement on her Department's policy on the future of EU regional funds. [103886]
    The Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions(Alan Johnson): My right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry published a paper on 6 March that launched a joint consultation on the future of EU structural funds This set out the preferred approach, the EU framework for regional policy. It would focus EU regional assistance on the poorest member states. Richer member states such as the UK would finance their regional policy domestically and we would increase UK. Government spending to ensure that the UK nations and regions do not lose out financially as a result of reform.
    Joyce Quin: I welcome the Government's commitment to ensuring that regions such as the northeast will not lose out, whatever the future of EU regional funding may be. I also encourage the Government to follow a policy of further economic decentralisation in the UK. What discussions have taken place with other European Union countries—especially the new countries that will be members by the time that the important decisions are made—and what support have they given to the proposals?
    Alan Johnson: We have had a number of discussions. Commissioner Barnier kicked off a round of discussions last year but, as yet, not many EU member states have framed their objectives and policy. In fact, only the Netherlands, as far as I know, has said what it intends to do and what approach it intends to take. That approach is similar to our own. The document is a consultation document—now that other EU member states have seen it, we will, I am sure, get their reaction. As for the accession countries, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions and I have made a point of speaking to the accession countries about those issues. They will not be part of the decision, but they will certainly experience its effects.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: The Minister will be aware that in the past North Yorkshire has benefited

    1077
    particularly from the old objectives 3 and 5. Is he aware that that there are now pockets of rural poverty in constituencies such as the Vale of York, where rural wages are 12 per cent. lower than urban wages? In the review, will the Department ensure that the moneys that come to regions such as Yorkshire and the Humber will be spread evenly between rural and urban areas?
    Alan Johnson: We will ensure that our proposal is for a much more devolved and locally led allocation of European regional structural funds, which account for only a quarter of the money that we spend in the regions in this country. It is important to ensure that overarching principles govern the allocation of EU structural funds, and that they take into account the needs of rural areas.
    However, to answer the hon. Lady's question, it is much more appropriate to look at the way in which regional development agencies and we allocate money domestically at the moment to ensure that rural areas get their fair share. We are doing so, and the Minister for Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is an active participant in discussions with the RDAs. The hon. Lady has made an important point that needs to be looked at, quite apart from objectives 3 and 5, which she mentioned.
    Mr. David Watts: Can the Minister tell us when he will be able to publish his proposals on areas such as Merseyside, which enjoy objective 1 funding at present? Can he give an assurance that he will discuss his proposals with organisations such as the Alliance for Regional Aid?
    Alan Johnson: I met a delegation led by my hon. Friend, so he knows that we are willing to discuss that. We published the consultation document on 6 March. It is important to point out that because the 10 accession countries are all poorer than the poorest EU member states, if we did not change the basis of European Union structural funds, the whole basis for allocating funds would change. Indeed, it is calculated that the total of 83 million people who receive objective funding in the European Union now would be reduced to 35 million, including my hon. Friend's constituents. To those people, of course, nothing material has changed in their plight or conditions. The only change would be in the calculation because of the accession countries. That is why we put that consultation document out, and why we think that we are taking the right approach to the problem.

    Rural Post Offices
    Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: How many rural post offices have closed within the last 12 months. [103887]
    The Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness (Mr. Stephen Timms): There were 97 net closures of rural post offices in the twelve months to December
    1078
    2002. The number of net closures in the last quarter of that year, the most recent for which data are available, was zero.
    Mr. Djanogly: St. Ives post office in my constituency—a rural post office serving 17,000 people—was recently closed, having been given three weeks' notice, which I find quite unacceptable. Thanks to a massive local effort and a receptive Post Office, St. Ives is to reopen. However, that raises some serious issues, such as the lack of closure notification procedures, the lack of sourcing of alternative sites, the Post Office's inability to recruit and retain sub-postmasters and the lack of attractive products, which are leading to the closure of scores of post offices around the country. What is the Minister going to do about it?
    Mr. Timms: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing to the attention of the House the success of the Government's measures to ensure that where there is a proposed closure an alternative can be found. He has done the House a service by explaining how that works—it is exactly what the Government have done. The Post Office has put in place a team of rural transfer advisers to make sure that when the problems that he described arise alternatives can be found, as has been done successfully in his constituency. I made the point that in the most recent quarter for which data are available there were no closures at all. The number of net closures that I gave for the year was less than half the number in 2001–02, which, in turn, was half the number in the preceding year. We have committed £450 million to maintain the rural network up to 2006. We have therefore backed fully, with funding, our commitment that there should be no avoidable closures of rural post offices, and I am delighted that that is working in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
    Dr. Stephen Ladyman: Many of the rural post offices in my constituency have tried to meet the challenge facing them by diversifying into retail newsagency. They have just discovered that retail newsagents have to obtain newspapers from wholesale newsagents that are granted a monopoly by newspaper publishers—a monopoly that has been abused by increasing service charges by 650 per cent. Would we not help rural post offices generally and retail newsagents across the country by breaking the monopoly of wholesale newsagents?
    Mr. Timms: Of course, these arrangements have been in place for a considerable time, but the Office of Fair Trading is looking at precisely the issue that my hon. Friend raises, and it will report back in due course.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: In Northern Ireland, just as elsewhere in Great Britain, rural post offices, in addition to delivering pensions and benefits conveniently, contribute to local village life. Will the Minister acknowledge that there has been disproportionate encouragement to benefit recipients to have bank accounts, and will he use some of the £450 million that he has mentioned to indicate in simple terms that people may still choose, as he has announced this

    1079
    morning, to receive payments in cash at their local post offices? That might just help to avert some further closures.
    Mr. Timms: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of post offices in the life of a community, and he is right to draw attention to that point. However, in putting in place arrangements for the change to automated credit transfer, we have ensured that anyone who wishes to obtain their benefit in cash from a post office—either through a Post Office card account, or through any of the basic bank accounts that all banks will offer—can continue to do so. Those accounts will be fully accessible at the local post office. The great benefit is that people will be able to use the bank accounts and go to the post office, and post offices will be offering the services that people increasingly want. The old-fashioned giros did not offer a future for the post office, but our new arrangements will.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: Given that rural post offices will lose some 40 per cent. of their income over the next two years with the introduction of universal banking, and given that the Government's largesse of £150 million a year will continue only to the end of 2005, taking us up to the next general election, will the Minister explain what happens then? The House, sub-postmasters and the public who use post offices will want to know whether this Government have a long-term, coherent plan for the future of rural post offices after the next general election.
    Mr. Timms: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the figures that I have given to the House on the falling number of post office closures in rural areas. His suggestion that 40 per cent. of income will be lost to the Post Office assumes, of course, that nobody who obtains their benefit at a post office at the moment will do so in future. However, very many of the benefit recipients who currently use post offices will use the Post Office card account, a basic bank account or an ordinary bank account and continue to obtain their benefit in cash at local post offices, thereby generating income for the post office network. The arrangements beyond 2006 will, of course, be a matter for the next spending review, but the Government's commitment to ensuring a successful future for the post office network in every part of the country will be maintained.

    Christmas Day Working
    Ms Ann Coffey: What steps she is taking to improve protection for employees against retail employers who force their staff to work on Christmas day. [103888]
    The Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions (Alan Johnson): The Government wish to maintain the special nature of Christmas day. I expect to launch a consultation on possible new regulation of opening by large stores a little later this year.
    Ms Coffey: I thank the Minister for his reply and I welcome his announcement about a consultation. However, does he agree that it cannot be right that there are no trading restrictions on Christmas day when it
    1080
    falls on any day other than a Sunday? It cannot be right that shop workers have to rely on the goodwill of their employers. Surely the only real protection for shop workers is legislation.
    Alan Johnson: It is an anomaly that the terms of the Sunday Trading Act 1994 protect shop workers and others working in the retail sector when Christmas day falls on a Sunday. The basis of that Act was that Sunday is a special day, and everyone agrees that Christmas day is also a special day. We are minded to introduce legislation. Our view is that we need to consult fully beforehand, but we feel that the time to legislate is when there is not a problem. All the retailers say, "We have no wish to open on a Sunday, but if any of our competitors do, we will." It is important to act before we get on to that slippery slope.
    Mr. John Bercow: Notwithstanding the fact that many people, myself included, agree with the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) that it seems both unfair and mean-spirited to coerce people into working on Christmas day when they would otherwise not choose to do so, does the Minister accept that when contemplating legislation, it is essential to be sure that legislation and regulation are necessary, and that the form that they take is proportionate to the size of the problem and the level of the protest about it?
    Alan Johnson: I fully accept that. My right hon Friend the Secretary of State wrote to retailers last year to see whether there was an alternative to regulation. If there was an agreement between the major retailers, none of whom was interested in opening on Christmas day, that would probably breach fair trading rules, so that option has been ruled out. The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. If there were any sensible alternatives to regulation, we would pursue them. My view at present—that is the reason for the consultation document—is that there is no alternative, and it will be beneficial regulation, not least because many retailers have said to us, "Look, we agree with you, but either put up or shut up. We will open if our competitors open, and the best way you can deal with this", many retailers tell us, "is through regulation."

    Energy White Paper
    Mr. Gareth Thomas: What discussions she has had with Ofgem about the Energy White Paper. [103889]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): Ministers and officials have held a number of discussions with Ofgem about the energy White Paper, both before and after its publication. The White Paper includes a number of commitments relating to Ofgem, which we are pursuing with the regulator.
    Mr. Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware of comments by the head of Ofgem that the Government's environmental and social guidance to Ofgem is not yet strong enough? In the light of those comments, will she

    1081
    undertake to revisit the guidance, and will she consider further whether Ofgem requires additional sustainable energy expertise on its board of directors?
    Ms Hewitt: I entirely agree that the environmental guidance needs to be strengthened in the light of our White Paper objectives and commitments. We have that work in hand. We have also, as we state in the White Paper, agreed with Ofgem that it will produce regulatory impact assessments, including environmental impact assessments, on all new policies. I am delighted to say that a new non-executive board member with strong environmental credentials has been selected, and we will make an announcement about that shortly.
    Mr. Nick Gibb: In a written answer, the Energy Minister stated that increasing the renewables obligation from 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. will add £1 billion to the annual cost of electricity generation. On the assumption of a 3p buyer price, does the right hon. Lady believe that she will achieve 20 per cent., and if not, what price does she envisage, and what effect will that new price have on the cost of electricity to consumers?
    Ms Hewitt: As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, we have published on the DTI website the extensive economic modelling work that underpins the analysis and the conclusions of the White Paper. As I said earlier to the House, the renewables obligation by 2010 will deliver a £1 billion boost to investment in the renewables sector. Energy prices at present, with the sole exception of industrial gas, are lower than they have been for about 20 years. A striking aspect of the consultation that we did with the public was that cheap electricity was seen as rather less important than meeting our carbon obligations. I therefore believe that we will be right to continue with the renewables obligation in order to ensure that we meet not only the 2010 targets but our 2020 objectives as well.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: Has my right hon. Friend taken into consideration the views of the regulator about what will happen when we become a net importer of gas, and the fact that we could become more reliant on gas over the next 10 years? As has been proved in relation to oil in the last few weeks, an unstable situation in regard to gas supply could have a traumatic effect on domestic and industrial energy supplies if we do not take action now. Will my right hon. Friend tell us which way she intends to go on the issue of the net import of gas?
    Ms Hewitt: The issue that my hon. Friend has raised is one of the reasons why we need a new energy policy. Over the next five years or so, we will indeed become a net importer of oil and gas. We already import about half the coal that we use. This will change the energy position in the United Kingdom. We will have to pay even greater attention to possible threats to the security of supply that could result from international events. Let me stress, however, that we have been importing oil from Russia for the last 37 years or so without any interruption, and that much of our gas supply will come
    1082
    from Norway, a close colleague and partner. We are already putting in place a new treaty with Norway to ensure that we will be able to secure those supplies.

  MINISTER FOR WOMEN
  The Minister was asked—
  MINISTER FOR WOMEN

    Entrepreneurship
    Mr. Wayne David: What measures she is taking to encourage more women to become business entrepreneurs. [103900]
    The Minister for Women (Ms Patricia Hewitt): A national strategic framework for business support for women's enterprise is in the final stages of development by the Small Business Service, in conjunction with Prowess—the nationwide network of women entrepreneurs—and a cross-government policy group. This strategy will enable us to support far more women in moving into self-employment and setting up their own businesses.
    Mr. David: Is the Minister aware of studies that have taken place in the United States that show that black women, especially, make excellent entrepreneurs when sufficient support is given? Does she believe that the issue could be considered in that context in this country?
    Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Unfortunately, we are not doing nearly as well as other countries, including the United States, at encouraging women, including black women, into business start-ups. If women in the United Kingdom were starting up businesses at the same rate as men are, we would have about 100,000 more businesses in the United Kingdom every year. That is why we are giving such priority to this issue, and ensuring—both through Prowess and the work of the phoenix fund—that we support women from all our different communities who are interested in becoming entrepreneurs.
    Mr. Andrew Turner: What is the Minister doing to encourage women to become sub—postmistresses? Have the Government implemented recommendation 18 of the performance and innovation unit report that was mentioned earlier? It states:
    "The Post Office should develop a role for post offices as Government General Practitioners."
    At a time when Haylands, Horsebridge Hill and Parkhurst post offices in my constituency are under threat of closure, the Government appear to have nothing to say on this matter—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is far too wide of the mark.
    Mrs. Louise Ellman: Does the Minister recognise that women entrepreneurs have been greatly assisted by the innovation that was a key feature of the existing European structural funds, which has helped women in Merseyside and the north-west by supporting investment funds and training, and by giving encouragement to women to become involved in

    1083
    business? Will she ensure that, in any changes to structural funds, the innovation that allowed women to be supported in this way will be continued?
    Ms Hewitt: When I was in Merseyside just last week, I saw an example of precisely that kind of entrepreneurial spirit at Blackburn House—in this case, a social enterprise created and led by women for women. My hon. Friend makes an important point, and the consultation document that the Chancellor and I recently published on the future of the structural funds and regional policy sets out a sensible way forward to ensure that the work already being done under the structural funds and under the regional development agencies will continue, following enlargement, in what we believe will be an even more effective and efficient way.

    Domestic Violence
    Mr. Gwyn Prosser: What recent measures she has taken to help women victims of domestic violence. [103901]
    The Minister for Women (Ms Patricia Hewitt): The Government are currently consulting with a view to legislating to tackle domestic violence. We are funding refuges, and we have funded a new helpline for women fleeing violence. My Department is developing initiatives to raise awareness, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General is working with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to ensure that the police and prosecution services work far more effectively together to deal with the problem.
    Mr. Prosser: I should declare a non-pecuniary interest as director of the east Kent refuge.
    The domestic violence statistics are staggering. Crimes of domestic violence constitute a quarter of all violent crimes, are responsible for the deaths of 50 per cent. of female murder victims, and continue to claim two lives each week. Is it not time help was given at grass-roots level—to, for instance, the voluntary refuge support groups that must still rely on jumble sales and voluntary exercises for their funds?
    Ms Hewitt: I agree that far more needs to be done, especially at local level, to support not just women but children fleeing domestic violence, and to deal with this appalling violent crime. That is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary recently announced an additional investment of £14 million to tackle the problem—in particular, through the local crime and disorder reduction partnerships—and my hon. Friend the deputy Minister for Women recently announced an additional £9 million to help women and their children who are fleeing domestic violence.
    Sandra Gidley: Following the publication of the Womenspeak survey initiated by the Minister, which found that 70 per cent. of women had experienced problems with the Benefits Agency, what discussions has the Minister had with the Department for Work and
    1084
    Pensions to ensure that women who refuse to give the names of violent partners are not regarded as fraudsters? [Interruption.]
    Ms Hewitt: I am sorry to note that Opposition Members appear to have no interest in this rather important subject.
    I agree that more needs to be done to deal with the Benefits Agency problem. My hon. Friend the deputy Minister for Women is taking it up with the Department for Work and Pensions.
    Julie Morgan: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the work of the women's safety unit in Cardiff, a unique multidisciplinary project which has, during its short life, had a considerable impact in reducing the amount of domestic violence in the city? Will she join me in congratulating the unit on obtaining long-term funding from the Home Office and the Welsh Assembly to continue its good work? [Interruption.]
    Ms Hewitt rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Gummer, there is far too much in the way of loud prolonged conversation. This is an important matter.
    Ms Hewitt: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
    I readily congratulate the women's safety unit in Cardiff, which provides an excellent example of what happens when all the agencies in the voluntary sector work together to ensure that women and children are given the support that they need.
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: The Minister just said that the Government had funded a new helpline, and indeed the Government held a press launch in December last year. But the line will not be up and running until the autumn, with £1 million of Government money and £1 million from Comic Relief. Why was it launched nearly a year before it will become operational, thus raising expectations and making life for the two main charities who will run it—Women's Aid and Refuge—even more difficult?
    Ms Hewitt: As the hon. Lady would expect, we agreed with all our partners in the helpline that it was desirable to announce what was being done, so that we would receive the maximum support for this excellent initiative.
    Bob Spink: If she will make a statement on the forthcoming Green Paper on domestic violence. [103902]
    The Minister for Women (Ms Patricia Hewitt): The Home Office will shortly publish a consultation paper setting out proposals to strengthen the law against domestic violence. Those proposals will cover three broad areas, ensuring the safety of domestic violence victims, bringing offenders to justice and strengthening confidence in the criminal justice system.
    Bob Spink: Does the Minister agree that it is shocking that even now two children a week die from domestic

    1085
    violence? When domestic violence takes place, children are usually in the vicinity. What will the Green Paper do to increase protection for children, and will it address the problem of low levels of supervision in child contact centres?
    Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Ministers and local authorities are considering how to strengthen protection for children in contact centres and situations in which access is disputed. I stress that the Bill on which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will consult will be the first dedicated to the issue of domestic violence since 1976, when Jo Richardson—whom many, at least on the Labour Benches, will remember with deep affection—introduced the Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976.
    Kali Mountford: Is my right hon. Friend alarmed to discover from recent surveys that many young men say that if their girlfriends step out of line, it is all right to give them a slap? Does that not mean
    1086
    that we should invest much more in what seems to be an in-bred cultural problem and not just the result of strains and stresses within the family?
    Ms Hewitt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Domestic violence is fundamentally about cultural attitudes and power relationships between men and women. The Department for Education and Skills is considering what can be done in schools and the education system to tackle the problem of appalling attitudes towards violence against women that are evidenced among too many young men today.

  ROYAL ASSENT
  Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
  Consolidated Fund Act 2003
  Northern Ireland Assembly Elections Act 2003

Iraq (Overnight Events)
12.32 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about military operations to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction.
President Bush's ultimatum to Saddam Hussein expired at 1 o'clock this morning. Just as Saddam failed to take his final opportunity to disarm by peaceful means, so he has now failed to take his final opportunity to depart in peace and avoid the need for coalition military action. I draw the House's attention to Hans Blix's comments in New York yesterday that he was disappointed that three and a half months of inspection work had not brought clear assurances from the Iraqis of the absence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
President Bush announced at 3.15 this morning on behalf of the coalition that operations had begun with attacks on selected targets of military importance. Those attacks were carried out by coalition aircraft and cruise missiles on more than one target in the vicinity of Baghdad, following information relating to the whereabouts of very senior members of the Iraqi leadership. Those leaders are at the very heart of Iraq's command and control system, responsible for directing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
Saddam Hussein's regime is the chief obstacle to the disarmament of Iraq. The military plan is therefore crafted around his removal from power. We will place a copy of the Government's military campaign objectives in the Library later today.
In addition to those attacks, coalition forces yesterday carried out certain preliminary operations against Iraqi artillery, surface-to-surface missiles, and air defence systems within the southern no-fly zone. Those were prudent preparatory steps, using coalition air capabilities previously used in the no-fly zones, designed to reduce the threat to coalition forces in Kuwait. The protection of our servicemen and women is a matter of paramount importance.
The House will be aware of reports of Iraqi missile attacks against Kuwait. Those incidents are being investigated by personnel with appropriate skills and the necessary protection. There are no reported casualties so far, but I am afraid that there is nothing more that I can confirm to the House at this stage.
I would like to draw the attention of the House to two particular points. First, that coalition forces will take every possible care to minimise civilian casualties or damage to civilian infrastructure. The coalition will use modern weapons, which are more accurate than ever, but we can never unfortunately exclude the possibility of civilian casualties, tragic though those always are. However, people should treat with caution Iraq's claims of civilian casualties. The Iraqi people are not our enemies, and we are determined to do all we can to help them build the better future that they deserve.
Secondly, I caution the House against suggestions that this campaign will be over in a very short time. We all certainly hope that offensive operations will be over quickly, but we should not underestimate the risks and difficulties that we may face against a regime that is the embodiment of absolute ruthlessness, with an utter disregard for human life.
1088
I turn now to the United Kingdom's armed forces. I have set out in successive statements the forces that we have prepared for this purpose. We have deployed a substantial naval force of 29 Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels, including the aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal and the helicopter carrier HMS Ocean. The land force is led by Headquarters 1 (UK) Armoured Division and includes 3 Commando Brigade Royal Marines, 16 Air Assault Brigade, 7th Armoured Brigade and 102 Logistics Brigade. We have also deployed an air force comprised of about 100 fixed-wing aircraft and 27 helicopters. In all, about 45,000 servicemen and women have been assigned to the campaign to disarm Iraq.
Our forces will make a substantial contribution to the military action to disarm Iraq, which we will pursue at a time and on a schedule of our own choosing. They are trained, equipped and ready for the tasks they may now, need to undertake. British forces are already engaged in certain military operations, although the House will, understand why I cannot give further details at this stage.
Events over the coming days will dominate the 24-hour media. The House will recognise that we must all be wary of jumping to conclusions on the basis of "breaking news" before there has been time to conduct a proper investigation. Similarly, the House will understand—and I hope that the media will too—that if we respond to media pressure for instant operational detail, we could risk the security and safety of our forces. We cannot therefore offer a running commentary on media reports. I will ensure, however, that the House is kept fully informed of significant developments. That is why I am making this statement today. In addition to making statements as and when necessary, I will arrange for a short summary to be placed in the Library of the House, with copies made available to members in the Vote Office, as warranted by the day's events.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be travelling to the European Council this afternoon. Once further significant military action has begun, and UK forces are substantially engaged, the Prime Minister will ask to make a broadcast to the nation.
Once again we are placing an enormous weight of responsibility on the shoulders of our armed forces. We have not taken the decision to do so lightly. The commitment to military action of service personnel is always the gravest step that any Government can undertake. I know that the thoughts and prayers of this House and of our country are with them, and their families, as they embark on their mission. We hope for their safe and swift return.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I thank the Secretary of State for his timely statement to the House, and for providing me with a copy in advance. I am grateful for his assurance that he will continue to make regular oral statements to the House, and put a daily summary of events in the Library.
First, I want to underline one part of the Secretary of State's statement—that the size and scale of the British forces involved in this operation show that they are no token commitment. They are making a very real contribution to the operation, and we should be proud of them.
Events overnight confirm that military operations to disarm Saddam Hussein are likely to be unpredictable. We appreciate that in any conflict of this nature,

1089
especially with modern electronic surveillance, targets will present themselves for attack at very short notice. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the military commanders will continue to have the necessary autonomy to act quickly and flexibly to seize such opportunities, as and when they arise?
When the President of the United States refers, as he did this morning, to "coalition forces" being in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, is he implying that UK forces were involved in the action overnight? If so, is the Secretary of State able to say in what capacity?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the coalition is far wider than just the UK and US and that it comprises some 35 nations, although not all are directly involved in military action?
There are reports of Scud B missile attacks on Kuwait and coalition forces there. It may be too early for the Secretary of State to confirm the exact nature of these attacks, but if they were Scud Bs—with a range of at least 600 km—would that not confirm that Saddam Hussein had continued to lie and failed to disarm? Can the Secretary of State confirm how effective the US theatre missile defences have been? Is he able to say what warheads the enemy missiles were carrying? Can he explain what caused the explosion reported in Kuwait City? Can he provide any details about the exchange of artillery fire on the Iraqi border with Kuwait?
There has been widespread concern about the possible interaction of Turkish and Kurdish forces in northern Iraq, perhaps at a later stage of the conflict. Can he comment on overnight reports that Iraqi Kurdish forces have placed themselves under US command? If this is true, it is a welcome development. There are also reports of Iraqi soldiers giving themselves up; this is most welcome. Will the Secretary of State confirm that they are being treated as bona fide prisoners of war and will be accorded their proper rights under the Geneva convention? Will he also clarify what role they might be invited to play eventually at later stages of the conflict, perhaps as volunteers in the fighting to disarm Saddam Hussein?
What continued diplomatic initiatives are being maintained with France and Russia, who have both issued public criticism of the action carried out by the coalition? Will the Government and the United States make every effort to engage the United Nations in the humanitarian tasks, which are far more the inevitable result of 30 years of Saddam Hussein's misrule than of any damage likely to be caused by military action?
We have had a great debate over many months about military action to disarm Saddam Hussein. We are, of course, a free country in which people continue to have every right to protest, but I hope that all parties will agree that such protests should remain within the law. It is a tragic inevitability of war that innocent people will die, and we mourn them. Would not it be so much better for Saddam Hussein to end the suffering of the Iraqi people now and surrender immediately?
The UK has embarked on this course alongside our allies to disarm Saddam Hussein because he is a threat. I support the Secretary of State in his warning that, inevitably, there will be events in the days and weeks
1090
ahead that test our determination. It may take longer than we hope, but we must have the resolve to see this through.
I conclude with the words of Lieutenant Colonel Tim Collins who addressed his 1st Battalion of the Royal Irish Regiment yesterday with these words:
"Let us bring everyone home and leave Iraq a better place for our having been there."
He spoke for our whole nation and we wish him and all our fine armed forces the best of good fortune.
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's observations and for the support of Her Majesty's official Opposition.
On his question about the responsibility of commanders on the ground, I assure him that they will have the delegated responsibilities necessary to allow them to take appropriate action. Equally, I make it clear that those delegated responsibilities are always approved by Ministers, consistent with the usual arrangements.
On the specific involvement of UK forces, President Bush made it clear in his address overnight that these were coalition operations. I do not believe that it is appropriate to specify what particular forces were used for each particular operation. These are coalition operations involving a wide range of military support; at least the number of countries mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
Consistent with what I said earlier, I do not intend to comment in detail about the considerable number of missiles that have been targeted against Kuwait. We are investigating precisely the nature of the missiles and of the warheads with which they are equipped. I understand, but only from recent news reports, that defensive systems have been used to good effect to deal with at least one such missile.
There is close co-operation between the United States and Kurdish forces in the north of Iraq and I am confident that that will continue. I give the House the assurance that prisoners of war will be dealt with in accordance with international law. There are certainly signs of a growing number of disaffected Iraqis abandoning support for Saddam Hussein. This morning I discussed with my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary the continuing diplomatic initiatives that will be taken. As I have said, the Prime Minister will go to the European Council meeting this afternoon.
Mr. Paul Keetch: May I thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of his statement and associate myself and my colleagues with his comments and those of the shadow Defence Secretary about the excellence of the men and women of our armed forces? They will perform whatever tasks they are set with extraordinary courage and great skill. They are a credit to our nation. At this time we must remember their families at home. Our troops and their families should know that they have the support of the full House today.
We all hope that this will be a swift and successful campaign with as few casualties as possible on all sides. The Secretary of State outlined today details of the strike that took place in the small hours of the morning.

1091
We thank him for that and we understand the constraints that he has in saying more. In relation to the reports of the Iraqi attacks on Kuwait this morning, does it appear that the warning procedures set in place by coalition forces have worked extremely successfully?
Finally, I understand that later today the permanent under-secretary will announce that the unmarried partners of members of the armed forces serving in the Gulf will receive proper compensation, should their partners pay the ultimate price. The Secretary of State will know of my concern and interest in this matter. If that is the case, may I thank him? It is most welcome.
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support. He asked two specific questions. I was enormously impressed by the television pictures this morning of British forces and, indeed, members of the press, reacting quickly to warning procedures. We undoubtedly have concerns about the offensive action taken by Iraq against Kuwait and our deployed forces. Today there will be a ministerial statement on unmarried partners along the lines that the hon. Gentleman advocated.
Laura Moffatt: My right hon. Friend has outlined the progress in this campaign. We must win the campaign and not allow our armed forces to go into conflict without the correct weaponry to protect them. Could he say something about the more controversial weapons that may need to be used, such as depleted uranium heads on weapons and cluster bombs, for our constituents who may have concerns about them?
Mr. Hoon: I emphasise that a range of weapons will have to be used to prosecute this campaign successfully and achieve the successful result that my hon. Friend rightly advocates. I will not allow our forces to be prevented from using those lawful weapons that are most suitable for achieving those tasks. I assure her equally that those weapons are used only after the most careful consideration. Depleted uranium and cluster bombs have a particular military purpose. If that purpose is necessary, they will be used; if it is not, they will not be used.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: The Secretary of State will be aware that a number of my constituents based at RAF Marham are in the Gulf and will almost certainly have played a part in this first phase of operations. They will have shown their normal, high standard of professionalism. Does he agree that they now deserve the 100 per cent. support of all the public? Surely the time has come for these anti-war demonstrations to cease.
Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is right. Those armed forces deserve our support. It is a characteristic of our society and the values that we are trying to uphold that we have a democracy and the opportunity to demonstrate, that we can set out in full the different views expressed by a mature democracy. That is what we are trying to achieve. Therefore, I would not necessarily go all the way with him in his remarks. As for his constituents, our thoughts are also with the families who are obviously concerned about the people who are
1092
engaged in action and will be engaged in the near future. It is important that we remember those people as they support those who have gone to war on our behalf.
Mr. Kevin Hughes: Given what we know about Saddam Hussein's propaganda machine, what plans does my right hon. Friend have to deal swiftly with any false information, or disinformation, that will come out of Iraq? Does he have any intelligence on rumours that Saddam has built up a body bank that can be used to inflate the civilian casualty figures?
Mr. Hoon: Before I answer that specific question, may I commend my hon. Friend on his strong support of the military operations and on the strong support of his son, who is presently serving in the Gulf? The whole House will join me in congratulating him on that.
I caution the House, as I did in my statement, about relying too much on propaganda from the Iraqi authorities. We have many experiences of Iraq claiming civilian casualties in the no-fly zone on days when we have not had a single aircraft flying.
Mr. James Paice: I endorse what the Secretary of State said about the role of the media. Will he go a little further? Will he take this opportunity to remind the media—both written and visual—that what we are embarked upon is a very serious action to relieve the people of Iraq and the world of these weapons? This is not some form of entertainment. It is not designed as a spectacle for people to sit glued to their screens to watch as entertainment. Will he urge upon all commentators and reporters a sense of dignity and responsibility in the way that they report what is going on? Will he urge discretion upon them not necessarily to report every single detail if doing so could cause distress to families or individuals in this country? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
Mr. Hoon: I do not think that I can improve on the remarks of the hon. Gentleman. He puts his case extremely well and I entirely endorse it.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will my right hon. Friend outline the precautions that our forces and the forces of our allies will take to ensure that the Iraqi people have adequate access to clean water and food during the actions?
Mr. Hoon: On previous occasions, when I have set out to the House the details of the British force deploying to the Gulf, I have made it clear that it is a flexible force— certainly designed for war-fighting but also designed for peacekeeping. As soon as any conflict draws to an end, forces will be in place to provide security to the people of Iraq but also to attend to their obvious humanitarian needs. Iraq has been devastated by the regime of Saddam Hussein over many years. It is a much poorer country than it should be. We will assist in the process of rebuilding that country.
Bob Spink: If at all possible, will the Secretary of State seek to ensure that there is no Turkish incursion in the north of Iraq? That would be destabilising and downright dangerous. Will the

1093
Kurdish people get co-operation if, in any internal uprising, they seek to take over Kirkuk or to help the allied forces to remove Saddam Hussein's evil regime?
Mr. Hoon: A clear message has been sent to Turkey along the lines of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion; the Turkish ambassador visited the Ministry of Defence this morning. As far as the Kurds are concerned, I emphasise—as I did in response to an earlier question—the importance of preserving the position of the Kurds. They have, in the past, been the target of appalling attacks by Saddam Hussein's regime and we will never allow that to be forgotten.
Mr. Neil Gerrard: The Secretary of State has said that he wants civilian casualties to be minimised and yet, when my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) asked about cluster bombs, he would not rule out their use. Does he not see the contradiction between his two statements? The record of the use of cluster bombs is that they do, by their very nature, cause civilian casualties. In the first Gulf war, the United States used something like 60,000 cluster bombs, containing up to 20 million bomblets, in Iraq and Kuwait. Does the Secretary of State really believe that a repetition of that sort of behaviour will not cause civilian casualties?
Mr. Hoon: I made it clear that those particular weapons have a particular purpose. They will be used to achieve that purpose if it is necessary. Their use will be limited to those circumstances. I assure my hon. Friend that they are not used in a random way; but I would be failing in my duties as Secretary of State for Defence if I did not allow our armed forces to use the most appropriate weapons to deal with the threats against them.
Mr. Simon Thomas: Now that the troops are engaged and potentially under attack, we all wish that they may return safely and swiftly to this country. We all give them that support. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the attacks last night were in residential areas of Baghdad and were, in fact, an attempt to assassinate Saddam Hussein? Will he take this opportunity to spell out in more detail the UK MOD processes for ensuring the protection of civilians in such situations? What advice is taken and given in order to achieve that? Will he also say a little more about the co-ordination of the humanitarian relief that will have to follow? How will it be achieved? Will it follow a similar military chain of command, or will it be a different sort of operation?
Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman probably understands more about the nature of Iraqi society than he is letting on. In the past, we have heard many references to the palaces that the regime has constructed. Those palaces are residential—if the hon. Gentleman chooses to describe them as such—but they are also command and control centres that are operated by leaders of the regime simply because they are afraid of any close contact with their own people. In reality, those targets are perfectly legitimate military targets
1094
because they are the places from which Saddam Hussein exercises command and control over his own people and over weapons of mass destruction. It is entirely consistent with our campaign objectives that such military command and control facilities should be targeted.
A great deal of effort has been made in recent months to ensure proper co-ordination. As I have said before, it is important not only that we win any war but that we win any subsequent peace. I was in Washington some weeks ago, primarily to discuss the role that the military can play in ensuring the reconstruction of Iraq. My military advisers are at pains to emphasise that we are further forward in that way than we have ever been in any previous conflict. We recognise in particular the outstanding role that Britain's armed forces can play in these kinds of peacekeeping operation. However, it is important that we get through any military conflict before we can turn our full attention to such an operation. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that a great deal of effort is being made by the Government, in co-operation with other Governments, to ensure the co-ordination of that humanitarian effort.
Mr. Tom Levitt: A criticism that has been levelled at this military action has been the tag "unilateral action by the United States". Given the variety of degrees of enthusiasm with which hon. Members in this House reached the conclusion that we did the other night, if my right hon. Friend could confirm that the number of countries that are actively engaged in one way or another in supporting the present military action is 30—or, better still, if he could confirm that the number is higher than that—it would reassure many of us.
Mr. Hoon: I can confirm, as I did earlier today, that there are at least 30 countries that are actively engaged in support of military operations, and, indeed, that still more countries are offering strong political support.
Mr. George Osborne: It is clear from the action overnight that the military is targeting Saddam Hussein himself. Should Saddam Hussein be killed or overthrown, would military action cease immediately? If not, how would the Iraqi military bring the conflict to a close? What would it have to say to us to bring the conflict to an end?
Mr. Hoon: We are pursuing lawful military targets. Clearly, part of that effort is designed to disrupt the command and control of the regime. As I have said, and as the Prime Minister made clear yesterday, we are seeking to remove weapons of mass destruction from Iraq. However, with the expiry of the ultimatum to the regime and to Saddam Hussein, the means of achieving that will be through the removal of the regime. The removal of the regime will be the specific focus of our military operations.
Mr. George Galloway: Is it not the ultimate in spin-doctoring propaganda for the Minister to be quoting Dr. Hans Blix in aid of his statement—[Interruption.] The Chief Whip is heckling me but this is a free Parliament and I will be heard in it—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will be heard.
Mr. Galloway: Is it not the ultimate in spin-doctoring propaganda to be praying in aid Dr. Hans Blix, who has just denounced the action that the Minister has been boasting about this morning—as have an overwhelming number of world leaders, including some of our closest friends, partners and allies? Will the Secretary of State give a straight answer to this question: given the view in the advice of the overwhelming number of unpurchased international legal experts that this action is illegal, what assurance will he give British forces that they will not face prosecution in the International Criminal Court by other countries for the actions that he has ordered them to carry out today?
Mr. Hoon: I will defend my hon. Friend's right to he heard—as I will also defend the right of the opposition in Iraq to be heard; and I should be much happier if he emphasised that more frequently than he has sometimes done in the recent past. I assure him, as I have assured the House on previous occasions, that the actions of our armed forces are entirely lawful and based on the clear advice of the Attorney-General, which has been set out for the benefit of Members.
Mr. Humfrey Malins: May I raise with the Secretary of State the issue of British civilians serving alongside our troops in the Gulf? In the event that those civilians are injured or wounded, will they receive the same protection through war pensions, insurance cover or the like as apply to our military personnel?
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of something that I normally mention: the contribution made by civil servants, especially from the Ministry of Defence and other Departments, to such military operations. We should not forget either them or their families in the efforts that are being made. I assure the hon. Gentleman that they will receive appropriate entitlements, according to the arrangements that normally prevail for their service.
Kali Mountford: On the news this morning and in the House this afternoon, my right hon. Friend said that he cannot engage in a propaganda war, giving an hour-by-hour update to the press. However, can he ensure that the House receives accurate information, which is as full and complete as is possible and practicable, as soon as he can provide it?
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue of accurate information. It is important that what the Government say in response to incidents is accurate and timely. Sometimes, the needs for accuracy and timeliness can be difficult to reconcile, but it is important that the Government's comments on particular incidents are based on the most accurate information that it is possible to obtain.
Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby): Every Iraqi soldier is some mother's son and most Iraqi conscripts are as innocent as any civilian, yet we hear today that soldiers trying to surrender have been turned back by Kuwaiti border guards, and possibly sent back to execution. Will
1096
the Secretary of State ensure that all coalition allies realise the value of taking Iraqi prisoners of war, and that they treat them well and use them to get others to surrender to show the Iraqi people that our battle is with the regime and not with them?
Mr. Hoon: As I indicated in Defence questions, I know that the hon. Gentleman has considerable knowledge and expertise in that area, so he will understand that the situation on the Kuwaiti-Iraqi border today is somewhat sensitive. It is perhaps understandable that Kuwaiti soldiers might be suspicious of those who might, initially, be trying to surrender. However, as I indicated to the House earlier, efforts are being made; I made a ministerial statement last week indicating that extra British forces will be deployed specifically to deal with prisoners of war and to carry on the good work that the hon. Gentleman has conducted in the past.
Lynne Jones: We all hope that our troops will come home safely, but I am concerned about my right hon. Friend's selective quote from Dr. Hans Bib. On the radio this morning, the chief weapons inspector cast considerable doubt on the likelihood that Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. Given that the whole invasion is predicated on the dubious assumption that Saddam Hussein has links with al-Qaeda and other fundamentalist terrorist organisations, and that he would supply them with weapons of mass destruction to attack the US and other western countries, what evidence does my right hon. Friend have—or what evidence has he been supplied with by the American Government—that there are such links between the Iraqi regime and al-Qaeda? It is not sufficient to say—
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Hoon: What I said was that Hans Blix was disappointed that his inspection work had not brought clear assurances from the Iraqis about the absence of weapons of mass destruction. There is no argument about that. I am not aware that any Government, whatever their position on the need for military action, have disputed the fact that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction. That has not been disputed even by countries opposed to military action. It is important not to lose sight of the reason for military operations: to enforce the will of the United Nations to remove the threat of weapons of mass destruction, either, as the Prime Minister has said, when they are in the hands of the Iraqi regime itself, or when there is a risk that they might fall into the hands of unscrupulous terrorist organisations such as al-Qaeda.
I have answered the question about links before. There are clear links between the Iraqi regime and al-Qaeda. We are not sure of the precise nature of those links, but we are certainly aware that they exist. It is important that we continue to monitor that.
Andrew George: Four hundred personnel from RAF Culdrose in my constituency have been deployed to the Gulf and I know that their commitment, courage and professionalism will be much appreciated by the House. Although I realise that the Secretary of

1097
State cannot release into the public domain operational details about deployments over the coming weeks and months, will he ensure that Members of Parliament with large numbers of constituents in the region at least have a private channel of communication so that they can obtain information that might reassure the families of their constituents?
Mr. Hoon: I am sure that appropriate arrangements can be put in place. As I indicated to the House, I want to follow previous practice and ensure that when it is justified details will be made available daily to all Members. However, if the hon. Gentleman has particular concerns about constituents and their families they will certainly be addressed by the Ministry of Defence.
Mr. Ben Chapman: I greatly welcome the assurances about the minimisation of civilian casualties and the fact that our strikes will be specifically and carefully targeted. I accept the cautionary note struck by my right hon. Friend with regard to the length of the campaign. However, the campaign could be shortened by encouraging Iraqi defections. What overt measures are being taken to that end, other than military action? What soft measures are being taken, by way of broadcasts and leaflet drops? What are the targets? Are they at the higher or lower level of Iraqi society or throughout various strata?
Mr. Hoon: A detailed information campaign has been under way for some time to achieve precisely the objective that my hon. Friend describes: the collapse of the regime. We know that the regime is not supported by the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi people—but for the appalling intimidation practised by that regime, it would have collapsed many years ago. Those information operations will continue.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Further to the question put by the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman), will the Secretary of State confirm that the BBC World Service is being used as extensively as possible to broadcast to the Iraqi people? Is he satisfied with the co-operation that he is receiving from that service?
Mr. Hoon: As a great admirer of the BBC World Service and its objective, independent voice in the world, I am sure that those in Iraq who are able to listen to it will benefit from its services.
Alan Simpson: The United Nations has asked for the immediate establishment of a fund of $53 million to provide for emergency humanitarian aid in Iraq. Can the Minister say what contribution the UK is making to that? Can he also give the House an assurance that we will respond to a particular concern that is being raised in Britain already—namely, the demand that whatever contribution Britain makes, it should be through agencies that have clean hands, which would at least
1098
allow us as a Government to avoid having to explain the morally ambiguous position of bombing the children, then offering to feed those who survive?
Mr. Hoon: I assure my hon. Friend that the Government recognise their responsibility in assisting the people of Iraq in any necessary rebuilding that might follow military operations. We are working closely with the United Nations, our coalition partners and others. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is in New York having discussions with Kofi Annan and other members of the United Nations in order to put that process in place.
I make this point to my hon. Friend, and I am sure that if he thinks about it for a moment he will acknowledge it. The moment that the military operations end, it will be British soldiers, American soldiers and other members of the armed forces who will be in position, with the ability to help to resolve those problems. If they do not help to resolve those problems, there will not be time for the international organisations to move in sufficiently quickly to provide food, water, clothing and other necessary assistance. That is why the Government have allocated significant funds for members of the military to engage in the initial humanitarian help that will be required the moment that conflict ceases.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: Many hon. Members and members of the public will have read an account of the exemplary address by Colonel Collins to his battle group. I commend every single word of it, especially what he said about appropriate respect for and treatment of Iraq and Iraqis. He gave an instruction to his battle group not to fly the Union flag from their vehicles when they are on Iraqi territory in order to show that this is a war of liberation, not of occupation. Symbols are important. If that is not yet policy for all British forces engaged in this operation, will the Secretary of State consider making it so? In particular, if he considers it to be appropriate for United Kingdom forces, will he suggest to our United States allies that it may also be appropriate for them?
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for the careful and measured way in which the hon. Gentleman made that point, and I shall certainly look into it.
Ann Clwyd: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the so-called live broadcast by Saddam Hussein this morning was in fact a recording? Will he also tell us exactly what is the situation as far as Turkey is concerned, given that Turkey has so far shown considerable reluctance to give assistance in the war that is now in progress?
Mr. Hoon: I know that the nature of that broadcast has attracted some interest and that analysis is being conducted as to its origins and authenticity, but I am not in a position at this stage to comment further.
Turkey is offering assistance. Clearly, we hope that Turkey will offer more help in coalition operations, and that is something that we continue to discuss with Turkey.
Mr. David Cameron: Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East

1099
Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), has the Secretary of State given any guidance, or does he plan to give any guidance, to British news organisations that plan to maintain correspondents in Baghdad even after a state of war exists between our two countries?
Mr. Hoon: Guidance is given by the Government and general advice is given to news media about the safety and security of their correspondents in Baghdad. Above all else, what we will be looking for is the necessary objectivity from those organisations, particularly as they are operating under very considerable restrictions. Some correspondents do make the point that they are not allowed to see all that they would want to see or to go where they would choose to go in order to report objectively what is taking place. Provided that correspondents make that qualification, their safety and security is ultimately a matter for their employers.
David Hamilton: As one who was in a minority on Tuesday, I believe that it was the first time that this House collectively made such a decision—not the Prime Minister, but this House. It is therefore binding on all Members to accept that that was the decision that was taken, as much as I disagree with it. My question is a simple one. I do not believe that we should be seeing everything that happens through the media. Ministers are right to say that they will come to the House to make statements. On two days a week, we finish at 7 o'clock and we do not sit on a Friday. Will the House adjust its hours to accommodate that, because members of the public expect their MPs to be here?
Mr. Hoon: I am relieved to say, given my other responsibilities at the moment, that that is not a matter for me. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who is responsible?"] I will come to that question in a second, when I have thought of the answer.
On providing an opportunity for the House properly to debate these important events, I remind my hon. Friend that the Government made available three further hours in Tuesday's debate to allow more right hon. and hon. Members to address the issues. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), who will shortly take business questions, will be able to give a much fuller and more detailed answer to that question.
Mr. Michael Clapham: Now that this avoidable war has started, will my right hon. Friend confirm that coalition war costs will not be paid from Iraqi oil revenues?
Mr. Hoon: We have made it absolutely clear that the benefit of Iraq's oil will be used for the benefit of the Iraqi people.
Jim Knight: Will my right hon. Friend clarify what principles the UK military will use for their targeting and whether those principles will be shared by the United States and other allies?
Mr. Hoon: It is absolutely the case that we operate in a coalition with the same principles of international law governing the targeting. I have already set out some of
1100
those principles to the House. It is important to avoid where we can civilian casualties, while recognising the risk that there obviously be civilian harm, but working through the details of the targeting programme to minimise those risks wherever possible.
Jeremy Corbyn: As depleted uranium weapons leave a poisonous cancerous residue for generations to come, and as cluster bombs are specifically anti-personnel devices designed to kill large numbers of people and to leave bomblets that will explode for ever more, killing many individuals, as is presently happening in Afghanistan, why are they being used now against the people of Iraq?
Mr. Hoon: I have already answered that question twice today. I just say this about my hon. Friend's premise in relation to depleted uranium. Notwithstanding what he says about the poisonous residue, there is not the slightest scientific evidence to support his contention. Depleted uranium is one of the complaints that is used against the Ministry of Defence in allegations of so-called Gulf war syndrome. In fact, the forces who deployed to the Gulf suffered fewer incidences of death from cancer that those who did not deploy there. That is a very important medical fact that my hon. Friend should study a little more carefully.
Richard Younger-Ross: No doubt the Americans will also give daily briefings. I wonder whether the Secretary of State could think back to the Gulf war, when on one occasion the Americans gave details of a covert British operation. Will the Secretary of State say what discussions he will have with our coalition allies to ensure that such disclosures do not endanger British forces?
Mr. Hoon: A great deal of effort has already been made to co-ordinate the information campaign and information operations, and I assure him that that will continue.
Dr. Gavin Strang: I am sure that the House and the British people will welcome my right hon. Friend's assurance that the forces will do all that they can to minimise civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure. Does he accept, however, that a certain proportion of even the most modern guided missiles are bound to miss their targets, and that there has to be a danger that some very extensive civilian damage will be done? In those circumstances, while I accept that getting a speedy response sometimes conflicts with having all the information, it would nevertheless be much better if the British people could get the information from the British Government as soon as possible, rather than having to rely on other sources.
Mr. Hoon: My right hon. Friend is right. As I said, there is inevitably a risk to civilians in times of conflict, but equally I point out again that we seek wherever we can to minimise those risks and to ensure that our statements are wholly accurate.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I inform the House that there will be further statements, as the Secretary of State said, and I will keep a list of those who have not been called.

Fire Dispute
1.19 pm
The First Secretary of State (Mr. John Prescott): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the fire dispute.
As the House has just heard, military action is now under way and we are in a grave and serious situation. Our armed forces are now actively engaged in the Gulf. The continuing fire dispute means that 19,000 members of the armed forces are engaged in providing emergency fire cover at home. Therefore, although the Fire Brigades Union has called off its latest strike, which was due to start at 6 o'clock this evening, the threat of a further strike means that we must still hold those troops in reserve rather than release them for other military duties.
As the House will be aware, I have always tried to keep it fully informed of developments in the fire dispute as soon as they take place. I regret to say that, last night, the FBU recalled conference rejected the latest offer from the employers. I will be calling in the local authority employers and the FBU to meet me this afternoon. I am sure that many Members will be astonished that the conference has rejected an offer of 16 per cent. by July 2004 linked to common-sense changes in working practices. It would mean that every qualified firefighter would earn at least £25,000 a year compared with the present level of £21,500. That is a far more generous deal than most other workers in both the public and private sectors have settled for. It is double what their old pay formula would have given them, more than double what other local government employees have settled for, and compares with public sector pay settlements running at about 3 per cent. a year.
As I have said before, the employers' revised pay offer is partly financed by transitional funding from the Government. I want to make it absolutely clear that no more transitional funding will be forthcoming from the Government. Firefighters should be in no doubt that what the employers are offering is both generous and at the absolute limit of what they can afford. With that in mind, the executive council of the FBU concluded that this deal should be accepted by its members and that the strikes should be brought to an end. That was its recommendation to the conference. Clearly, in the view of the FBU negotiators, that was an acceptable offer. The employers agreed to that, as did the Government. Yesterday, however, the recalled conference decided to ignore the recommendation of the union's executive. Instead, it rejected the deal and reverted to the original claim of 40 per cent. for firefighters and 50 per cent. for control room staff.
The recalled conference went on to decide that it would take further soundings in the brigades with a recommendation to reject. It will meet again in two or three weeks' time. The FBU will therefore put the same deal to the same delegates at the same conference as yesterday, no doubt with the same outcome. Individual firefighters, however, have not spoken directly on this dispute since they rejected a 4 per cent. offer in a secret ballot last September. Since then, there have been months of negotiations leading to this final offer. It is a material and significantly better offer and individual firefighters should now have the right to express their individual views on it in a secret ballot.
1102
For now, however, we are left in a position in which, although no new strike dates have been set, we have no guarantee that further strikes will not be called, the union has repeatedly made it clear that it can call fresh strikes at any time with just seven days' notice, and unofficial action could put the public at risk during a period of heightened terrorist threat.
The House will recall that on 28 January I announced that if it proved impossible to reach a satisfactory negotiated agreement I would introduce legislation to impose a pay settlement. Now that the FBU conference has overturned its executive, I have concluded that the time has come for legislation, particularly given the conflict in the Gulf and the heightened threat of terrorism. I am therefore giving notice today that I will introduce and publish a new two-clause Fire Services Bill tomorrow. The Bill will give me the power to impose terms and conditions within the fire service and direct the use of fire service assets and facilities. I will start immediate discussions through the usual channels about how quickly we can make progress on this Bill. In setting the level for a settlement, I would take into account the pay rise that would have been forthcoming under the FBU's existing formula, the pay review bodies' recommendations for other key public sector workers and the Government's overall approach to Public sector pay.
New terms and conditions, however, are only part of what is required for a modernised fire service. As the House is aware, we are repealing section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947 and we are consulting on the related guidance to get the right people in the right place at the right time in order to reduce the risk of fire. I am also pressing ahead with a White Paper on a modernised fire service and legislation to achieve that objective. That will ensure that we have the legal framework in place to provide a modern, safe, efficient and effective fire service for the public and the firefighters. The choice for firefighters is simple: accepting a generous deal that has been approved by the FBU executive, or continuing a dispute that has been running for 12 months, is going nowhere and will require me to act. I believe that the common sense of individual firefighters will prevail in the end. Individual firefighters, however, must be given the chance to vote in a secret ballot, as they did on the original 4 per cent. offer in September last year.
In the interest of public safety, 19,000 members of the armed forces are tied down to cover the possibility that the union may strike again. That is unacceptable in the difficult situation that we face today. People will rightly find it hard to believe that the firefighters would go on strike while the country is engaged in military action. I do not believe for one moment that individual firefighters would want 19,000 members of the armed forces to be held in reserve for firefighting duties at a time when their comrades are risking their lives in the Gulf. I will be making that point strongly when I meet the union and the employers this afternoon.
It is now time for the voice of individual firefighters to be heard. I put my faith in the common sense and decency of firefighters to bring this dispute to an end. We have been reasonable; the FBU has not. Whatever people's views on the war, the country will find it extraordinary and unacceptable that at a time when our

1103
troops are being called into action, the FBU continues to act in this irresponsible way. I hope that the House will support us in these proposals.
David Davis: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for making his statement today and for prior sight of it, albeit only by 20 minutes.
I add the Opposition's support to the Deputy Prime Minister's calls for the FBU to hold a secret ballot of its members and for it not to instigate more strike action, particularly at a time when it puts British citizens at grave risk. Today, with the coalition forces involved in military action against Iraq, that danger is starker than at any time in this dispute. Currently, up to 45,000 service personnel, including a quarter of the Army, are deployed in the Gulf. There could not be a worse time to commit 19,000 troops to stay at home on firefighting duties.
The last time that I asked the Deputy Prime Minister about that, he said that he took the advice of the military. We have had clear advice from the military: the Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir Michael Boyce, said that he was "extremely concerned" that keeping 19,000 troops on standby to cover for the firemen was affecting training and operational readiness. Now, we understand that troops deployed in Northern Ireland have had their tours extended, and troops now in the Gulf have had their training times and leave—often the last opportunity to see their loved ones before military action—cut. Does the Deputy Prime Minister deny that all of that is a direct result of the need to provide cover for firefighters? Clearly, he does not.
Since December, with war looming, I have been calling on the Deputy Prime Minister to seek an injunction to ban these dangerous strikes. Will he now publish the Attorney-General's advice, as the Government did in the case of the advice on the need for a second UN resolution? I am saddened that he decided not to take that course, as I fear that that will have been detrimental to our preparations for war. Firefighters are our first line of defence in the event of a terrorist attack at home. There have been press reports that the FBU, in 19 out of the 58 regions, have refused to take part in training on equipment designed specifically to protect the public from terrorist chemical attack. Can he confirm or deny that? Are there any other examples of obstruction to preparations for a terrorist attack? What are the Government doing to put that right, and will that be dealt with in the Bill that he has proposed today?
Opposition Members have been calling on the Government to give greater attention to the ongoing need for a higher level of preparedness for a terrorist attack and to consider appointing a senior political figure to have overall charge of preparing for a terrorist attack. The right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) was the Minister with direct responsibility for civil defence an the threat of terrorism at home, but it is two days since his resignation and there is no sign of a replacement so we do not even have a junior Minister in charge of homeland security. Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House what the Government propose to do about that, and when?
When we last heard a statement on the fire strikes from the right hon. Gentleman he told us that he would impose a deal on firefighters if he felt that negotiations
1104
could not move forward, and he has told us that he intends to take that course of action. Conservative Members will support commencing legislation subject: to seeing the details. However, we do not take lightly curbing citizens' rights without proper scrutiny, and we will insist that such legislation is time limited so that the House can examine the matter again after hostilities have ceased.
The Deputy Prime Minister first talked about this legislation two months ago but, as it is, the timetable leading to war has been more predictable than most. Surely it would have been possible to introduce a draft Bill in that time to allow the House to examine its detail properly. It is not clear whether the two-clause Bill will give him the right to ban a strike. If it will not, what will he do if the FBU continues to strike, despite his imposition, and to put the public at risk and undermine the effectiveness of our armed forces? The answer to that will determine whether the hasty Bill that he proposes will work. Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House precisely what he meant by saying that the Bill will give him powers to
"direct the use of fire service assets and facilities"?
I, like many hon. Members, was surprised by union activists' decision to overturn a recommendation from their leaders to accept a final pay offer. All the firefighters I have met in recent months have struck me as patriotic individuals and I cannot believe that a majority of them will reject the deal and take strike action while our troops are needed elsewhere. If they do take such action, they will put their fellow citizens at risk. The firefighters should ideally resolve the dispute now but, failing that, they should make a public declaration that they are deferring their needless action until hostilities in the Gulf and the risk of terrorism at home is over. If they refuse to do that and if there is no strike ban in the proposed Bill, the Attorney-General should secure an injunction as a matter of urgency to stop further strikes until at least the end of the war given that hostilities have begun, that our troops are incredibly overstretched in a war in the Gulf, that there is a war on terror on our door steps and that relevant legislation exists in the form of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. I repeat Conservative Members' consistent calls for the Government urgently to ban future strikes while the country is at war.
We shall give the Bill favourable treatment, despite the Government's failure on the issue, provided that it will apply for only a limited time, either until the cessation of hostilities or certainly within one year of it being passed. The international crisis requires all parties in the House to put aside their differences until the cessation of military action. Conservative Members will do that, but after the crisis is over, the House of Commons will want a proper debate so that the inevitable errors in such hasty legislation are not imposed on the country for all time.
The Deputy Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments and for highlighting the difficulties that arise from the situation. I agree with several of his points, and perhaps I may address them in order.
We have asked for the advice of the military and the right hon. Gentleman will be well aware that the number of armed forces personnel available during the

1105
dispute—19,000—is the exact number that was available before. He raised the proper concern, as did I, that that is the same as it was before we found ourselves in this hostile situation, and I agree I hat the situation is difficult. The advice that we received was the same as before: we have sufficient armed personnel to deal with the fire dispute and the situation will not constitute a threat to public safety.

The judgment about what represents a threat to public safety will put great emphasis on the thoughts of the Attorney-General. I note that the shadow Attorney-General is present so I can reiterate the argument that I put to him before—I am sure that he will confirm it. The Attorney-General will judge whether there is a threat to public safety and he will decide whether to act on that. It is proper for me to approach the Attorney-General. I saw him yesterday and gave him the latest update. He will consider that and take it into account when he decides whether to take any action. Every Minister who has spoken about these matters from the Dispatch Box has said that the Attorney-General must make his judgment.
One or two brigades have not co-operated on occasions. One of the problems with the negotiations is that the brigades are given a great deal of authority and they can act individually. Indeed, that relates to the right hon. Gentleman's question about whether the power exists to direct facilities. The Government's powers are limited at the moment because they are delegated to the fire authorities. That is one reason why I propose that the Bill should take back the power to direct should fire brigades refuse to carry out instructions. That is the proper thing to do and we can discuss that matter when we consider the Bill.
It is true that one or two people—although not representatives of the FBU groups—have said unofficially that they will not co-operate with new dimension training. We made it clear to the union that that is unacceptable because the training relates to measures on terrorism. Such incidents are isolated, but they are unacceptable.
The right hon. Gentleman asked which Minister is currently in charge of safety matters. As he knows, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary chairs the relevant Cabinet Committee, which is the civil contingencies committee. I think that we would all agree that my right hon. Friend is a pretty senior politician. He has taken steps to replace the Minister who resigned, and no doubt he will make an appropriate statement on that. My right hon. Friend has direct responsibility for safety matters and nothing has suffered due to the resignation.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether I would want to use the proposed Bill to impose a deal. The Bill is modelled, to an extent, on the Fire Services Act 1947, although he will see when we consider it that it is not exactly the same. The Government at that time decided to introduce legislation to allow them to impose a deal. In these circumstances, I will take powers to fix or modify the fire brigades' conditions of service after making a judgment about whether to impose a deal, and I have outlined how that would be done and the factors that I would take into account. I give notice, however, that I cannot do that until the House agrees to those
1106
powers, and I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's support on that. Time and accountability will be discussed by the relevant people.
We shall consider the Bill in due course, although I do not agree that it should contain anti-strike legislation. [Interruption.] Well, I am only giving my judgment. The right hon. Gentleman can disagree, but he will see what is in the Bill after I produce it and we can discuss it then. After all, I need the co-operation of Opposition parties in order to take such a Bill through the House. I cannot just announce it because the Bill must go through the proper democratic procedures, and I assure him that that will happen. The Bill will be published tomorrow and it will help matters.
Members of the FBU have the opportunity to demand a secret ballot so that we know what firefighters truly think about the 16 per cent. deal. However, I warn them that if they do not accept the deal, I shall secure powers that would allow me to decide whether to impose such an agreement.
Mr. Edward Davey: May I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for that statement and for keeping the House informed? I agree that it is astonishing and regrettable that yesterday's FBU conference rejected the offer. Indeed, it was surprising that the Deputy Prime Minister did not make a stronger statement that a fire strike in a time of war and heightened tension would be an appalling threat to public safety, which the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) made clear. Surely such industrial action at a time of military action would be dangerous and irresponsible, even though our professional armed forces would rise to the challenge. So why have the Government not made it clear that they would ban the fire strikes while our armed forces are engaged? No one in the House would seek to ban strikes except in the most exceptional circumstances, but does the Deputy Prime Minister not agree that regrettably such circumstances are now upon us? Frankly, it would be bizarre if the Attorney-General did not think so. As for the eventual resolution of the dispute, surely the Government should now seek, as the Deputy Prime Minister said, to go beyond the FBU activists and back to the ordinary firefighters?
Does not the Deputy Prime Minister agree that a silent majority of firefighters would reluctantly accept the current offer, so is it not time to insist that the FBU consult its members on the current offer by a secret postal ballot? Surely, it would be far better for the long-term health of our fire services if the Government pushed for a democratic end to the dispute rather than going down the route of imposing a settlement? Does not the Deputy Prime Minister realise that his strategy of imposing a settlement could end up prolonging the dispute and making matters worse? If emergency legislation is needed, should it not back ordinary firefighters' right to vote and stop the damage to the fire service and public safety by extremists among the FBU activists?
The Deputy Prime Minister: First, I appreciate some of the points made by the hon. Gentleman, but if there is a threat to public safety, as I have already explained, there is a person who is responsible for making that judgment and taking court action where necessary. As

1107
for whether I am going to impose a deal or, indeed, go for anti-strike legislation, banning strikes would be extremely controversial, so any legislation would take a long time to go through the House. I do not think that legislation that I might get in September or October would be helpful in this situation.
As a ballot is under way, I do not want to aggravate the situation. I appeal directly to the firefighters not to leave this matter to the brigades' hands-up decisions in the mess room. We should not learn merely that an offer was opposed by 58 brigades without any information about the proportion of those who wanted to accept the deal and those who did not. A precedent has already been set, as the FBU had a ballot on 4 September. All I am saying is that it is proper, in view of the serious nature of the problem, for firemen to have the right to say whether they accept or reject an offer. That will be done in the next two or three weeks, and we can then see exactly what their judgment is.
I have made it clear that this is not about whether we are going to provide any more money. Let me make it absolutely clear—there will not be another penny in the deal, as 16 per cent. is a generous offer. The firefighters need to be clear about that when they have their vote. It would be difficult to introduce legislation to enforce a ballot or indeed anti-strike legislation because of the time that it would take to get through the Houseߞif, indeed, it got through the House—and that would not be helpful in the present situation. I have chosen to pursue this course of action, and I have used my judgment to determine the best way of balancing public safety against getting an agreement in those areas.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Why is my right hon. Friend being so intransigent on matters of legislation? A measure dealing with section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947 has already gone through the House, and it is now proposed to introduce a new two-clause Bill on fire services. Would it not be more sensible if those matters were the subject of negotiations, as there could be some trade-off so that we could begin to reach a settlement? At the meetings that my right hon. Friend will hold with the FBU and the employers, it will not be possible to have any type of negotiation at all in the circumstances. It will merely be a matter of pontification from a certain position rather than an attempt at persuasion and discussion to reach a settlement that should be there to be grabbed by both sides.
The Deputy Prime Minister: Let me make it clear—I do not think that I am being intransigent at all in those negotiations, which have gone on for the best part of 12 months. Sometimes the truth is told, sometimes less than the truth.ߞfor example, the reason why Members of Parliament got a 40 per cent. increase. No doubt my hon. Friend has contested with the firemen the kind of propaganda that was going around at the time. I hope that the two parties will come together. In the past 12 months, I have worked tremendously hard to get them to come together and talk. I have made it clear that it is for them to make the decision.
It is only a day or so since the executive recommended that decision. There was a full recommendation to the conference to accept the deal, but it overturned itߞI did not do so, it was the members themselves. However, if the decision is to be fair, why do they not subject it to a
1108
secret ballot as they did in September, so at least we get a full picture of who wants to accept the deal and who wants to move to further strike action, particularly against this background?
I do not think for a moment that I am being intransigent. As for discussions, I made a statement in January. I am sure that the Opposition will ask why I did not introduce legislation then. I thought that it would inflame the situation, and wanted to work for an agreementߞand we got it, and we got the executive to make a recommendation. I therefore think that my judgment was right, but now I am faced with the fact that the conference has rejected the offer and is going back to its members. I have said that a secret ballot is the best way of dealing with the matter.
I have discussed with the trade union our White Paper and proposals on section 19, but it disagrees with me. Basically, I am implementing a recommendation made some time ago to give up my powers and allow decisions to be made at local level. That is basically a form of decentralisationߞI have been considering it for a long time and I believe that it is right. I have had discussions on all those matters, but when one group says "no" and another "yes", one has to make a decision—I have made mine.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. May I just tell the Deputy Prime Minister that it is more helpful if he addresses the Chair? May I also appeal on the basis of that start, for shorter questions and answers.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I do not believe that the Deputy Prime Minister would have taken this particular action without a great deal of thought, and it probably hurts him greatly to do it. How does the deal that is now on the table, which he is saying is generous and was recommended by the executive., differ from the that that he vetoed after all-night conversations some weeks ago?
The Deputy Prime Minister: At that time, the FBU: was proposing 16 per cent. over two years. Because it was not tied to modernisation, I had to make it clear that that would commit me to a payment of hundreds of millions of pounds. When the FBU made that decision, I had not even seen the agreement. The new deal is substantially differentߞit gives 16 per cent. over three years, but that has now been changed to two and a half years. The settlement is not as good as the FBU originally wanted, but I judge that the amount of taxpayers' money required to finance the deal for three years is acceptable. The deal is different from the earlier one, but it is fair to all parties and is generous, however it is measured.
Mr. Andy Reed: Like my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, I have found in discussions with local firefighters that they would find a £25,000-a-year offer very reasonable. I have found them extremely sensible. However, will he reassure me that if the Bill is enacted, negotiations will continue and, if successful, he will riot use the powers at all?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I certainly hopeߞand I believe that the whole House does—that the firefighters will accept the agreement, perhaps by ballot, which

1109
would get us out of all the difficulties. Let me make it clear to everybody that I will still continue with modernisation. I am committed to the modernisation of the fire service, along with a generous pay settlement. That is our commitment, I have set it out in letters, and it remains the case. I shall resort to proposals in the White Paper and future legislation to deal with the problem. Under different circumstances, we would not need a separate piece of legislation and we could get on with modernising the service while the firefighters are back at work, and have a settlement based on that generous offer.
Mr. Robert Key: My constituents in Wiltshire will be grateful to the Deputy Prime Minister for taking this practical step forward. However, firefighters in Wiltshire face a double whammy. Not only do they face the prospect of a national ballot but they are currently engaged in another ballot forced on them by the FBU leadership on the question of joint control rooms. This time last week, I visited the £7 million joint control room, which the taxpayer has funded in Wiltshire. Would the Deputy Prime Minister's legislation affect that strike action if the ballot went that way?
The Deputy Prime Minister: The ballots under way at the moment are about pay negotiations and changes in the conditions associated with them. It is true that one of the proposals not tied to the agreement is about what we do about control rooms. I think that the case put in Wiltshire is right—I cannot see any reason why there should not be joint control rooms, which are part of the modernisation agenda that we have to face up to. The ballot is taking place by the normal method, there is a dispute at the local level—or in this case, the regional levelߞbut normal circumstances apply.
John McDonnell: Does my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister understand that his intervention today, like his intervention in November, will be seen as an act of provocation, preventing a settlement of the dispute? Can he give me a clear answer to the following question? If he imposes legislation and the FBU and the firefighters reject any offer and go on strike, will we return to the time when we jailed trade unionists for strike action?
The Deputy Prime Minister: That certainly is not involved; perhaps we should wait until the Bill is published. As for acts of provocation, my hon. Friend is constantly at it, day in, day out, on all sorts of issues. Where the Government do one thing, he wants to do the other. I must consider public safety. but that does not seem to concern him too much. I have to make balanced judgments about proper public safety, and consider fire threats, and, indeed, terrorist incidents. Those judgments are not easy, but Governments have to make them. The job would be a lot easier if my hon. Friend faced up to some of his responsibilities.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: The Government have known since at least September that a conflict in the
1110
Gulf was possible, if not probable, on the scale now demonstrated by the commitment of British forces to the region. Does the Deputy Prime Minister think that, on reflection, he should have protected the interests of the armed forces rather more energetically since September?
The Deputy Prime Minister: The best that I can do now for the armed forces is to get a settlement to this dispute. That is my obligation, and since September we have spent a considerable time trying to achieve that. There have been fewer disputes than were predicted at the time, which was useful; I think that the House found that acceptable. Forty-eight hours ago, the executive recommended this deal. That was a step in the right direction, and I would like to see the armed forces doing the job that they are supposed to do. I am extremely grateful for the job that they have done. They have shown that public safety can be protected, and I know that I can trust them to do that. However, I will work tirelessly to bring this agreement to its conclusion. That is why I have come here today, and why I am proposing this legislation.
Mr. Andrew Miller: My right hon. Friend says that he would prefer a secret ballot, and I understand that and agree with him. He also says that the FBU has suggested having a recall conference in two to three weeks' time. In practical terms, if the leadership continues to exercise leadership and conducts a secret ballot, is it realistic to expect a result within that time? Also, how long will it take to get the legislation through its various parliamentary stages?
The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes several serious points. A ballot that is conducted by a "hands up" of the brigade is obviously a lot quicker than an individual ballot; however, the circumstances are such that it would probably be necessary at least to enter into that practice. To be fair, the union did have a ballot last time. The turn out was 83 per cent., which, as people will recognise, was quite a high figure. Some 87 per cent. of those who voted voted to take strike action in rejecting the earlier deal. So there has been a ballot before, and I hope that the union will consider that point.
The time that it takes for legislation to go through the House is a matter for negotiation between the various parties. I shall publish the Bill tomorrow, and we will probably have a discussion on how fast we can proceed with it. However, I doubt whether such legislation could be introduced before the three-week period. Consultation is probably taking place on the ballot, and hopefully, we can get some agreement.
Mr. Graham Brady: The Deputy Prime Minister has confirmed that it would be possible for industrial action to continue after a settlement has been imposed. Would it not be absurd for this House to put through emergency legislation when our troops are in a war situation, and still to have 19,000 of our armed forces tied up because of possible future fire disputes?
The Deputy Prime Minister: That is a fair point, but we have to make a judgment on how people will react in

1111
these circumstances. In my experience of strikes and legal actionsߞI have experienced a few in my timeߞthreatening people with the courts does not guarantee their going back to work; if anything, it makes matters much more difficult. One is forced to fine the union concerned and to get into sequestration; however, that does not get people back to work. For example, it did not work with the seamen's union. I can only give my judgment, but at least it is based on experience. I have to find a balance, and I have set it out today.
Mr. John Lyons: My right hon. Friend knows that many Labour Members will be opposed to the imposition of the settlement to this dispute. However, I welcome the fact that he is meeting the FBU and local authority employers this afternoon. If the FBU agrees to a ballot of its membership, will he, too, reconsider his position?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I understand and appreciate what my hon. Friend says. I shall make it clear to the union and to the employers that I believe that a secret ballot should take place, so that we can get a proper judgment. Of course, I readily accept that the timetable for that is likely to be a lot shorter than that for legislation going through this House. I recognise that we need to subject that legislation to proper scrutiny, and I doubt whether that can be achieved in just a week or a fortnight. So there will be a ballot beforehand, but my hon. Friend poses the problem: what if the union rejects the negotiations through the secret ballot? If that happens, I, and this House, will be faced with a difficult situation. I prefer to rely on the good judgment of the firefighters in accepting this generous offer.
Mr. Michael Weir: Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that a Bill introduced in this House will not apply to Scotland, and that to apply such legislation to Scotland would require a Sewel motion or a separate Act of the Scottish Parliament? There is absolutely no chance of either getting through the Scottish Parliament.
The Deputy Prime Minister: The answer is yes, and thank goodness for that. [Interruption.]
Llew Smith rose
The Deputy Prime Minister: It is for the proper attention of the Scottish Parliament.
Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan): That is much better.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I thought that I had moved on. I call Mr. Llew Smith.
Llew Smith: I remind the Deputy Prime Minister that the FBU is not responsible for the current situation: it is this Government and their friend George Bush who have declared war on Iraq. Does the Deputy Prime Minister appreciate the irony of the fact that the Government can find £1.75 billion to go to war, but cannot find the money to meet the settlement that was agreed between the employers and the trade union some months ago?
The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend must know that people throughout the country, be it
1112
pensioners or anyone else, claim a right to the money that may be used in the conflict. According to my calculation, some five or six times the amount of money that is expected to be spent on such action has already been committed in all areas. This is a question of fairness and judgment. Some local authority workers have settled for 4 per cent. from the same employers who will have to find this money. There are many such workers in my hon. Friend's constituency, and he should ask himselfߞas I am asked—whether it is fair to pay 16 per cent. to one set of workers and 4 per cent. to another. That is a difficult judgment, but I have given the best that I can and I think that it is right. I would welcome a little support from my hon. Friend.
Mr. Mark Francois: The Deputy Prime Minister confirmed that he has sought another opinion from the Attorney-General on the use of existing legislation to make a further strike illegal, particularly in the current circumstances. The shadow Attorney-General established on a point of order last week that although "Erskine May" accepts the principle that advice to Ministers should be confidential, in "exceptional circumstances" the Minister asking for such advice can then make it available to the House, and thus to the public. The Prime Minister did this with the legal advice that he received from the Attorney-General about UN resolution 1441, so there is a clear precedent. The Prime Minister made that advice available to the House of Commons; now that we are at war, should not the Deputy Prime Minister follow that precedent?
The Deputy Prime Minister: We should first recognise that there is no strike at the moment, because it was withdrawn. That is the threat to public safety that the Attorney-General must take into account. I recognise the hon. Gentleman's point about the advice given, and there has been some discussion in the House as to whether advice given by the Attorney-General to me--or, indeed, to anyone else—should be published. I keep the Attorney-General informed of the circumstances, and that is the role that he has explained to me. I do not ask for his advice on these matters; he makes a judgment. That remains the position, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman pursue the matter through the shadow Attorney-General. If the Attorney-General wants to publish the letters that he has written to me on this matterߞ[Interruption.] I am not asking for advice, because I am satisfied that the man with responsibility for this matter will act if there is a threat to public safety.
Mr. Adrian Bailey: May I say that I support the course of action taken by the Deputy Prime Minister? However, I am concerned about the way in which the ballot should be conducted, although I certainly support a ballot. Will it be conducted on the basis of the offer made by the FBU executive, will it be secret, and will the information contained within it be clear and unambiguous to avoid the potential for misrepresentation?
The Deputy Prime Minister: That would be the ideal situation, but I should tell my hon. Friend that there will not be a secret ballot as we understand it. A discussion takes place in the headquarters of the various brigades, and at the place of work, and there is a vote. A delegate

1113
then takes that vote, as mandated, to the conference. It is not mandated for 80 per cent. or 20 per cent. of the vote, with some form of proportional calculation being made; it is absolutely the vote of the brigade. On the last deal, which was very similar to this one, 100 per cent. of the 50 or so brigades voted against. That is why conducting this ballot in the same way seems a very difficult way of going about things. That is why I am appealing to the firefighters and saying, "You had a ballot before. This is substantially different from the 4 per cent. that you rejected. You should be entitled to have an individual, secret ballot. You did it before, and I suggest that it should be done again I hope that they will accept that recommendation.
Angela Watkinson: There has been a significant shift in the concern of firefighters away from pay and towards terms and conditions of employment. It is a great pity that the pay review, the Bain report and the risk review all seem to have been lumped into one. The Deputy Prime Minister knows that, in 1974, there was a very large intake into the fire service and those firefighters are coming up for retirement. There is great concern that the present situation will be used as an opportunity for significant natural wastage. They are also concerned about the risk review lowering required response times and lowering the risk assessment of particular areas. Firefighters are, by their nature, deeply concerned—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is making a speech. If she has a question, she should put it immediately.
Angela Watkinson: Will the Deputy Prime Minister take the opportunity to reassure firefighters about those flatters and harness the good will that exists among them to bring the dispute to a speedy resolution?
The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Lady asks an informed question about the present difficulties. It is true that the issue is not so much the money as the conditions and modernisation that go with it. We have insisted that modernisation goes with those wages. An awful lot of propaganda is being put out about what the deal means. Already pamphlets are being rushed out claiming that thousands of people will be made redundant and hundreds of fire stations closed. That is just not true. The new risk-based are system would prevent that. It would mean not that there would not be fewer jobs than before—there are 2,500 fewer firefighters than there were 10 years ago. That is a matter of adjustment and change. There are fewer fire stations. Only a few months ago, two in York shire closed down and were replaced by one modern lire station. Those things go on through proper negotiations. All I say to the firefighters is, "Sit down and negotiate—we have
1114
provided the frameworkߞand introduce an intelligent change to work practices, to move to a risk-based system, and at the same time improve your conditions." We believe that improved public safety will also come from these proposals.
Vernon Coaker: I met firefighters from Nottinghamshire last week in Parliament. One thing that they were worried about was the possibility that local management would impose changes upon them. Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that, in the new deal that was offered and which the executive accepted, there were further safeguards in terms of local consultation so that local firefighters could be involved in the process of change?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for asking the question, as I share that concern. My experience of working on ships as a seaman is that captains can make a difference. A good one can have good relationships; a lousy one can have lousy relationships with the same crew. The same is true of the chief constable or the chief at the fire station. There is a genuine fear among fire people that the chief will be given absolute power and impose a settlement, like a Captain Bligh in our stations. They are using that as a justification, as though some fire masters were not responsible in these matters. We have tried to find the words to deal with that perception and fear of such action. The agreement that the executive recommended allowed that. There can be a proper balance that allows firefighters to say, "This new deal will give me a fair say about my working conditions." That is what it is designed to do, and they should be able to accept it.
Mr. Bill Tynan: The whole House will understand the frustration of my right hon. Friend. There is a meeting this afternoon. If the Fire Brigades Union agrees that there will be no strike action and that it will put the offer to a ballot of its members, does he accept that that would be the best way forward? If not, poisoning the well by imposing a settlement could create enormous problems for all parties in the dispute.
The Deputy Prime Minister: I have no doubt that that is the danger that faces us if we get the balance of judgment wrong. That balance of judgment is at the heart of our efforts. As I said, I will meet the Fire Brigades Union this afternoon. Over the period of negotiations, the union has co-operated in withdrawing the threat of strikes before, which I welcome. That is how we have tried to go forward to a successful conclusion, but so far failed. If the union says nowߞthere are some signs that it will, but the trouble is that it is all in statements to the press, which we cannot rely onߞthat it will not have a strike during the ballot, that will be helpful and will allow me to tell the Army that the troops can be stood down. That is a fair balance. I hope that the union will come to that decision and give it to me this afternoon.

Business of the House
2.5 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 24 MARcHߞSecond Reading of the Licensing Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 25 MARCHߞRemaining stages of the Extradition Bill.
WEDNESDAY 26 MARCH—Progress on remaining stages of the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 27 MARCHߞConclusion of remaining stages of the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords].
FRIDAY 28 MARcHߞPrivate Members Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will be:
MONDAY 31 MARcHߞSecond Reading of Crime (International Co-operation) Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 1 APRILߞOpposition Day [5th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Title to be confirmed.
Commons consideration of Lords Amendments to a Bill.
WEDNESDAY 2 APRILߞProgress on remaining stages of the Criminal Justice Bill (Day 1).
Commons consideration of Lords Amendments to a Bill.
THURSDAY 3 APRIL—Commons consideration of Lords Amendments to a Bill.
Motion on the Easter recess Adjournment.
FRIDAY 4 APRIL—Private Members' Bills.
May I repeat the tribute that I made during Monday's brief business statement to my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) for his outstanding contribution as Leader of the House? He enjoyed the respect and affection of hon. Members in all parts of the House, and his weekly jousts with the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) were, for many of us, the highlight of the parliamentary week. They will be sorely missed.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): How can I not thank the deputy Leader of the House for giving us that statement? I echo his sentiments about the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who was that increasingly rare phenomenon, a parliamentarian. He understood and loved the Chamber, and brought to it wit and knowledge of a kind that is all too rarely in evidence. He was also principled. In his resignation, which we regret, he showed that principled resignations still have a part to play in politics today. For that, as much as anything else, we will all remember him. Although I disagreed with much of what the right hon. Gentleman did in terms of his modernisation, I can honestly say that I do not envy whoever will be chosen to follow in his footsteps.
I welcome the statement that the Secretary of State for Defence made in the House today, and I welcome even more his undertaking that he would keep the House properly and regularly informed about the hostilities. I hope that we will also be kept informed appropriately about post-war reconstruction and aid. May I ask for a
1116
similar undertaking that we will be kept informed about homeland security? I am sure that what may happen here in our own country during and after hostilities is as much on hon. Members' minds as the hostilities themselves. I hope that the deputy Leader of the House will give us an undertaking that we will be kept fully and properly informed on that front, as well as on the other.
I should also like the hon. Gentleman to give an undertaking, although I suspect that this is wishful thinking on my part, that we will not see the regrettable phenomenon of bad news being slipped out under the cover of the hostilities—other than the Budget, of course.
Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) was granted an urgent question by Mr. Speaker. She said that she would
"ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement in response to the Select Committee on International Development's report on humanitarian contingency planning for Iraq"ߞ[Official Report, 19 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 941.]
Mr. Speaker granted that urgent question, which was addressed specifically to the Secretary of State or to the Department for International Development. You can imagine our surprise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when the junior Minister in the Department for International Development, the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), who was in her place on the Front Bench, did not reply on behalf of the Department. Instead, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien)ߞa Minister from another Department altogetherߞtook it upon himself to answer. First, he mumbled some sort of excuse about the Secretary of State being out of the countryߞfor which I do not: particularly blame her, at this time. He then went on to claim that the hon. Member for Northampton, North had lost her voice. I am reliably informed, however, that she was perfectly capable of speaking soon after she left the Chamber.
The urgent question, with its specific reference to a Department and a Select Committee report, having been granted, the Government casually shuffled the people on the Front Bench around. The result was that the Minister from the Department for International Development had to brief the Minister who had been drafted in continually throughout his answering of the question, and, sadly, we therefore got inadequate answers from the Minister at the Dispatch Box. I want an undertaking from the deputy Leader of the House that this will not happen again. When an urgent question is granted, we want proper answers from the proper Minister from the right Department.
Mr. Bradshaw: I am grateful for the kind remarks of the shadow Leader of the House about my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston. I agree with what he said about the way in which my right hon. Friend left the Government. I think that he did it very well, although I—like the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurstߞdo not share his reasons for doing it.
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the reason that the Secretary of State for International Development was not here yesterday—which he and his colleagues well knew when they tabled their urgent questionߞwas that she was on her way to the United States to hold discussions at the United Nations and with the World

1117
Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the US Administration on an important issue about which hon. Members on both sides of the House are very concerned. I also remind him that, under the Government in which he served, a Department for International Development did not exist. It was part of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The two Departments in this Government quite rightly work extremely closely together, and the Secretary of State for International Development has secured a doubling of her Department's budget. I am sure that when she has concluded her discussions across the Atlantic, she will wish to make a statement to the House at the earliest opportunity.
It is entirely a matter for the Government which Minister responds to an urgent quest [on, as Mr. Speaker himself made clear when the matter was raised yesterday. Given that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) had just returned from the United States, having held discussions there on these very matters, it seemed perfectly appropriate that he should respond to the urgent question.
I assure the shadow Leader of the House that there will be regular updates on the important issue of homeland security. I believe that the Home Secretary has made a written statement on this matter today, and I am sure that he will come to the House when he feels it necessary to update such statements. They will be regularly updated as the crisis unfolds.
The right hon. Gentleman made a point about bad news coming out at this time. It is a fact that, at times like this, when people's attention is on other things, they will not take so much notice of what is happening elsewhere. The same applies to very good news, such as the fact that the unemployment rate in this country continues to fall, and that yesterday's figures show the highest employment levels since records began.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the Parliamentary Secretary accept my apology in advance—and my assurance that this is nothing personal—for saying that we certainly do not welcome his presence at the Dispatch Box today, for two very good reasons? First, while we fully appreciate the entirely honourable, principled and logical reasons for the resignation of the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) as Leader of the House, we very much regret that he no longer holds that position. We do so for good reasons. His commitment to the House and to Parliament was unrivalled, and it set a very good example for his successors. He stated in the House on many occasions that good government required good parliamentary scrutiny. I hope that, we can therefore have an early statement from the Government on whether they maintain the principle that the Government's submission to parliamentary authority has to go before all else, and that that is what gives them their authority.
It appears that there will be a hiatus before we shall have the opportunity of seeing whom the Government propose as the new Leader of the House. May we take that opportunity to have a debate on the role and
1118
responsibility of the Leader of the House? It is a different role from that of any other Cabinet Minister. It involves a responsibility to his or her colleagues in Cabinet, but also a responsibility to the House. Such a debate would give the Government an opportunity to reiterate their commitmentߞas the right hon. Member for Livingston frequently didߞto parliamentary sovereignty.
The second reason that I regret that the Parliamentary Secretary is at the Dispatch Box is that it suggests that the Government are in no hurry to appoint a successor. That is extraordinary. Can the House imagine any other circumstances in which it would take 72 hours to appoint a Cabinet Minister? No other Department of State could remain leaderless for that long. That is indicative of the respect that the Government have for the House. Finally, may I say to the Parliamentary Secretary that I, too, will very much miss the hour of the Cook's tour on a Thursday afternoon?
Mr. Bradshaw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those comments, which he just about managed to deliver with a straight face. I am sorry that he does not welcome my appearance at the Dispatch Box. I do not welcome it either. This is not a jobߞalbeit a temporary one—that I would have chosen. May I reassure him, however, that whoever is chosen to replace my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston will show an equal commitment to Parliament. What the hon. Gentleman said about that was absolutely right.
The Government have proved, by their recent example, that they take parliamentary scrutiny seriously. We have become the first Government in the history of this country, for example, to do what the Liberal Democrats have been demanding for monthsߞnamely, to have a vote on a substantive motion before British forces were deployed in military action. I hope that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that. I remind him that the Liberal Democrats, and some Labour Members, constantly suggested that that would not happen, and constantly questioned the Government's commitment to coming to the House on that issue. We have done so not only by making regular statements, but by allowing that unprecedented vote.
I also challenge the hon. Gentleman's assertion that the failure to find a replacement for my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston yet is a sign of the Government not taking this position seriously. I suggest that the Prime Minister has rather more pressing things on his mind at the moment.
Mr. David Watts: Will my hon. Friend try to find time for the House to discuss the accountability of primary care trusts? The trust in Liverpool has kept a severely disabled young man in hospital for more than six weeks, and there does not appear to be any pressure that a Member of Parliament can put on that trust. I believe that that would be a subject worthy of discussion by the House.
Mr. Bradshaw: I am concerned to hear what my hon. Friend says and grateful to him for drawing the case in his constituency to our attention. He will be aware that the Government are keen on improving public and democratic accountability as we progress our health

1119
reforms, and I will ensure that he gets a substantive response from the Secretary of State for Health to the point that he has raised.
Sir George Young: With the resignation of the Leader of the House, whose departure I also mourn, would this be the right time to revisit the question of whether the Modernisation Committee should be chaired by a member of the Cabinet? Would it not be better if the ex-Leader of the House stayed on the Committee as a Back Bencher, so that it was more like our other Select Committees?
Mr. Bradshaw: As I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman knows, that is a matter for the Committee itself. My understanding is that my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston remains in his position as Chairman of the Modernisation Committee at the moment, but his future on the Committee, and its chairmanshipߞor chairwomanshipߞwill be a matter for the Committee.
Mr. David Chaytor: My hon. Friend will know of the statement made earlier by the Secretary of State for Defence in respect of a future statement regarding compensation payments to the partners of those who might lose their lives in Iraq. May I suggest that, in view of the current conflict, this would be an appropriate time for the House to debate the much wider issue of the whole series of policies, benefits, payments and regulations that apply to the families of those who have served in the armed forces? I draw my hon. Friend's attention particularly to war disability pensions, the poorest war disability pensioners and the earnings disregard, which has not been uprated since 1990. Could he find time in the near future for a complete review of Government policy, and for an opportunity to debate the issue?
Mr. Bradshaw: I am afraid that, given all the other pressing demands on the House, I cannot promise that we shall have time for a full debate on all the issues raised by my hon. Friend, important though they are. However, I am sure that every hon. Member agrees that those issues should be uppermost in our minds, particularly at a time when our armed servicesߞmen and women—are likely to be going into action on our behalf.
I am pleased that my hon. Friend welcomed the Ministry of Defence's announcement today that benefits previously restricted to the spouses of those involved in potential military action will be extended to partners.
Mr. John Bercow: The right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) is certainly one of the most pungent, quick-witted and effective parliamentarians of our time, and his departure from the Government's ranks will be as widely regretted as it is widely respected.
Prostate cancer awareness week begins next Monday, so may we have an urgent debate on prostate cancer? Although 21,000 people a year are diagnosed as suffering from it and 10,000 a year die of it, the Government have so far failed to honour their promise to launch a public information campaign.
Mr. Bradshaw: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to a serious health issue affecting men, which
1120
the Government do take seriously. We may not be able to afford the time for a debate on the Floor of the House, but it might be an ideal subject on which to apply for a debate in Westminster Hall.
David Hamilton: Earlier today we heard a statement from the Secretary of State for Defence, who kindly passed the issue of the House's sitting hours on to my hon. Friend's agenda. Like many other Members, I have taken a hard line on our responsibilities as Members. I expect statements to be made in the House and not outside, and expect us, as MPs who made the decision to go to war, to be the first to hear what happens. Will my hon. Friend review our sitting hours over the impending period? I believe that we should sit from Monday to Friday, and should sit for the hours that are required.
Mr. Bradshaw: Both the Secretary of State for Defence and the Government as a whole have made it clear that, over the next few weeks, we shall be living in extraordinary times. We have made clear our willingness to be flexible on sitting hours. I am not convinced that any change need be set in stone, but we are prepared to come to the Dispatch Box as the Secretary of State has todayߞand will again, I expect, in days to come. If it becomes necessary for us to sit in the evenings, at weekends and during the Easter recess the Government will take account of the position, which will depend on events on the ground.
Mr. Andrew Mackay: We all appreciate the hon. Gentleman's assurance that Ministers will make regular statements as the war progresses, but may I put it to him gently that we must avoid a repetition of yesterday's farce? In future, Ministers from the appropriate Department must appear at the Dispatch Box. The hon. Gentleman's response to the shadow Leader of the House was not up to the standards that we normally expect of him.
Mr. Bradshaw: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman takes that view. I will not reiterate the reasons for the absence of the Secretary of State for International Developmentߞreasons that the Opposition knew very well when they tabled their urgent question. As I said, it is for the Government to decide who should answer urgent questions, and it was felt that as the Minister who did answer had been most recently involved in discussions with the bodies involved, it was appropriate for him to do so. I think that, since the Government came to office in 1997, there has been only one other occasion on which a statement has not been made by the most obviously appropriate Minister. We try to avoid such circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that this Government have a far better record than their predecessor on the number of statements made in the House.
Vernon Coaker: Following the publication of the White Paper on tackling antisocial behaviour, will my hon. Friend try to find out when the Government will publish their antisocial behaviour Bill? Will he give a commitment that when it is published we shall debate its Second Reading on the Floor of the House as soon as

1121
possible? Notwithstanding the war, which is obviously the most serious issue facing our country, many of my constituents want the action proposed in the White Paper to become law as early as possible.
Mr. Bradshaw: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. No doubt he, like many of my colleagues, receives regular representations from his constituents. As people note the improvements being made in public services such as health and education, their main concerns are antisocial behaviour and crime. That is why the Government are legislating to deal with those problems. As soon as the Bill is ready it will be published and will, I am sure, be debated at some length on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Roy Beggs: I too am sorry that the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) is no longer Leader of the House. On at least two occasions, I have raised the fact that the Northern Ireland Grand Committee has not met in Northern Ireland once since its formation. That does not apply to the Scottish and Welsh Grand Committees. Now that the former Leader of the House is no longer with us, I do not want the issue to be forgotten. May I have an assurance that it will not be forgotten, that it will be addressed, and that if a decision is made one way or the other, it will be made in this Chamber?
Mr. Bradshaw: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for being relatively unsighted on this subject. I am led to believe, however, that the Government have always been open to his suggestion, and that it has been resisted by his own party.
Mr. Beggs rose
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I call Mr. Miller.
Mr. Andrew Miller: May I return to the answer that my hon. Friend gave my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (David Hamilton)? In the interests of the staff who work for us and serve the House—some of whom currently face extraordinary difficulties in connection with security, for exampleߞwill my hon. Friend ensure that all the necessary steps are taken to establish proper contingency plans in case we have to sit at weekends, and perhaps during the Easter recess, while hostilities are in progress?
Mr. Bradshaw: Yes. I should emphasise that we have no plans at this stage for the House to sit through the Easter recess or at weekends, apart from our decision that the House should sit on the first couple of days of the recess to debate the Budget. But I think that most Members would wish us to maintain an element of flexibility, while balancing that with the needߞrightly mentioned by my hon. Friendߞfor not just Members but the staff who serve us so well to be able to plan heir lives.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: In contrast to the uncharacteristically churlish welcome given to the
1122
hon. Gentleman by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), may I say how pleased we Conservatives are to see him in his place today? It is good to see a fellow cyclist getting on.
May I give the strongest possible endorsement to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) about the Modernisation Committee chairmanship? As a member of the Committee, I welcomed what I think was the hon. Gentleman's assurance that the Executive would not interfere with the actions of the Committee if we, as its members, wanted the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) to continue as its Chairman.
Mr. Bradshaw: I think that that is absolutely right. As I said earlier, it is a matter for the Committee.
I was not particularly upset by the churlishness of the contribution of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). I know that he did not really mean it. Perhaps he is feeling a little uneasy about the position taken by the Liberal Democrats on some major matters of state in recent days and weeks. I hope that, like me, he welcomes the excellent new facilities on the premises for the locking of bicycles. Through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thank Mr. Speaker for his help in that regard.
Llew Smith: Will the deputy Leader of the House find time to debate the plight of Mordecai Vanunu, who has been rotting away in an Israeli jail for the past 18 years and has been in solitary confinement for 15 of them becauseߞas the deputy Leader of the House will recognise—he told the truth about Israel's nuclear role when all around him were lying? If the Minister agreed to such a debate, the Government could reiterate their opposition to weapons of mass destruction and inform the House of what they are doing to ensure that Vanunu receives an early release.
Mr. Bradshaw: I cannot assure my hon. Friend that we will be able to find time to have a debate on the Vanunu case on the Floor of the House, but I am well aware of the issue, having been the Minister responsible for that part of the world for a year before taking my current post. The case concerns the Government greatly and I have personally raised it with the Israeli authorities. However, it is important to draw a distinction between that case and the action that the coalition is now taking in Iraq, which is unique in the world in being in contravention of chapter VII resolutions on its weapons of mass destruction and in having used them against its neighbours and its own people.
Mr. Alex Salmond: I too wish to pay tribute to the qualities of the former Leader of the House, although I should point out to some hon. Members that he is not deadߞthankfullyߞand that we will continue to enjoy his contributions on a range of issues for many years to come. I am sure that Government Front Benchers in particular are looking forward to that. I would support permanency of tenure for the acting Leader of the House, if it were up to me, but will he continue with the Government's valuable consultation on public participation in the political process? Outside the House, today and yesterday, and in Manchester and Edinburgh yesterday, we have seen

1123
inspiring examples of young people's interest in politics. The fact that they are demonstrating against the Government rather than for it is the Government's misfortune, but the more important point is that so many young people are concerned about the conduct of their country and the state of the world. Will the acting Leader of the House consult the young people outside to find out what has inspired them to join in the political process?
Mr. Bradshaw: I am not sure that that endorsement from the hon. Gentleman will stand me in good stead, but I am grateful for it nonetheless. Unusually, I agree with him on this point. My constituency offices in Exeter were invaded by a group of school pupils and college students yesterday. They staged a peaceful protest, and I spoke to one of them on the phone and offered to go and talk to them as a groupߞas I spend much time doing in my constituency. I was pleased that young people feel strongly enough on such issues to seek out their elected representative. I have one caveat, however, which is that I hope that they are not neglecting their studies. As long as young people are protesting peacefullyߞin a way that we cherish in this country but would not be possible in Iraq, as they will be awareߞI welcome that, but I hope that they do it outside school hours.
Mr. Ian Davidson: Given the intense warmth of our present relationship with France, is the Minister aware that some people would like to have a debate and, indeed, an immediate referendum on the euro? Does he agree that that would be opportunist and unprincipled, just as it would be for a referendum to be held—as some have suggested—on the back of what we hope will be a successful war?
Mr. Bradshaw: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's antipathy to UK membership of the euro at this stage. I can reassure him that whatever has happened in recent days and weeks to our relationship with our French friends, and what may happen after what we hope will be a successful outcome to the military campaign, the Government's decision on whether to recommend a referendum on the euro will always be based on our economic interest and the five tests.
Dr. Julian Lewis: May we have a statement from the Home Secretary on the curious case of Mr. Andrew Murray, a former worker for the Soviet Novosti news agency, currently a member of the Communist party of Britain—it still exists, believe it or notߞand an avowed supporter of nuclear North Korea, who has promised, in a report to the Communist party of Britain, that next weekend's great anti-war demonstration will have two slogans: not just "stop the war" but also "Blair must go"? Curiously, Mr. Murray is able to make that promise because he, of all men, is the chair of the Stop the War Coalition, which organises the huge demonstrations to which so many people, perhaps unwittingly, subscribe.
Mr. Bradshaw: Those of us who have taken part in demonstrations or been involved in protest organisationsߞand, yes, even I have—will have sometimes had strange bedfellows. However, I am sure
1124
that the Home Secretary, and those who are involved in the anti-war movementߞmost of them for good reasons—will be very interested in what the hon. Gentleman has told the House.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: May I break with precedent and ask the acting Leader of the House a question on the business information that he has actually given us? I am disturbed to see that on Thursday 3 April it is the Government's intention to hold the Easter Adjournment debate and also to consider Lords amendments, on a day that already suffers from reduced hours. Any Adjournment debate is valued by Back Benchers, and I ask him to consider having only the Adjournment debate on that day.
Mr. Bradshaw: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but it has been traditional for the Easter Adjournment debate to run for three hours. It was only when I did it the time before last [hat it went on for what seemed like 12 hours, although it was not quite that long. We want to protect the time For the Easter Adjournment debate and the hon. Gentleman should not assume that we will spend as much time as he thinks considering the Lords amendments.
Richard Younger-Ross: Having the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) acting as the Leader of the House is a positive advantage, because I am able to read, through the columns of the excellent Express & Echo and Western Morning News ߞpapers that we shareߞhis views on modernisation of the House. Does the acting deputy Leader agree [HON. MEMBERS: "Acting Leader."] Indeed, I mean the acting Leader of the House. Does he agree that the jeers and "hear, hears" in this House are viewed dimly by the public, and that the polite applause given to his former boss, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), on Monday night is a better way for the House to show its views?
Mr. Bradshaw: A s the shadow Leader of the House made clear, opinions on that point differ strongly. I have some sympathy for what the hon. Gentleman says, because sometimes hon. Members do not give enough consideration to how our behaviour affects people's views of Parliament. Certainly when I talk to young people in my constituency, they tell me that they find some of our customs and procedures rather strange. I am not a member of the Modernisation Committee, but I understand that it is investigating the matter.
Mr. Mark Francois: Can we find time for an early debate on the competence of this Government? I acknowledge the principled resignation from the Cabinet of the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook)ߞand we must respect that—but what happened yesterday was farcical. It would have been one thing if a Foreign Office Minister had replied to an urgent question on international development because no Minister from DFID was available. The House could have understood and accepted that. However, a Minister from the Department for International Development was available and she sat on the Front Bench throughout, but was not allowed to say anything. Furthermore, is not the Secretary of State for

1125
International Development now the living embodiment of Churchill's dictumߞthat the problem with committing political suicide is that one lives to regret it?
Mr. Bradshaw: No; the Secretary of State for International Development made her position clear in the statement that she issued on Monday. To be fair to her—and I hope that hon. Members will be—the situation changed after the interview that she gave to the BBC. The President of France said that he would veto any ultimatum given to the Iraqi regime, agreement was reached on the administration of a post-Saddam Iraq, which is something that my right hon. Friend takes very seriously, andߞeven more importantlyߞthe road map was published for a middle east peace process. People should be allowed to change their minds in the light of events. That is the sign of a mature democracy and hon. Members on both sides of the House should welcome it.
Mr. Graham Brady: May I welcome the Deputy Leader's assurance that the Home Secretary will come to the House to make a statement on homeland security? I urge that that should happen as soon as possible at the start of next week. The statement should take account of all the measures that have been takenߞor should have been takenߞby the relevant Departments. They include, in particular, the Department for Education and Skills, the Department of Health and the Department for Transport.
Mr. Bradshaw: I am afraid that I cannot guarantee that such a statement will be possible early next week, as other Ministers may need to make more pressing statements. However, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has issued today a comprehensive written statement on the subject. I notice that Home Office questions will be held on Monday, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members interested in the subject will be in the Chamber to put questions to my right hon. Friend and his colleagues then.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thought that it might interest the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) to know that, with regard to the earlier request from the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), there is a debate scheduled for next week on prostate cancer. That may be one of the most remarkable cases ever of instant gratification.

Points of Order
2.41 pm
Mr. William Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I received today Mr. Speaker's reply in respect of the publication of the legal basis for the war with Iraq. The Deputy Prime Minister made another statement, from which two connected matters arise. One of those matters was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), the shadow Deputy Prime Minister, and the other by my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois). Both points clearly fit with the advice that I received today from Mr. Speaker, which is based on the contents of page 359 of "Erskine May".
Another procedural matter, however, arises in connection with the role of the Attorney-General, who is not a Member of this House. It has to do with whether he intends to take out an injunction to restrain the anticipated breach of the law as set out in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. If the Attorney-General wished, he could make a statement on the matter in another place, with the Solicitor-General concurring in this House. Do you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, think that that procedure should be followed, as has happened before?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): The matter has certainly been aired today. I think that the advice already given to the hon. Gentleman is that, if the Attorney-General gives advice to the Government, it is at the Government's discretion as to whether that advice is shared more widely.
Mr. Roy Beggs: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Although it was remiss of me not to welcome the acting Leader of the House to his place today, will he take this opportunity to correct something that arose because he was incorrectly prompted? I assure him that I have spoken with the full authority of my party on every occasion the issue of having the Northern Ireland Grand Committee meet in Northern Ireland has come up.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made his point. It is not a matter on which the Chair can rule, but the Minister will have heard what has been said.
Mr. Andrew Mackay: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will have noted that the Carriage Gates entrance to the House of Commons has been closed for a number of hours, owing to the demonstration outside. That is a clear breach of the Sessional Orders, which the House passes at the beginning of each Session. I appreciate that the police and security officers have a difficult job, but demonstrations will clearly take place for many weeks and months, as the war continues in Iraq. It is essential that right of access be maintained. Will you and Mr. Speaker gain assurances from the police that the Sessional Orders will be maintained?
Mr. Alex Salmond: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I right to interpret the Sessional Orders as a means of

1127
guaranteeing the liberties of Parliament? Associated with those liberties would be the liberties of the peopleߞwhich include the right to free demonstration without the intervention and interference of some misguided right hon. and hon. Members.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: In relation to the latter point, the maintenance of public order is a matter that should concern everyone. Mr. Speaker takes it very seriously, and I understand that there is contact at the present time between the Serjeant at Arms and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. However, I have received information since I have been in the Chair that the Carriage Gates are now open again. Therefore the tag currently running on the monitors may not be up to date, any more than its original spelling was correct.

Orders of the Day

  Waste and Emissions Trading Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  2.45 pm
  The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill combines action on two key environmental objectives—climate change reduction, and the need to move to a more sustainable management of our waste. There are strong links between the two challenges, as the poor use of resources which leads to ever increasing amounts of waste, and the poor management of that waste, all increase the production of greenhouse gases.
  The Bill approaches these challenges through the use of economic instruments. It will stimulate reductions in the emission of pollutants and make us less reliant on landfill, in the most economically efficient way. It will support the world's very first economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme through a system of statutory penalties. It will also set up a landfill allowance trading scheme—probably the first scheme of this type to address waste in Europe, and possibly the first in the world.
  These are large claims for a Bill of only 38 clauses, and I am sure that many hon. Members would like to have before them a Bill that covered all aspects of climate change and waste management. However, this Bill is only part of what the Government are doing, and will be doing. To tackle greenhouse gases, the UK published its climate change programme in 2000. That programme set out a far-reaching strategy for reducing emissions across all sectors of the economy and for adapting to the effects of climate change that are happening already.
  For waste, our starting point is Waste Strategy 2000, which tackles the management of all waste streams. For the municipal waste stream, our starting point is the strategy unit report entitled "Waste Not, Want Not", to which we will be responding very shortly. I would be the first to say that the Bill is only part of a much bigger picture, but it is an important and innovative part.
  The Bill allows trading to be used to meet environmental goals. For landfill, local authorities will receive landfill allowances, which represent the maximum amount of biodegradable municipal waste that they may landfill. Those allowances will reduce year on year.
  Mr. Bill O'Brien: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene on his opening remarks. I appreciate the opportunity. On the question of allowances and payments to local authorities—especially the disposal authorities—will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that all the costs involved will be met? Local authorities will encounter extra problems with the collection and recycling of waste, and disposal will also be an important part of their work. Will he ensure that council tax payers will face no extra costs as a result of this business?
  Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend raises an important point. When it was raised in another place, the

  1129
  Government responded by moving a right of direction for disposal authorities to give to collection authorities. That will ensure that the form of delivery of what is collected will be in a manner agreeable to the disposal authorities, so as to maximise the opportunities for recycling. We think that that will resolve the problem. Equally, we have been in touch with the Local Government Association, and we remain willing to listen to what the local authorities say to us. The answer is that there should be no extra cost.
  Mr. David Chaytor: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Meacher: I will, but I have a lengthy speech and I am wondering how far I will get.
  Mr. Chaytor: I assure my right hen. Friend that I shall be brief. He said that the Bill is only a small part of the Government's strategy to deal with the waste management crisis and respond to the threat of climate change. Does he see merit in establishing a trading system for non-biodegradable waste? Would that form part of future legislation?
  Mr. Meacher: We have not considered that. The landfill targets in the Bill—they are the ultimate driver behind the Bill and other legislation—are concerned exclusively with biodegradable municipal waste. That has been a serious problem for this country, which has one of the highest levels of landfilling of biodegradable municipal waste in the EU. I am not sure whether Greece's level is higher, but ours is extremely high. That is our prime target. That will be a difficult enough task because we inherited a rate of landfilling of biodegradable municipal waste of about 85 per cent. It is now below 80 per cent., but is still extremely high. Once we have secured that target and aligned our waste management strategy to meet our landfill targets—the primary concern of my right hon. Friend and me—we can look further. But it will be difficult enough to meet existing targets without extending them gratuitously.
  Trading is a flexible and cost-effective economic instrument that allows reductions—whether in the biodegradable municipal waste going to landfill or in emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere—to be made where it is most cost-effective to do so. It is a market system to achieve environmental objectives. In both parts of the Bill, the holder of steadily reducing landfill allowances or emission targets has three choices. First, they may take direct action to reduce their landfill or emissions to their allowance or target level. Secondly, they may reduce below the target and sell or save the surplus. Thirdly, they may choose to exceed the target or allowance and purchase excess allowances that are needed from those who have made cuts and are willing to sell in this way.
  Norman Baker: There is a fourth option as well: the holders can choose to incur a penalty. I do not say that flippantly. They may make the calculation that the cost of a permit—demand for which will be high—
  1130
  is such that it might be cheaper to incur a penalty from the allocating authority. Has the Minister considered that?
  Mr. Meacher rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, I ought to update a statement I made earlier about Carriage Gates. Members should be advised that the gates are now closed again because of the security situation.
  Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. In a market system, between buyers and sellers, the price is set by the market. Depending on the demand for excess allowance, I would expect the price to be pitched at a level that acted either as a sufficient incentive or as a sufficient deterrent, whichever way one looks at it. I am prepared to consider his point if such a situation arises, but I doubt it.
  The required overall reductions are still met, whichever of the three options is adopted, but trading will provide flexibility by allowing additional reductions to be made where that is most cost-effective. In all cases, reductions will still be made over time. That is the key point. We will meet environmental objectives and our landfill targets systematically.
  Ms Joan Walley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although much of the Bill is good, as it is against landfill and is trying to reduce the amount of waste we put to landfill, there is a danger that we could be promoting incineration over other forms of dealing with waste? Will he look at introducing a binding cap on incineration in addition to the measures in the Bill on landfill?
  Mr. Meacher: We are not providing any incentives for incineration. As a result of the "Waste Not, Want Not" report of the strategy unit, the Government are looking at the wider health and social implications of different parts of the waste stream, including incineration. My hon. Friend's considerations will be assessed in the report. Obviously I cannot presume any conclusions that might come from the report. However, I see no reason why the Bill might encourage incineration. We are clear about the waste hierarchy, and incineration is only just above landfill.
  The first part of the Bill tackles the requirement in the landfill directive to reduce the United Kingdom's reliance on landfill. The United Kingdom currently landfills nearly 80 per cent. of biodegradable municipal waste. Landfill produces methane, a greenhouse gas that is 21 times more powerful than carbon dioxide; 25 per cent. of all UK emissions of methane come from landfill sites.
  As well as the implications for climate change, landfilling constitutes the loss of valuable resources that are locked up in the waste. Many of these resources, in our view, could be reused or recycled, or have the energy extracted from them.
  Landfill is at the bottom of the waste hierarchy, which is how we determine the relative environmental impact of different waste management options. At the top is waste minimisation; in other words, we should be

  1131
  reducing or minimising the amount of waste that we produce. Best of all is not to create the waste. That is not going to happen very often, although it can be incentivised more; we are keen to do that.
  Thereafter, we should reuse what would otherwise be waste, followed by recycling; the third is recovery through composting and energy recovery. At the bottom comes disposal or landfill. To tackle problems associated with landfill and to move from a reliance on it, the UK—along with our European partners—agreed the landfill directive in 1999. I want to make it clear that although it is difficult for the United Kingdom, we believe it to be the right legislation. This directive includes stringent targets to cut the amount of biodegradable municipal waste that is sent to landfill.
  Sue Doughty: The Minister refers to different options, but clause 17(3) in particular suggests that targets can be met by recycling, by composting and by energy from waste. Is not incineration sitting at the same level as recycling?
  Mr. Meacher: If the hon. Lady had been listening—I am sure she was—when I spelled out the waste hierarchy, she would have heard me say that, after minimisation, the next requirement is recovery and reuse. Of course, one of the options remains recovery of the energy from waste; that is better than burying it in the ground. But the Government have made it clear that the prime concerns are recovery, reuse, recycling and composting. We are clear about that, but we are not excluding the other option, which would still be better than landfill. However, we strongly prefer the first four.
  Mr. Bill Wiggin: What would happen if a council were to compost its biodegradable municipal waste and then use it for landfill? How would that fit in with the quota?
  Mr. Meacher: It would not fit in at all well, because such waste would still be biodegradable municipal waste even if it had been composted. It would probably turn into a type of sludge that would have to go to landfill. That would tell against our landfill targets, so the Government are strongly against any such proposal.
  Within the United Kingdom, environmental protection is a devolved matter. It is therefore for each of the Administrations to put in place their policies for meeting the reductions in landfill required by the landfill directive. The Administrations have agreed to act together towards this common goal, and have agreed that this Bill should be considered in total and as a unity by this Parliament. That is helpful and will increase the effectiveness of the measures by widening the area for potential trading and by ensuring that the UK as a whole can meet the reductions required in the most cost-effective manner.
  The obligations on the UK under the landfill directive—even allowing for a four-year derogation that is open to us because of our heavy reliance on landfill—require a 25 per cent. cut in biodegradable municipal waste from that produced in 1995, a lower level than that of today, by 2010; a 50 per cent. cut by 2013 and a 65 per cent. cut by 2020. That is a huge challenge. As I repeatedly say, if we were to do nothing—the opposite
  1132
  of what we will do—and were to have business as usual, the amount going to landfill would probably double over that 20-year period. Instead, we have to reduce it by two thirds. That is a massive challenge, and the Bill is at the heart of meeting it.
  Mr. Michael Weir: Something that concerns me slightly about the trading aspect of waste management is the fact that it is clear that one cannot trade across the target years that the Minister has just mentioned. Is there not a danger that some authorities will not take the issue seriously until they come up against the buffer of the target years? Might it not be better to have shorter periods so as to reduce the dependence on the three target years?
  Mr. Meacher: The target or trip points were laid down in the landfill directive and are not a matter for the UK to determine. We are making it clear to local authorities that they can trade across years, but that they cannot trade across target years. That might put the achievement of our targets at risk. We are making that clear, and we shall make it clear in guidance. It would not be possible to do what the hon. Gentleman suggests partly because of the directive and partly because the framework in which we have to meet it is laid down for us. It is not a matter for our discretion.
  Municipal waste is growing at 3 to 4 per cent. a year, with recycling increasing only at 1 per cent. a year. That is another indication of the challenge that faces us on the alternative to landfill. Therefore, we are still landfilling more biodegradable municipal waste than ever and, each year, we are getting further from achieving our legally binding targets. I make no attempt to hide the seriousness of the challenge that we face.

  The landfill directive targets and, therefore, the Bill concentrate on the biodegradable municipal waste that is the direct concern of local government. Biodegradable waste represents about 63 per cent. of all municipal waste and is a cause for concern due its very nature. Methane is produced as a by-product of both aerobic and anaerobic decomposition, which means that the waste rots either with or without the presence of oxygen. This branch of the waste stream includes paper and cardboard, food and garden waste and natural textiles. That forms a very large proportion of the household waste stream. The aim of our sustainable waste management policies is to move these wastes up the waste hierarchy and towards their reduction, reuse, recycling or recovery and away from simply dumping them in landfills.
  We recognise the scale of the challenge and the large investment in alternatives to landfill that are required. The changes in the way in which we manage our waste create obligations on us all as producers of waste. We all continue to create waste. However, as the targets relate to municipal waste under the directive, we have to look to those who manage and control this waste—that is, the local authorities—to achieve compliance. That is why the landfill allowances relate to local authorities—this is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) raised—and specifically to the waste disposal authorities that dispose of the waste to landfill.
  Joan Ruddock: My right hon. Friend is talking a great deal about the responsibilities

  1133
  of local authorities, and we all appreciate them. The position is getting more complicated by the moment and local authorities have more to do. Does he agree that if they were to have a statutory responsibility to develop a waste strategy, that would help them to manage all their new responsibilities and the complexities that exist in dealing with waste?
  Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend makes a point that is directly relevant to her Municipal Waste Recycling Bill which received its Second Reading last Thursday. [HON. MEMBERS: "Friday."] I beg the House's pardon. My hon. Friend makes an important point. She will know that the issue arose in another place and that an amendment to the Bill was accepted that requires local authorities to set out statutorily their waste management strategies. That is the basis on which the Bill comes before the House. In the light of the fact that the Government opposed the amendment but lost in another place, we are reconsidering the issue. We shall return to the House with our conclusions. I am very much aware that this point applies to my hon. Friend's Bill.
  Mr. David Drew: My right hon. Friend has been characteristically generous in giving way. Perhaps we will discuss the Bill in interventions, so that we will not need much of a debate later. Surely, we must put the onus on to local authorities. However, as my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) said in relation to her Bill, the onus must also be placed on the individual. We cannot beat about the bush. We must make it clear that local authorities must charge according to the amount of waste produced by individual households. People will then start to learn that they must recycle, not just for some sort of spiritual reason but out of sheer economic necessity. Should we not move towards such an approach?
  Mr. Meacher: The strategy unit's report "Waste Not, Want Not" recommended that the Government consider the proposal that my hon. Friend mentioned. Contrary to what many people think, the system sometimes known as variable charging does not constitute a double whammy in the council tax. It is not an addition to the element in the council that is chargeable for waste collection, but replaces it. As he said, it depends on the amount of waste that a household generates. I entirely understand his point about the need to incentivise people to try to create less waste. The Government are considering the issue in their response to the strategy unit report. We will give our formal response to all the elements in the report quite soon.
  Paddy Tipping: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Meacher: I will give way, but I wonder whether anyone will have time to make a speech.
  Paddy Tipping: My right hon. Friend has referred to the amendment made in another place. Composting has an important place in our strategy, so will he carefully consider that amendment and examine carefully the
  1134
  advice given by bodies, such as the Composting Association, so that we ensure that composting takes place and is not prevented?
  Mr. Meacher: Composting is unquestionably very important, and the Government are very keen to promote composting of a high standard. However, clause 22, which deals with the definition of composting, was introduced in another place and, again, it was carried although the Government opposed it. I am advised that it includes requirements for the treatment of waste containing animal products into compost that would, in practice, turn the compost into sludge and render it useless as compost. We will obviously take account of what my hon. Friend has said and consider the issue further, but we must be extremely careful to retain a definition of compost that makes sense and, at the end of the process, does not simply lead to more biodegradable waste going to landfill.
  Those hon. Members who have followed the issue closely will know that we proposed a permit system when we consulted. I do not wish to deceive anyone, so I should say that we have changed that term to "allowances" for legal clarity because landfill sites are also subject to pollution prevention and control permits, and we have therefore decided to use another term.
  Part 1 will give the Secretary of State the power to specify the maximum amounts of biodegradable waste that can be sent to landfill sites in each of the four countries of the United Kingdom. She must do so after consulting their Administrations, and that must be done for each target year in the landfill directive. For the interim non-target years, she may set limits in each country, or a default formula can be used. The default would ensure an even profile of reduction, thus helping the UK to meet the targets.
  After that initial division, responsibility for setting up and operating an allowance scheme rests with each country, obviously because environmental policy is a devolved matter. So the purpose of the Bill is to set the framework, with the detail being decided by each country. Each country will have the flexibility to produce its own scheme and details will be set in regulations. Each country will also have to decide whether to permit trading in its area. Those countries that decide to allow trading could then become part of a cross-border scheme. I can confirm that England intends to introduce a trading scheme and would be prepared to take part in cross-border trading if others wished to do so.
  As the Bill provides flexibility for the detail of the trading scheme, it could be somewhat different in each country within the broad legal framework. For example, some Administrations may decide that allowances can he borrowed over years—others will not—but no country can allow such borrowing across target years, as that would put at risk the UK targets. The hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) raised that issue a little while ago.
  There will be an absolute duty on each waste disposal authority not to exceed the allowances that it holds irrespective of whether they were acquired by direct allocation or as a result of trading, banking or borrowing. However, local authorities will not be obliged to trade; they may simply landfill within their allotted allocation. Equally, there will be no requirement to trade for a monetary value—a simple transfer is permitted.

  1135
  As trading under the landfill allowances scheme would involve public bodies and there is no intention for that to become a speculative market, the Bill will not allow third parties to hold or trade allowances for a number of reasons. We want to provide opportunities for local authorities to trade any surplus. The targets are already very challenging for the UK, so we do not want allowances removed from the system. We do not want waste companies to purchase allowances and to use them, for example, to determine the procurement of local authority waste contracts.
  Each waste disposal authority will receive an allowance, which is the maximum amount of biodegradable waste that it can landfill in a year. The intention in England is to allocate allowances for each year from 2016 to 2020. Local authorities can then plan their progressive diversion from landfill. However, we recognise that the position can change over 16 years, because we make better progress towards meeting the directive targets than we envisage at present, so the Bill contains a provision to revise the allocations if that proves necessary or helpful.
  If a waste disposal authority landfills more biodegradable municipal waste than the allowances it holds, it will be liable to civil financial penalty. The penalties will be set at a sufficient level to ensure that the local authority has the incentive to divert from landfill or acquire allowances, rather than breach the limits. That is obviously essential to secure the landfill directive targets and to underpin an effective trading market.
  The landfill allowance schemes will be monitored by the monitoring authorities appointed for each country, and we expect those to be the respective environmental regulators. That will minimise the burden on landfill operators because the environmental regulators are already responsible—I understand that, in Northern Ireland, they soon will be—for regulating landfills and collecting information from their operators and local authorities. Where trading is permitted, it is intended that the monitoring authorities will also be responsible for recording each trading transfer on a central register.
  The aim, however, is to encourage local authorities to meet their targets in a sensible and co-ordinated way, not to take away resources without justification. Obviously, we do not wish to do that. That is why there is provision for the allocating authorities to extend the time for paying or to relieve liability to penalties if, for example, the local authority that has breached its allowances has a strategy in place to bring itself back on track.
  The importance of the target years is recognised by the provision for supplementary penalties in those years where a local authority landfilling more than it is permitted could lead to the UK breaching its legal obligations under the landfill directive, possibly becoming subject to a European Court of Justice fine. That reflects the seriousness with which we take our international obligations and—let me be frank—the possible penalties of up to £180 million a year for breaching the directive targets.
  The constituent countries of the UK will be responsible for meeting their share of the UK targets and for any associated financial costs or penalties by means of a concordat. There will also be criminal offences for landfill operators who fail to comply with
  1136
  the requirements of regulations, and there may be offences for a breach of scheme regulations, such as restrictions on banking or borrowing. There are also penalties in relation to the details of the scheme, such as record keeping or the rules for saving allowances.
  In another place, concern was expressed that the duty to reduce landfill was placed on waste disposal authorities when some of the means of delivering the targets, such as the collection systems that facilitate recycling—my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) made this point a little earlier—are in the hands of the waste collection authorities. Of course, that only presents a problem in two-tier authorities. We expect that the authorities will plan together to achieve targets. However, where that is not the case, we will provide a power for waste disposal authorities to issue a direction to collection authorities on the manner in which waste is delivered for disposal, so it can be delivered in a form that facilitates recycling.
  Dr. Alan Whitehead: Is it the Government's intention to attach any sanction to the directions that my right hon. Friend mentions, so that the waste supplied by the waste collection authorities is guaranteed to be in a form suitable for the waste disposal authorities?
  Mr. Meacher: Of course, if the House accepts the proposal that we introduced in another place, there would have to be an enforceable power of direction. There is no question about that. Obviously, again, we would much prefer disposal and collection authorities to work together. We do not want such things to be done by legal enforcement and penalties. However, as with all systems, there must, be an ultimate form of external enforcement, so that will certainly be there.
  Dr. Whitehead: For those of us with two-tier authorities this is the nub of the problem. Is it not worth considering treating the waste disposal and waste collection authorities for this purpose as one authority and making that clear to the waste collection authorities? There will be good waste collection authorities working with the waste disposal authority, and also bad ones. The danger is that the bad ones will almost certainly rely on some degree of subsidy, and that is unfair. Can we not just treat them as one authority?
  Mr. Meacher: I will not say that that is the nuclear option—it is perhaps not an appropriate phrase at this time. That is a rather extreme way of resolving the problem. There are much wider implications about the division of responsibility between district councils and county councils. Simply to amalgamate them to overcome the problem is to go too far. We are right to find a way of getting them to work together compatibly in terms of the waste management strategy, but not to the extent of amalgamation.
  I was going to go into detail about parts 1 and 2 of the Bill, but in view of the length of my speech I will not. In conclusion, I am proud—
  Paddy Tipping: My right hon. Friend can be proud about emissions trading which is in part 2 of the Bill. The Government have done extremely well on that. Will he help me in relation to coalmine methane? It is a major

  1137
  pollutant that can be converted into energy. The Government acknowledge that in the White Paper, but can they see the way forward to make it happen? Will this Bill help the conversion of coalmine methane to energy?
  Mr. Meacher: The Government are keen to see coalmine methane tapped and used as an energy source, and not vented into the atmosphere. That is in everyone's interests. I have met the Association of Coalmine Methane on two occasions. There is no internationally agreed technology for determining the contribution of reducing coalmine methane in terms of our international greenhouse gas reduction targets. That is one remaining problem. In the absence of an internationally agreed technology, we cannot secure benefit in terms of our own target. We have commissioned extra research to provide that methodology and I would expect is to be ready within two years, but I am afraid that will not be immediate. I have examined this in great detail and I am sympathetic to what the operators want to do, but we cannot overcome that problem at this time.
  Ms Walley: Many of us are extraordinarily proud of what we are doing to combat global warming. The ceramics industry in Stoke-on-Trent has been efficient in implementing the whole of the carbon levy. In view of the emissions trading schemes outlined in the Bill, can my right hon. Friend give the House some indication of the discussion that he will have with the industry, the Confederation of British Industry and the trade unions in respect of forthcoming and pending European directives?
  Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend must be telepathic because this is the one remaining part of what I was about to say, so I shall answer her with the brief which effectively deals with her point.
  We are pleased that we launched the world's first economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme in April last year. Absolute emission reductions will be delivered to help us meet our international obligations. In addition, a voluntary participation scheme is giving UK business, Government and the City of London a head start on the practical operation of such schemes prior to the introduction of EU and international trading schemes. The EU scheme becomes operative in 2005.
  The Bill does not set up the scheme or determine eligibility; it simply provides a statutory basis for penalties for the current scheme and for any future emissions trading scheme. The statutory penalties are important to secure value in emissions allowances and to underpin the market. The UK emissions trading scheme is complex, so perhaps the House can endure a couple of minutes while I try to explain the place that it has in the Bill.
  There are currently three types of participants. The penalties provided for by the Bill will apply to the direct participants. They have taken an absolute five-year emissions reduction target from sources within the scheme in return for a financial incentive. They are responsible for emissions from power generators rather
  1138
  than the generators themselves. Some 34 organisations are involved, spanning sizes and sectors including the public sector. The main exclusions are power generators.
  The second target holders are climate change agreement participants. These agreements between the Government and sector associations and operators in 44 energy intensive sectors set energy or emission reduction targets. Should they meet their target, they receive an 80 per cent. discount from the climate change levy. Holders can use the scheme to buy allowances to help meet their target or they may make greater reductions and sell their surplus.
  Thirdly, there are the trading participants who do not hold targets but simply buy and sell—in other words they speculate—in the allowance market and provide additional liquidity. This Bill, then, delivers on the promise explicit in the contracts and other scheme documentation to provide for statutory penalties for direct participants who fail to meet their annual emission targets. They will be welcomed by all participants in the scheme because it is in their interests to have a robust, secure market. The Bill does not change compliance for climate change agreement participants because their penalty is to lose their 80 per cent. levy discount. That is a powerful driver.
  The Bill also takes the opportunity to prepare for future emissions trading schemes and to ensure that they can have a robust compliance base. The Bill gives a power to provide for penalties in future emissions trading schemes and such potential schemes may cover other pollutants regulated under the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 and the regulation, such as acid rain gases, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide.
  The Bill puts the tools in place to help us tackle some of the biggest environmental challenges that we face as a nation and internationally. It does that through innovative instruments, which will enable burdens to be spread more effectively. It uses market-based tools, which should deliver more economically optimal solutions. On that basis and with apologies for the length of my speech, I strongly commend the Bill to the House.
  3.28 pm
  Mr. David Lidington: After one or two of the press reports last weekend, I suppose that I should start by saying that I am genuinely glad to see the Minister in his place on the Government Front Bench today. We have a number of questions to ask and a number of criticisms to make of the Bill and of the Government's policy. However, in general, I welcome the Bill as a constructive measure that is designed to secure good environmental outcomes.
  I am glad, too, that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) is in his place. I am sorry, however, that he is not on the Front Bench. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the tremendous work that he has done as a member of the Opposition Front Bench team, shadowing the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the eight or nine months that he has been under my leadership.
  A system of allowances or permits is an imaginative way in which to harness the power of the market and the price mechanism to deliver good environmental

  1139
  outcomes. We have already seen—especially with the experience in the United States with sulphur dioxide emissions—that this type of instrument can work, as the Minister said, with flexibility and cost-effectiveness to deliver results in the general interest. I welcome the suggestions made by the hon. Members for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) and for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) that the model in the Bill might be applied in future to other types of emission. Although no panacea will deliver all the environmental improvements that we want, I believe that permit or allowance trading schemes should form an important part of this country's environmental policy.
  I want to talk about part 2 of the Bill. For understandable reasons, part 2 has tended to be overlooked in debates in the House of Lords, where attention has concentrated on waste policy provisions. I agree with the Minister that the penalties that are incorporated in the Bill were always seen as part of the Government's emissions trading scheme. Their incorporation should not be controversial. However, we should reflect on our experience of the first year of trading in carbon dioxide emission permits. When the Minister responds to the debate, I hope that he will tell us about the Government's assessment of how much difference the emissions trading scheme has made in practice. He will know that, in the past couple of weeks, Enviros Consulting has published its assessment of the ETS. It concluded that most of the direct participants in emissions trading—the companies that are the subject of the penalties in the Bill—entered the scheme when the level of emissions from their firms was falling and predicted to fall further. In effect, they were getting a financial incentive from the Government for delivering what they were on course to deliver anyway. I accept the Minister's statement that there have been benefits to this country in having an emissions trading scheme and in getting there ahead of many of our competitors—we have expertise and skills and the ability to sell them elsewhere in the world. However, it would be useful if the Minister could give us the Government's account of whether the ETS has delivered reductions in emissions in its first year, or whether it has simply provided a framework within which trends that were already apparent have continued.
  One million tonnes of carbon dioxide were traded in that first year. From the consultants' report, it looks as if direct participants were overall sellers of surplus permits and their buyers were already the big energy users in climate change agreements. An interesting question arises over the relationship between the climate change agreement participants and the direct participants in the ETS. Do the Government believe that that buyer-seller balance is likely to continue or do they expect to see greater equilibrium in the market?
  My second point on the emissions trading scheme is to do with how long it will remain in operation. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the European Union scheme will come into effect as early as 2005. Commissioner Wallström seems set against permitting variations between emissions trading arrangements in different EU countries once a pan-Community scheme has come into being. Does the Minister envisage a transitional period to allow participants in a UK scheme to move over to the rules of the EU scheme? How will permits that companies have bought in the market under the British
  1140
  trading scheme be carried over to the EU scheme; or are buyers of British emissions permits taking a financial risk because the permits will cease to have value when the European scheme comes into existence?
  My third point is that, as I understand it, the EU directive will make emissions trading permits mandatory for designated large industrial installations, but will also allow member states a certain amount of freedom to extend permit trading arrangements to other categories of enterprise. Do the Government want to take advantage of the freedoms currently allowed under the draft directive? Given the point made by the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), a relevant example would be for us to look into some sort of methane trading system. That might cover the coal works problems to which he referred, as well as dealing with landfill methane emissions, and could give landfill operators a further incentive to reduce the amount of material that they put underground.
  That leads me to the provisions in the first part of the Bill for allowance trading arrangements for biodegradable municipal waste. My problem with the Bill has—to be fair—been acknowledged by the Minister. I am not concerned about the content of the Bill as such, but about the fact that it is difficult to judge its overall impact on waste policy more generally, especially in the absence of the Government's response to the strategy unit's report. We do not have an overall statement as to how the Government propose to respond not only to the landfill directive but to the plethora of European directives that will influence how the UK deals with different waste streams over the next five to 20 years.
  As the Minister said, household waste in Britain is increasing at about 3 per cent. a year. It is rising even faster than the Chancellor of the Exchequer's predictions for economic growth, let alone the actual rate. Eighty per cent. of our household waste goes into landfill. I have to acknowledge that successive Governments have found that situation hard going; they found it easier to set recycling targets than to deliver them in practice. Furthermore, the performance of local authorities varies hugely: some are taking great strides and recycling greater proportions of their waste, while others are failing to do so. The strategy unit concluded that there is a major and growing gap between waste produced, the amount of waste sent to landfill and the amount allowed under the landfill directive.
  A reduction in the amount that we send to landfill is a worthwhile objective. After carbon dioxide, methane is the second most important greenhouse gas. A quarter of Britain's methane emissions come from landfill and I understand that the UK accounts for no less than 15 per cent. of all methane emissions in the European Union. As all Members know from their constituents, landfill is an unpleasant solution for people who live either near the tip or along the routes—road or rail—by which the waste reaches the landfill site.
  The puritan in me—and, no doubt, in other Members—is offended by the wastefulness of chucking away large amounts of raw material that could be reused. The European landfill directive will certainly prompt swifter change than would have occurred if we

  1141
  had been left to our own devices. Nevertheless, I am concerned at the prospect that both national and local government policy may be driven more by the need to avoid fines for breach of the directive than by finding the best way forward, and at the right pace, for reducing and properly managing waste in the UK context. I also regret that the Bill is not accompanied by a comprehensive waste management strategy that considers landfill in the broader context. There may be an opportunity on another occasion to debate the many different illustrations of the complexity of waste policy, such as the rules that are being introduced on tyres, the end of life vehicles directive, the new proposals on packaging waste and a possible directive on batteries that is being considered by the Commission. I want to give two such illustrations.
  The first, incineration, was mentioned by several Labour Members. We need a rational debate about incineration. It is certainly hugely unpopular with people who are told that an incinerator is planned for their neighbourhood, but there will always be some materials that require incineration. Countries such as Sweden and Denmark, which have a reputation for being extremely committed to green environmental policies, incinerate very large quantities of their waste. In Denmark, more than half of all waste is incinerated. That said, there is an extremely strong case for arguing that no new incinerator should be allowed unless it also allows the recovery of energy. There is also a strong case for arguing that we should be wary of large-scale incinerators that end up relying on vast quantities of waste being transported over huge distances for 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to keep the furnaces going. Incineration is a complex policy issue to resolve.
  Mr. Drew: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the contradiction at the heart of the waste problem is that unless individuals and families are prepared to take personal responsibility for creating less waste, we are all on to a loser? The basic problem with incineration is that it requires scale. If that scale goes against the proximity principle, no individual will take responsibility. That is where the problem of incineration really lies—it is somebody else's problem and there is no personal responsibility.
  Mr. Lidington: The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. What worries me, though, is meeting councillors who tell me that they now see incineration as the only way in which they will be able to deliver in time the reduction of landfill use that is required if they are to meet the Government's targets, which flow from the target arrangements in the European directive.
  Norman Baker: I agree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's arguments so far. Will he accept my view, which is that the Bill tends to put incineration on a level playing field with recycling and composting, notwithstanding the Minister's hierarchy? The landfill tax is the only tax that discriminates. Would it not be helpful if there were financial disincentives for incineration?
  Mr. Lidington: The hon. Gentleman is right. The key point is that we need to consider landfill, recycling and
  1142
  incineration together. The Bill, by omission, makes an artificial distinction between different methods of waste disposal and the incentives or penalties that we would wish to associate with them. They should be considered strategically together, which the Bill fails to do.
  My second illustration concerns the new rules that are being introduced on the separation of waste. Recycling will work only if there is effective separation of different categories of waste material. Within a few years, we will face the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive, which will require everything from television sets to electronic greetings cards to be dealt with separately from other household waste streams. New definitions and new rules for the disposal of hazardous waste are being introduced, which will also impose further duties on local authorities. I would be interested in the Government's assessment of how those rules will interact with those inherent already in the landfill directive. Have the regulatory impact assessment and the costs to local authorities of implementing article 5 of the landfill directive been underestimated because we have not yet added into the sum the further duties that may be imposed on them by the WEEE directive and the hazardous waste regulations?
  Paddy Tipping: The hon. Gentleman makes some important points about directives. Does he accept, that the way that this House and the Government deal with European directives is not satisfactory? Our legislation is now driven from Europe, we have made bad mistakes, and we can improve, but it is incumbent on us to look more closely at the way that we handle and consider directives.
  Mr. Lidington: I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman. To show that I am speaking in a genuinely bipartisan fashion, I will tell him that I spent my first five years in the House serving on one of the European Scrutiny Committees, and I know that the problems of which he speaks are not new to the present Administration. I remember learning a great deal on that Committee by studying the example of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), as she interrogated a series of Ministers of the then Conservative Government about why they had signed up to this or that detail of various European directives. As he will understand, this subject is worth a long debate in its own right, and I shall not go further into it now. I agree with his general point, however.
  I want to return to the point made by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) in his intervention. He was right to say that the success of recycling in particular, and, therefore, indirectly, the success of a tradeable allowances scheme, will be delivered only if individuals feel that they can take ownership of this matter for themselves and that they have some vested interest in a desirable environmental outcome. It also relies on two further things: on local authorities having the capacity to sort and recycle more waste than they do at present; and on the private sector coming up with a profitable end use for recyclates. Otherwise, we will collect, sort and recycle and end up putting the recycled materials back into the landfill tip, because we cannot find an economic end use for them.
  Some important questions arise out of this Bill in relation to the impact on local authorities' costs. To start with, there are the administrative costs of setting

  1143
  up and running the scheme, which the Local Government Association estimates to be in the order of £15 million nationally. Subsequently, there are far greater costs, which the Minister acknowledged indirectly in his remarks about the need for large-scale new investment in recycling capacity: the costs of installing and operating recycling facilities that do not exist at the moment.
  It is not good enough for the Government to argue, as they seemed to do in the other place, that local authorities have plenty of money with which to deliver those objectives. The money comes to local authorities from two sources. The first is the national waste management and recycling challenge fund, which has helped a number of local councils but has rejected bids from others, and all local authorities are at risk of financial penalties under the landfill directive. The other source of funding to local authorities is via the environmental, protective and cultural services block of local government finance. That, of course, must also cover such matters as flood protection, coastal defence and emergency planning, all of which are under considerable pressure at the moment, and are areas of local government responsibility in which councils are being urged by the Government, and by others, to spend more money rather than less.
  I want to make three suggestions to the Minister about finance, and I hope that they will be constructive. First, he should hypothecate any revenue from fines back to local authorities to allow improvement to their collection and recycling services or to the private sector as an incentive to develop markets for recyclates further. Secondly, he should consider doing the same thing with the increased revenue that the Government plan to raise from their proposed large increase in the landfill tax. It was interesting that Lord Whitty seemed to suggest in the House of Lords that the Government were considering such measures, although he declined to be drawn on the detail.
  My third suggestion is for the Government to give local authorities the freedom to offer incentives to householders who reduce their waste and sort recyclable products. Incentives will probably work better than penalties, which deals with the point raised by the hon. Member for Stroud. If people risk facing a penalty, they will be tempted either to fly-tip their rubbish or to place it surreptitiously in their neighbour's bin. If people were offered an incentive such as a small council tax rebate, they might be tempted to follow good practice.
  Dr. Whitehead: I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman suggest using incentives rather than padlocks on wheelie bins. In the light of his remarks about hypothecation, will he tell the House whether he would support the recent changes to the administration of the landfill levy set out in the pre-Budget report, which will place tax forgone into the realm of larger recycling and reuse schemes rather than into the present system?
  Mr. Lidington: We will want to examine the Government's proposals in detail and especially in the light of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes in a few weeks' time. I was outlining the principle that if the extra revenue that the Government are committed to take from the tax increase is to produce the benefits that
  1144
  they claim, it must be ploughed back into recycling capacity and markets for recyclates. Otherwise, they will take more money in tax without improving recycling rates.
  I want to ask the Minister about a couple of the more technical aspects of the Bill that we will want to explore further in Committee. First, several hon. Members talked about the relationship between waste collection and waste disposal authorities in a two-tier system. The Bill provides for a county council to be fined if a district council fails to separate waste effectively. The Lords sensibly amended the Bill by inserting a requirement for a joint municipal waste strategy. However, there is still a question of whether the waste disposal authority—the county council—should be able to impose penalties on a district council that does not do its job correctly. We shall want to debate that in more detail but I should be interested to hear the Government's intended approach to that.
  Secondly, there is the question of the relationship between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and, possibly again in future, Northern Ireland. My understanding is that under the directive, the United Kingdom collectively will be fined if European targets are not met. Clause 9 provides for fines to be shared out within the UK as a whole if collectively it breaches its landfill targets in the target years. I was not certain from the Minister's opening speech whether the fines for a failure in one part of the UK would have to be borne by it or whether, for the sake of argument, a failure by England to deliver on its landfill targets would have to be picked up by Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish taxpayers as well.
  That is an important point because, as the Minister said, Scotland and Wales have the freedom to design their own schemes. The last note that I read suggested that the Scottish scheme would involve tradeable permits which, however, would not be tradeable across the border. It also suggested that the Welsh scheme might not allow the trading of allowances at all. The different parts of the United Kingdom will design their own schemes, which may or may not be equally effective. Do the Government believe that the ineffectiveness of a particular scheme means that the entire UK will breach its targets and become liable for the failures of the scheme in one of its component parts?
  We look forward to exploring the Bill in detail later. We have reservations, not so much about its content but about the fact that it is being considered in isolation, separate from broader questions about climate change and waste management policy. If it makes a constructive contribution to delivering good environmental outcomes, we shall not oppose it, but shall do our best to make constructive criticisms and give overall support.
  3.57 pm
  Mr. David Kidney: This is a good little Bill. It provides for a trading scheme for local authorities that dispose of waste, so that they can trade allowances for the disposal of BMWs—biodegradable municipal waste, not the upmarket motor car. It also provides for penalties to support the existing voluntary scheme on trading in carbon emissions.
  The Bill should not be mistaken for, nor misrepresented as, the sum total of the Government's strategy to reduce, reuse and recycle waste—it is but one

  1145
  part of a much larger whole. The Government's waste strategy, published in 2000, set out a number of other strategies, including the use of targets; the landfill tax; changes to the landfill tax credit scheme, which are about to be introduced; the waste minimisation fund, the first round of which has just been distributed; and public campaigns to raise awareness and support among the public, most noticeably the "A re you doing your bit?" campaign.
  I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) for steering her private Member's Bill—the Municipal Waste Recycling Bill—through its Second Reading in the House last Friday. That Bill provides for greater kerbside collection of household waste by local authorities, thereby adding another element to the overall waste strategy that we ought to consider. I agreed with the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when it called for strong leadership, bearing it in mind that the Government's strategy has many complex elements. Strong leadership is clearly important to pull them all together, drive them forward and make sure that they are successful.
  I am pleased to tell the House that I have been close enough to the Department to be able to assure it that the Secretary of State and the Minister for the Environment are ready, able and willing to provide that leadership. Indeed, the whole ministerial team and the top management at the Department show a deep and abiding commitment to making a success of the Government's waste strategy.
  The new waste trading scheme in part 1 will probably be the first such scheme in the world. Trading in allowances can contribute to driving up the performance of waste disposal authorities. Currently, their performances show a surprisingly large degree of variation, by which I mean that some are pretty poor. The scheme will apply to biodegradable waste. Total UK waste is about 400 million tonnes a year. About 30 million tonnes is municipal solid waste, 60 per cent. of which is biodegradable. So although it is true that the Bill deals with a sizeable proportion of all municipal waste, it deals with only a modest proportion of the country's total waste, hence the need for an overall strategy. Of course, a much bigger proportion of our country's waste is produced in the private sector, although in fairness, the best in that sector are doing better than the best of our local authorities in their duties of reducing, reusing and recycling.
  We could try to increase the proportion of municipal solid waste that is biodegradable. As the Minister knows, I have asked parliamentary questions about increasing the use of biodegradable materials in goods packaging, in place of the plastic packaging that we quickly remove and discard. For example, I am very interested in the use of a substitute for plastic bags that has been developed from potato starch. Our farmers are desperate for alternative uses for their land, and nonfood crops are a very good way in which they can diversify and obtain new areas of business. Some supermarkets are already voluntarily trialling plastic bags made from biodegradable material. We should give every encouragement to such developments.
  1146
  As we have discussed, in many parts of the country—including shire counties such as Staffordshire—the waste disposal authority is different from the waste collection authority. In Staffordshire, the county council is the former, and the various district councils are the latter, so it is not surprising that the Local Government Association is asking what mechanisms are planned to ensure that co-operation between different councils actually happens. After all, a waste disposal authority that sends to landfill biodegradable municipal waste that is not covered by allowances will be fined. What will happen if Staffordshire county council is fined for behaviour that is the fault of a district council?
  On co-operation between councils, I pay tribute to John Dutton, chief executive of the Staffordshire environmental fund, which is one of the funding bodies under the existing landfill tax credit scheme. He had the foresight to bring together all the councils in Staffordshire to look at the key issues in co-operation over waste disposal. Together, they have looked at stimulating markets for reusable and recycled goods—an issue raised by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington)—and examined the scope for closer co-operation between councils, thereby presaging the amendment from the other place on joint municipal waste strategies. They have also considered developing waste parks, in which multi-activities such as sorting, recovering, reusing, recycling, processing and product development could all take place—in the same place, at the same time.
  I have a constituency interest in knowing to what extent the Government intend that advanced conversion technologies such as pyrolysis and gasification will contribute to the policy of reducing landfill. This is not incineration—the process that gives rise to people's health fears—but an energy recovery method that is often associated with reducing biomass into a renewable energy source. I raise the point because a very enterprising company in my constituency, Talbotts Heating, is something of a world leader in this conversion technology. The Minister may remember that, during his recent visit to Yorkshire to give out awards for the Country Land and Business Association, Mr. Bob Talbott, of Talbotts Heating, bent his ear. He is an enthusiastic entrepreneur, and keen to help Staffordshire to reduce the waste that goes to landfill. But Staffordshire county council—the waste disposal authority—is under the impression that the Government favour recycling over conversion, so it is reluctant to co-operate with his company. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend could clarify in his response to the debate, or later in a letter to me if that is more convenient, whether the county council's understanding is right.
  I have a letter from the council on the matter, a crucial part of which explains its position and states:
  "The current priority is to increase the recycling of waste to improve performance under national Best Value Performance Indicator BV82a. In this respect incineration is not classified as recycling. Consequently the incineration of materials which are currently being recycled would make the Council's performance under BV82a worse, not better."
  Clearly, the council classifies even the kind of energy conversion that I am describing as a form of incineration. That is why I ask the Minister for his view.

  1147
  Part 2 relates to emissions trading. Surely all fair-minded people will give the Government great credit for that. Let us recall the background. The UK was a leading player in making the Kyoto process work. For the first time, the world's leading nationsߞwell, most of them—agreed legally binding targets for reducing carbon emissions to combat climate change. Within the European Union, we took a good proportion of the EU's target reduction as our share of the obligation to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Domestically, we went further and adopted an even more challenging target for ourselves. Not content to rest on our laurels, the Prime Minister made a most impressive speech recently, urging us on to an even more demanding target by the middle of the century.
  In the follow-up to Kyoto at Marrakesh, the participating nations agreed that achievement of the targets for reductions in emissions could be aided by, among other initiatives, an emissions trading scheme. Once again, the UK has acted first. We have become the first state to introduce a trading scheme. It is a voluntary scheme, but it is being taken up by a wide variety of organisations.
  For example, Barclays Bank was one of 34 companies, and the only financial services sector representative, to volunteer to become a direct participant in the scheme when it was launched last year. Barclays has taken on a commitment to reduce by 10,000 tonnes over five years CO2 emissions from a portfolio of 83 large properties bid into the scheme. That equates to a reduction of about 11 per cent. in emissions from its buildings.
  The hon. Member for Aylesbury asked whether that was what the company had already planned to do. That is a good point. Quizzing Barclays Bank about its boastful claim, I was told that the company already had an environmental management strategy of its own, under which it had intended to achieve a reduction of 10 per cent. in the same period anyway, so we have bought an extra 1 per cent. That illustrates the difference between targets and aspirations. It is fair to say that in the past, Barclays Bank would have aspired to the 10 per cent. reduction, but because of the financial penalties, it intends to meet a rather tough commitment to 11 per cent. It is sharpening up its environmental management, as are all the other participants, I expect. That is important because carbon emissions from business activity are probably proportionately very big, as is the waste that I mentioned earlier.
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I have heard a slightly different story. British Airways made some money out of the Government by doing what it intended to do anyway, by selling off part of its air fleet, particularly the budget side. It got money from the Government because British Airways thereby reduced its emissions, but it did not reduce the emissions overall. All that happened was that another company took up that fleet, ran the budget airline and produced the same emissions. That does not seem to be the best use of public money.
  Mr. Kidney: Clearly, that is why the hon. Member for Aylesbury raised the question for the Minister to answer when he winds up. I suspect that the airline industry is not a good example for us. Nevertheless, in defence of
  1148
  the private sector companies taking part, I would say that from the scheme has flowed a greater appreciation of their responsibilities. To mention Barclays one last time—it was an excellent dinner, after all—it has a presence in something like 60 countries around the world, and its environmental strategy that started in the UK is now applied across virtually all those other parts of the world. We are exporting very good practices, which is encouraging, to say the least.
  The new trading scheme could not be described as tough if there were no credible sanctions for the participants. The Bill introduces the fines that will be levied if participants fail to comply with their commitments under the scheme. So here are two new trading schemes. In both cases, the UK leads the world. Of course, being the leader means that there is no template to follow, and we might not get everything right first time. In regard to the emissions trading scheme, the European Union is developing an EU-wide scheme that might require changes to be made to our scheme.
  Taking those things into account, it should not be surprising that the Bill has to provide for future changes in certain respects, some by statutory instrument, others by ministerial power. In respect of the powers to make changes, I would like to make a plea for the involvement of the Select Committee. I am not a member of the Committee, so this is not special pleading. The modern legislative process is complex and time-consuming, and not everything can be achieved by primary legislation. The House should be involved, however, in the exercise by Ministers of the powers that we grant them. What better way is there for that to happen than through our well-developed system of Select Committees? I congratulate the Government on their enterprise in developing these trading schemes, and I wish them well in making a success of them.
  4.11 pm
  Norman Baker: I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney). I agree with his last point about the Select Committee. Indeed, this is one of those pleasurable occasions on which there is a good deal of agreement on both sides of the Chamber. The Liberal Democrats support the Bill, and I do not imagine that there will be a Division tonight, but if there is, we shall support the Government in the Lobby. That is not to say that everything about the Bill is perfect, butߞcredit where credit is due—its principle is absolutely right and the Government are ahead of the game in using economic instruments in this way.
  The use of economic instruments throws up a potential problem, although it is definitely right to go down that road. In a different capacity, I remember being in a room with Chris Patten back in 1989, when he was involved with the Pearce report, which looked for the first time at the use of economic instruments in an innovative way. I was sorry that the work that he did seemed to run into the sand two or three years later, because there was an opportunity then to grasp the importance of merging the economy and the environment.
  I seriously believe that. if we are to make good progress on the environment, we must do so in conjunction with economic instruments—which means,

  1149
  effectively, in conjunction with the Treasury. I am not sure that the mechanisms of government would allow us to do that effectively, however. We have, necessarily, a straitjacketed departmental arrangement whereby Departments do not always talk to one other. They have their own responsibilities, they build their own walls, and they have their own jealousies, which they guard. I sometimes think that, with the changes that are now taking place in government, some of those barriers could be broken down.
  I represented my party this morning on a statutory instrument Committee on the climate change levy. My party had decided that I should be there because that was an environmental matter. The Government and the Conservative party were, understandably, represented by a Treasury Minister and shadow Minister. The discussion was on financial matters and was very dry and arcane, and there was not much said about the environment, although the implications of the climate change levy are enormous for it. We need to find a way of having more effective cross-departmental working. I know that the Minister has started his Green Ministers Committee, which is helpful, hut not necessarily enough.
  I do not want to stray too far from the Bill, Madam Deputy Speaker, but let me just make this point. We have discussed combined heat and power, which is covered by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The rest of energy is covered by the Department of Trade and Industry. and the Treasury is the Department that was running the show this morning. Directives that are clearly germane to the Bill and to the Government's waste strategy, such as the packaging directive and its amendments, and the waste electronic and electrical equipment directive, are being snaffled by the DTI rather than being dealt with by the Department that I think should be dealing with the—DEFRA. I am not convinced that the mechanisms are helping the Government to deliver their own agenda, and I hope that that can be looked at.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) that the Bill is like the dog that did not bark in the night. It is what is not in the Bill that is disappointing, rather than what is, It would certainly have been helpful to have the Government's response to "Waste Not, Want Not" before Second Reading and indeed before the Committee stage. I do not know whether the Minister can give us definite date, but obviously the sooner we have a response, the better.
  Mr. Lidington: Budget day?
  Norman Baker: Quite possibly.
  It would also be better if we had a waste management strategy or, as I prefer to call it, a resource management strategy. This is only one part of the equation, and until we are confident that the rest of the jigsaw fits together, we cannot be confident that the Bill will deliver the Government's aims. There is, for instance, nothing about incineration in the Bill apart from ancillary references, and nothing much about fly tipping, waste minimisation and a host of other matters that should be considered together if we are to deal with waste in a sensible and co-ordinated way.
  1150
  The Minister was honest enough to say—he is always honest about environmental matters, and doubtless about other matters as wellߞthat we have a long way to go. Not only our waste arisings but our landfillings are increasing: recycling is not catching up with the increase in the amount of waste. That is a silly situation for us to be in environmentally, in terms of the Government's meeting of the targets in the European landfill directive. The Minister is right to draw attention to those facts and to say that drastic action is needed, and I think that the Bill responds to the challenge; but I am not convinced that it will achieve what it seeks to achieve.
  Is the Minister seeking to achieve compliance with the landfill directive in 2016 or in 2020? There seems to be some uncertainty about that. On 24 February, when I asked him about the matter, he said:
  "preparations are in hand to support our aim of meeting the Landfill Directive's final biodegradable municipal waste reduction target by 2016."ߞ[Official Report, 24 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 91W.]
  Clause 23, however, refers only to implementing the directive in 2020. I am not sure whether it is an escape clause in case the Government undershoot by four years, or whether the Government are banking on a 2020 implementation and 2016 is merely a theoretical target.
  I do not intend to repeat everything that has already been said by others, including the Minister, but I would like to mention some issues that have not been raised in the Bill or in much detail today. I have already referred to penalties in an intervention on the Minister. I am not sure whether the penalty system will work, although I hope that it will. Waste disposal authorities are having to deal with the increased waste arisings, but the Bill expects them to have the same amount of waste landfilled in the first year of the Bill's operation as in the year before. There is thus an immediate target to be met, and I am not sure that local authorities are up and running in that respect. Despite the best endeavours of many of them, and the exhortations of the Government and others, we are still lagging behind other countries with only a 12 per cent. recycling rate, and no indication that it is rising fast enough to deal with the situation.
  There is therefore a real possibility that, in the first year, a huge number of local authorities will fail to meet that immediate target. They will not be able to cope with the extra waste being created by the 3 per cent. annual increase in waste arisings. If most do not meet the target, not many will have permits for sale; they will all be clamouring to buy them. But where will they buy them? If only a few authorities manage to meet the target, the price of permits is likely to be highߞeven astronomical. I cannot envisage local authorities giving them away, although that is allowed for in the Bill. Authorities in possession of a piece of paper with some value will want to redeem that value by selling it.
  If the price of permits is indeed high, authorities may wonder whether it is better to default and face a penalty or to pay an enormous amount for a permit. If they choose to default and pay a penalty, it will reduce the amount of money that local authorities have to spend on recycling, and that could start a vicious cycle that would make it less likely that they would meet their targets in future years. The Government might have to use the power in clause 26(1)(c)(ii) which gives the allocating authority carte blanche to waive penalties. The

  1151
  allocating authority might have to say, "We accept that most waste disposal authorities do not have permits to trade and the price is very high, so we will waive the penalty." In that case, we would have made no progress and the trading scheme, which I support, would be undermined at an early stage.
  The market will need to workߞif it does, we will welcome itߞbut the initial trading is the most difficult to achieve. The market will work only if the targets effectively enable local authorities to take action to meet them. If they cannot meet those targets, the market system will collapse. The Local Government Association has already said that it has some doubts about the initial phases, not least because some local authorities will rely on incineration. If they do, they will need public inquiries, planning permission and long lead-in periods for building. East Sussex is running away, I am sorry to say, with an attempt to build an incinerator in my constituency. It has even signed the contract before the public inquiry takes place, which must be something of a record, but even with that accelerated time scale, the incinerator will not be operational until 2009. I am not sure how the Government's targets can be reached, because it will be very difficult to do so.
  Some extra money will have to be provided to local authorities, at an early stage, to enable recycling, composting, reuse and waste minimisation to take place and the targets to be metߞeven half met. Local authorities face huge council tax increases this year. I do not understand that, because the Government say that they have given every authority an inflation-plus increase and they are all better off. However, every authority in my area, whether Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat, appears to have a massive tax increase, so I do not understand how the system has workedߞor not worked. In any case, local authorities do not have lots of money to spend on such schemes.
  The landfill tax, which is going up on an escalatorߞif that is not a dirty word in the Treasury these daysߞis not going up fast enough. It can still be more expensive to recycle than to landfill. For example, I visited a siteߞit may even have been in the Minister's constituencyߞwhere they were trying to recycle windows from a tower block that was being demolished. The local authority had to choose between paying £9 to recycle them or £5 to landfill them. There is, therefore, a perverse incentive to landfill at the moment, although the landfill tax will increase over time. It will cost local authorities more to act in an environmentally responsible way, at least in the short term, than to be irresponsible. That cannot be right. We need some early financial changes if we are to increase recycling and if the market system is to work. Otherwise, the Minister and the scheme will soon face problems, which would be regrettable, especially as it is a good scheme in principle.
  I am not an expert on Northern Ireland, but it is difficult to see how cross-border trading could take place. Local authorities in that area might have arrangements to dispose of their waste in the Republic, and I am not clear about how that fits with the UK's target under the landfill directive and what allowance will be made for exports of waste from Northern Ireland to the Republic. I do not know whether that has been taken into account or whether it is banned. I profess
  1152
  myself ignorant on that issue, but it needs to be sorted out. Perhaps the Minister will be able to answer when he replies.
  I turn now to incineration, which has been raised by several hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) and for Stroud (Mr. Drew). The Minister may have failed to understand the point to do with clause 17(3) made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty). The Minister spoke about the waste hierarchy. He is clear in his own mind about what it is, as I am, but in practical terms it means that landfill is at the bottom of the pile, with everything else above it. The Bill does not make the necessary differentiation.
  Clause 17(3), which deals with waste that should have gone to landfill being diverted, states:
  "The measures mentioned in subsection (2) include (in particular) measures to achieve the targets by recycling, composting, biogas production, materials recovery or energy recovery."
  There is no difference, separation or hierarchy in that: all options are treated equally. Local authorities are now faced with a requirement not to landfill, and there is a genuine uncertainty about whether they can meet their communities' recycling aspirations. I am worried that they will opt for incineration. The hon. Member for Aylesbury referred to the genuine concern and fear of local authorities that there is no way to meet the targets without incineration. That is what local authorities around the country have told meߞand, apparently, the hon. Member for Aylesbury—yet the Minister maintains that incineration will be only a small part of the solution and that it will not be used much at all.
  I do not think that that is the case. Unless the Minister takes action to incentivise recycling, reuse and waste minimisation, and to disincentivise waste incineration, incineration will become the preferred solution for waste disposal authorities up and down the country. They will go for incinerators, because they offer an easy way to deal with big percentages.
  It is much easier for an authority to sign a contract with a private company that promises to deal with 25 per cent. of that authority's waste in one big hit than it is for it to deal with myriad complicated schemes that will take time to sort out. Al though the different ways that such schemes may deal with that 25 per cent. of waste may be preferable, they would be much more complicated. Faced with a succession of small schemes or one big scheme, I fear that local authorities will go for the one big scheme, unless the Government produce incentives for them to do otherwise.
  We all know the problems with incineration. They go beyond the emissions problem, which I think is overblown. Incineration diverts the waste stream away from recycling, ties local authorities into very long contracts and involves substantial transport movements. Also, the incinerators themselvesߞwhich are big beastsߞblight the local landscape.
  Incineration undermines the proximity principle, on which the Minister is very keen. So am I, but the principle does not apply if one local authority can send the waste that it generates a long way away by lorry to be incinerated somewhere else. Where is the link then between the waste producer and the waste disposal? There is no link. Authorities can use incineration to put

  1153
  waste out of sight and out of mind. They have no incentive to recycle or deal with waste themselves. The hon. Member for Stroud said that the desire to deal with waste should be engendered in people, but that is undermined by incineration. Incineration is not available on the doorstep, unless one is very unlucky. People in Newhaven in my constituency may be unlucky if the county council has its way and puts an incinerator there. Incidentally, the proposed site is next to the national park, on which the Minister is also very keen.
  Incineration is immensely unpopular. Local authorities are caught between a rock and a hard placeߞthey do not want incineration, but feel that they have to have it. However, local communities are up in arms whenever it is proposed to build an incinerator in a particular area. We need to disincentivise incineration. We need an incineration tax, to put it more on a level with landfill and to make local authorities look seriously at the alternatives. If such a tax is not forthcoming, there will be incinerators all over the country, and we will not have the recycling that the Minister wants.
  We also want the Bill to contain an approach to fly tipping, an issue that is germane to the Bill. As we increase the price of landfill and make it more difficult to deal legally with waste, the tendency will be for more and more waste to be thrown away in our countryside and towns. This must be looked at in parallel with the Bill. If not, we will find more and more waste strewn across the countryside. A parliamentary answer to me on 4 March from the Minister provided me with an astonishing statistic: the amount of material fly-tipped in the countryside in 2001 on agricultural land was 600,000 tonnes. That will get worse and we must deal with that in parallel.
  The Bill is a good idea and the Government are moving in the right direction, for which they deserve credit. They are right to use economic instruments to try to achieve environmental ends, but there are problems that I have identified, which I hope that the Minister will take seriously, because I want the Bill to work, as he does.
  4.31 pm
  Dr. Ashok Kumar: The Bill is far reaching and I warmly welcome it. The management of waste is becoming an increasingly vital concern for all our communities. Excessive waste is becoming more and more of a problem for society as a whole. I want to refer to the impact of the Bill on my region and to highlight in particular the Teesside waste-from-energy plant to which the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) referred.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister said that the 2000 waste strategy had a waste hierarchy, which boils down to three simple things: reduce, reuse and recover. They are all perfectly sensible ideas. By minimising the amount of waste produced by reducing the packaging, there is less waste to reuse, which is the next best option. Finding an alternative use for waste or alternative owners for goods regarded as waste by the current owners can also lessen the amount of waste that needs to be disposed. Finally, recovery is the next best option.
  1154
  Waste of different types can be separated out and reduced to its core components for use in the production of future products and goods. That includes the incineration of waste for energy recovery.
  There are varying forms of each of the options, but the essential difference between them and landfill is that within each process there is something positive to be gained from what has been traditionally regarded as rubbish; waste is used in one form or another to replace other materials, thereby conserving natural resources. The fourth option, and the exception to this, is disposal, of which landfill is only one option. I can think of few people who believe that burying rubbish is the best way to dispose of waste. Imagine if we did that in our daily lives, burying travel tickets, crisp packets and tissues. People would think we were mad, but that is what we do every day in landfill sites across the country. So reducing landfill is good and I welcome the decision to place the onus on local authorities to reduce the amount of biodegradable municipal waste sent to landfill, but I do so with a caveat to which I shall return.
  On virtually every measure, landfill is the worst method environmentally. According to a recent Library paper, the UK produces 400 million tonnes of waste annually. Of this, 29.3 million tonnes is municipal solid waste, most of which is disposed in landfill. Currently, the area covering the former Cleveland county council handles approximately 310,000 tonnes of municipal waste from Teesside. Some 240,000 tonnes per annum are handled at the Teesside energy-from-waste facility.
  One of four local authorities in the Teesside area—Redcar and Cleveland borough councilߞdisposes of about 52 per cent. of municipal waste via waste to energy and 49 per cent. to landfill. The local landfill site, Carlin Howe farm, is based in Dunsdale, near Guisborough in my constituency. The north-east regional assembly prepared a consultation document last month. It plans for the waste recycling and disposal needs of the four boroughs currently partnered through existing waste management and disposal plants and sites.
  For Redcar and Cleveland, the targets set out propose to increase the current total percentage of tonnage of household waste sent for composting. It is set to rise from 0.62 per cent. to 4 per cent. by 2005–06 by the introduction of the kerbside collection of garden household waste. The pilot scheme begins in Saltburn in my constituency next month. If successful, it will then be extended throughout the rest of the borough.
  Similarly, the total tonnage of household waste that has been recycled currently stands at 8.4 per cent., with proposed targets of 14 per cent. by 2004–05, 18 per cent. by 2005–06 and 20 per cent. by 2006–07. For an area that currently ranks bottom in the recycling stakes, these targets mark a cultural change locally. The north-east currently holds the title for the fewest households served by kerbside recycling, and the lowest percentage of household waste recycled. Nevertheless, the commitment of the local authority and the recent award of £600,000 from phase one of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs' waste minimisation fund are enabling the construction of two new recycling centres. One is to be co-located with and linked to the region's existing incineration site. I hope

  1155
  that my right hon. Friend will acknowledge this approach and commitment to integrated waste management in his summing up.
  From listening to the debate, I know that serious criticisms have been made of incineration, but I want to say a few words about incineration on Teesside. The figures available on the Department of Trade and Industry's website show that, at the moment in the UK, about 2.5 million tonnes of waste a year are being used to fuel 180 MW of power generation. That is enough for 250,000 homes. The Cleveland-based Teesside energy waste plant incinerates 240,000 tonnes a year of municipal solid waste. It then uses the energy generatedߞaround 20 MW of electricity and more than 10 per cent. of the national totalߞto meet the heating and power needs of 40,000 homes.
  Although I am aware of the benefits of incineration, I am also aware of the concerns that have been expressed. Environmental organisations and many hon. Members have expressed concern about the environmental impacts of major installations, such as waste management and energy generation plants. However, technology has improved in leaps and bounds. Sites such as the Teesside energy-from-waste plant can now employ proven clean-up systems, based on lime and carbon injection and dust filtration, to ensure that emission limits are met. If we add to that the lack of notices served by the enforcement authority responsible for monitoring environmental performanceߞthe Environment AgencyߞI do not think that it is an overstatement to say that incineration is as clean a waste management and disposal method as most others.
  Following the implementation of the incineration directive, the amount of emissions that the plant is allowed to make are extremely low. Virtually everything except for fly ash is recycled in some way. That site includes a bottom ash recycling plant for ferrous and non-ferrous metals.
  Thanks to the non-fossil fuel obligation commitment to more sustainable energy, incineration is a significantly cheaper form of disposal. With the addition of the landfill tax, the scales will weigh even more heavily in favour of alternative waste disposal methods.
  Although I warmly welcome the Bill, I have some outstanding concerns that I want to raise with my right hon. Friend the Minister. The contract for landfill services in Teesside allows penalties to be imposed in the absence of a set tonnage being deposited regularly, yet the Bill will introduce penalties on authorities for not reducing the waste that they send to landfill. Given that the Teesside authorities send among the lowest amounts of waste to landfill in the whole UK and that they are bound by a 25-year contract to continue to send that minimal amount to landfill, what would the Minister suggest that local authorities do to prevent being squeezed financially between—I think this phrase has been used—the rock of the contract and the hard place of the Bill's penalty clauses?
  I welcome the measures targeted at reducing high levels of landfill in favour of alternative forms of waste disposal. Butߞand this is a big butߞI am concerned that those authorities that are already displaying a regard for such issues may be penalised under the new regime.
  1156
  In speaking to local authority waste management and disposal experts in advance of the debate, a number of other concerns and issues were brought to my attention. It was put to me that some of our European counterparts have a wider definition of the waste-to-energy processes and fuels eligible to be classified as renewable, thereby counting towards renewable targets. Is there any intention to look again at the definitions applied?
  I also ask my right hon. Friend to provide an assurance that the move from landfill to recycling will not penalise the affected authorities that have already pursued alternatives to landfill. When the 2000 waste strategy was introduced, serious concerns were expressed by, among others, the Institute of Wastes Management. It welcomed the strategy, but questioned whether adequate funding will be made available to achieve the measures outlined in it.
  Similarly, as has been mentioned, the Local Government Association has said that the Government need to make significant and increased funding available to allow local councils to achieve significantly greater diversion from landfill. It has also argued that the introduction of a penalty scheme will make it more difficult for waste disposal authorities to comply with landfill targets. It is worried that funds will be diverted from addressing the real challenge of providing alternatives to landfill. Despite some of the concerns that I have expressed, I strongly welcome the Bill and wish it speedy progress through the House.
  4.43 pm
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) for his very kind remarks. He will be aware that I had intended to speak from the Opposition Dispatch Box. However, other major matters intervened. One of the things that speaking from the Back Benches permits me to do, however, is to be a bit more robust in some of my remarks than I otherwise might have been.
  This is a useful Bill, but it is a wasted opportunity. It is extremely narrowly drawn and fails to provide a much needed comprehensive strategy for all forms of waste. It simply perpetuates the Government's piecemeal attitude to the issue. I am sorry to say that it is a testimony to their policy of serial compliance with EU directives, as and when they start to put the United Kingdom in a difficult, possibly costly or embarrassing position. The Bill is specifically time committed to deliver the landfill directive, and therein lies its overall weakness. Its scope is narrow, its vision is small minded and its provisions are inadequate. Moreover, the questions raised by their lordships as it passed through the scrutiny of the other place have been at worst ignored or at best incompetently answered by the Government.
  The Government strategy unit report of last November, "Waste Not, Want Not", specifically recommends regulation that deals with the problem in a holistic manner. We should be starting at the front line of battle by dealing with the minimisation of waste, but instead we are starting at the rearguard and with its final disposal. The Bill affects and penalises local authorities in their disposal of waste, but neglects to assist them in the minimising of waste at source. Furthermore, it fails

  1157
  to connect with other waste legislationߞfor example, the waste electrical and electronic equipment and end of life vehicles directives. Although it is hoped that a large proportion of the waste arising from waste electrical and electronic equipment and end of life vehicles will be recycledߞand a very good thing tooߞthere will be a certain residual amount left.
  If we are trying to deal with waste in a more comprehensive fashion, why is it that the Bill does not at least acknowledge the difficulties with the planning procedures, or deal with energy from waste plants and measures to combat fly tipping? The. Bill does not and will not exist or operate in a vacuum. It will have a knock-on effect on incineration and other forms of waste, including inert waste.
  Already the introduction of new regulations, coupled with the need for better waste management facilities, has exacerbated the problem of fly tipping. The Country Land and Business Association estimates that the cost of clearing that up is about £50 million a year on agricultural land alone. The CLA has recommended that where waste has been fly tipped on private land and where the occupier can prove his innocence, it is for the authorities, either the local council or the Environment Agency, to be placed under a duty to remove the material. That at least would ensure an adequate cleanup and enable the scale of the problem to be assessed. Perhaps I may suggest to the Minister that fly-tipping incidents should be reported to the police and the Environment Agency and be given a crime reference number, in order to improve available data and to further promote criminal proceedings. All too often gross examples of fly tipping happen in rural and urban areas and cannot be dealt with. No prosecutions come, or when they do come, the fines are paltry.
  Why is it that only biodegradable municipal waste is considered appropriate for the whole concept of trading allowances, trading surpluses and buying in of allowances by authorities that do not have sufficient funds to cope with needs? After all, biodegradable domestic waste accounts for only 30 per cent. of total waste.
  The Bill also fails to reduce the transport of waste from one area to another. Clearly, the trading scheme does not imply the literal trading of waste, but some areas accept the waste of others. Indeed, my constituency has long accepted a high proportion of waste from London, owing to the proximity of Bedfordshire to London and the unfortunate existence of a multitude of cheap holes in the ground. By not tackling the situation we are ignoring the proximity principle which we all support, and we are only adding to greenhouse gas emissions.
  What are the implications of the borrowing and banking of landfill allowances? The banking of permits may act as a disincentive for waste disposal authorities to improve continuously year on year and to invest in required new infrastructure. The process that is outlined in the Bill may well create a culture of disincentive and short-termism. Has any serious attempt been made to assess the total compliance costs of the Bill? At the moment, we have a two-tier system of government for the management of waste and two types of authority that will incur expenses under the Bill. However, all the
  1158
  obligations are on the waste disposal authority. What will be the cost, to both tiers, of implementation? How do we ensure the fair distribution of resources between the waste collection and the waste disposal authorities? What will happen when a waste disposal authority incurs a penalty for the failure of a waste collection authority to discharge its duties? The Bill also creates an incentive for the waste disposal authority to blame the waste collection authority for its own failure to meet targets. I am in favour of joined-up governance, but there may be even more difficulties if the two authorities are run by parties of different political persuasions.
  From Second Reading last Friday, we know that the Municipal Waste Recycling Bill has made some headway towards an arranged marriage for waste disposal and waste collection authorities, with the production of a joint sustainable waste strategy. That strategy allows the waste disposal authority to direct the waste collection authority to collect waste in a manner that facilitates maximum reprocessing and recycling. Those provisions have been endorsed by an amendment to this Bill that was approved in the other place. I hope that a harmonious relationship will be established between the two Billsߞthe Municipal Waste Recycling Bill and this Bill. However, it remains unclear who is to pay for the enforcement of the Bill's provisions.
  What will happen to money that is collected in fines? May I suggest that the Minister consider that the money should be used to assist waste disposal authorities? Although initially designed to be revenue-neutral for business, the landfill tax does not necessarily help local authorities to acquire the capital to invest in the required waste management infrastructure. In the other place, my noble Friend Lord Dixon-Smith raised the issue of the landfill increase being used directly to support local authorities to fund the capital requirements for recycling. That was rejected by the Government. However, 54 per cent. of the revenue from landfill tax is money that is paid by local authorities. It seems only right that, if the revenue were to be substantially increased, at least a similar proportion of that escalation should be recycled back to those who have to foot the bill, in order that they may be encouraged and assisted to have the plant that will reduce the amount going to landfill. There is no doubt that the gap between the funding that is available to local authorities and the need for expenditure to meet sustainable waste objectives is widening. We have to recognise that the current funding mechanisms are inappropriate. Using the increase in landfill tax in the way that has been suggested would demonstrate that it is a tax designed to help the environment rather than a tax designed to fill the Chancellor's back pocket.
  If the measurement of waste were to incorporate volume as well as weight, we may further raise the sum and provide a greater incentive to reduce lightweight packaging. At the moment, the measurement is weight based only. It is therefore far more attractive for local authorities to collect heavy materialsߞsuch as newspaper, card, glass and compostable wasteߞand ignore the light fractions, which are much harder to deal with.
  That brings me on to the vital issue of the safe composting of catering waste. Compost that is to be spread on the land requires proper pre-treatment to ensure the safety of animal and human health, if we are

  1159
  not to face yet another agricultural catastrophe. Composted domestic biodegradable waste spread on agricultural land could be a cause of another outbreak of foot and mouth disease, and the Government have not yet demonstrated that they can guarantee zero risk when compost containing animal by-products and catering waste is spread on land.
  I acknowledge, however, that composted catering waste has an important role to play in helping local authorities to meet both their recycling and composting targets. I also recognise that my noble Friend's amendment, to heat selected biodegradable waste at 98°C for a minimum of two hours before storing, would have unwelcome consequences. The process would be cumbersome and more expensive, and would consume more energy, which is obviously contrary to the objectives on emissions trading in the Bill. However, like national security, biosecurity, too, must have priority.

  We still do not know the exact cause of the foot and mouth outbreak, but it can hardly be denied that, with only two sniffer dogs to guard all UK ports, we cannot prevent the illegal importation of the sort of meat and meat products that may have been the cause of foot and mouth. It is absurd that municipal biodegradable waste should be treated less rigorously than pigswill. If the Minister will not accept that heating selected biodegradable waste at 98°C is necessary, will he confirm that the Government will compensate all affected farmers in the event of another foot and mouth outbreak occurring as a result of spreading compost from animal by-products and catering waste? After all, the latter will be permitted under new EU regulations that will soon supersede the UK animal by-products regulations.
  My final point concerns the end use of recycled materials. Source separation secures high quality secondary resources, but it cannot be an end in itself unless there is a market for the materials. We still lack measures to support and sustain the markets necessary for recyclates, which is surprising given the market-orientated nature of both parts of the Bill. It would appear that while the Government are rightly content artificially to stimulate a market for emissions and waste permits, they are less concerned to assist a market for the constructive use of the waste materials collected. We risk defrauding the public, who will dutifully separate their waste only to have it end up in a landfill site or exported to China.
  I realise that one cannot legislate to provide for a comprehensive and holistic vision, but legislation should certainly slot into a progressive and coherent framework and direction. Although I welcome the Bill, I am sorry to have to say that it is simply a piecemeal attempt to rescue the Government from their failure to meet pressing demands from Brussels. It may even be a careless and somewhat irresponsible cover-up that leaves agriculture and food production vulnerable to another disaster.
  The Government must do better than that in Committee, if we are to be convinced of their real commitment to long-term planning and a robust, comprehensive waste management strategy.
  4.58 pm
  Dr. Alan Whitehead: I warmly support and endorse the Bill. Unlike the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed), I do not believe that the Bill should deal with everything. Indeed, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment on ensuring that time was obtained for the Bill in this Session. If the Bill had dealt with everything, several Sessions would have passed before all the various inquiries had reported and we actually had a Bill. Time is of the essence in taking action to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill.
  Some people claim that the Bill has been introduced only to implement the EU landfill directive. Some hon. Members have suggested that during the debate. It is certainly a Bill to implement the EU landfill directive, but it is substantially more than that. Essentially the directive is a series of targets with penalties. It is clearly desirable to meet those targets, but the key question that we have to ask ourselves is how we do that.
  Targets in UK waste management have a habit of not being met. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) noted that Governments of both colours have failed to get their targeting spot on, and that is true. The environment White Paper of 1990 set a target of 25 per cent. recycling by 2000. That target was re-emphasised in the 1995 strategy, "Making Waste Work", but it was not met. The 1999 document, "A Way with Waste", recognised that and set a new target of recycling or composting 17 per cent. of household waste by 2003–04. The performance and innovation unit report states that that is unlikely to be met as performance in 2001 was under 12 per cent. The target of 25 per cent. has now re-emerged, this time for 2005–06. The PIU report states that, given current progress, that will be very difficult to achieve. So we need more than targets, and the Bill strongly achieves that.
  It is vital to tackle landfill. Hon. Members have referred to the fact that we are the country in Europe that commits by fir the largest amount of our domestic waste to landfill. We are running out of holesߞnot only in Bedfordshire, but in the country as a whole. Methane escapes from landfill in a form that is 21 times as potent a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide. It is, above all, a lazy way in which to dispose of waste. It buries millions of tonnes of material that could be used or recycled. It is absolutely right that it is right at the bottom of the waste hierarchy.
  The mechanism in the Bill essentially does two things. It caps the total amount of waste going to landfill and provides a mechanism whereby it can be reduced in line with targets. It sets up a trading scheme so that local authorities that have exceeded their targets can earn income by trading permits with local authorities that have not reached their targets. As we have heard, there are mechanisms that allow local authorities to plan ahead by banking their credits or permits. Altogether, that creates a mechanism to track and to achieve targets that has real bite.
  I have two questions about the effect of that mechanism. In order to answer those questions, the Bill, important though it is, must be accompanied by other measures, possibly in a legislative form. The first question relates to the relationship between waste collection authoritiesߞdistrict councils—and waste

  1161
  disposal authorities: counties, unitary councils, metropolitan borough councils or consortiums of various authorities. Mets and unitaries are both collection and disposal authorities. At present, waste disposal authorities are required to dispose of whatever waste collection authorities give them for that purpose. There is no clear mechanism that requires waste to be supplied in a form that enables waste disposal authorities to manage it in a way that facilitates diversion from landfill, although many better waste collection authorities already do that.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister referred to a partial mechanism to resolve that issue in the Bill. I must admit that I tend towards the option suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew)—that waste collection and waste disposal authorities should move together. Nevertheless, there are mechanisms that can substantially resolve the problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), who is not in her place, addressed that in her private Member's Bill, which was recently given an unopposed Second Reading. The Bill requires waste collection authorities to provide waste in a suitable form. I hope that the Government will give the Bill a fair wind through Committee.
  My second question is more fundamental. It relates to the overall effect of the mechanism in the Bill on the actions of local authorities and the extent to which the outcome of those actions will bring about the required result. There is, of course, the initial problem of the quantum of the mechanism—that is, the extent to which the trading mechanism will secure the overall shape of the amount of waste that goes to landfill in the intended way. The problem, of course, is exacerbated by the annual increase in waste arising. Hon. Members have already mentioned that it is increasing by 3 per cent. per annum. The effect is that although the percentage of waste going into landfill is reducing, the total amount of waste going into landfill continues to increase.
  The mechanism assumes that local authorities act rationallyߞthat they take positive actions to avert penalties that might arise from exceeding their targets, or, in the longer term, cause them to have to go into the market for permits to mitigate their position. A perverse incentive exists already for local authorities in the structure of the landfill levy. Every time that the gate price for landfill increases, local authorities pay more, which comes out of the environmental, protective and cultural services budget, which, in this instance, as the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) mentioned, is allocated within the overall budget for waste disposal. Of course, that is the same budget that funds revenue measures to divert waste from landfill. Therefore, the more that is charged, the less likely, in theory, that local authorities will be able to provide the revenue support to set up the mechanisms for waste diversion.
  I was pleased that, in the pre-Budget statement, the Treasury announced a new method of dealing with the landfill tax. A large part of the tax forgone will be put into precisely those measures of diversionߞlarge waste management diversion, reuse and recycling projectsߞwhich partly overcome the perverse incentive. The mechanism does not, however, provide a clear way of dealing with market imbalance within local authorities.
  1162
  In that situation, acting rationally, more local authorities are chasing permits than are supplying them. The assumed corrective is that the cost of doing that, or the penalties involved in non-compliance, will make local authorities act. That is by no means certain, however, because without the capital finance available to invest, a relatively long-term revenue hit may be an acceptable way of dealing with the situation.
  There is another way of dealing with the situation, which is to secure capital means through diverting waste from landfill that does not cost capital to the local authority. The revenue hit can be taken and the waste diverted at the same time. That is the PFI route: entering into a deal with a private company to build the waste management plant. The problem, however, is that deals involving digestion, waste diversion through sorting or arrangements involving creating markets for recycled materials are complex, incremental and provide uncertain returns for the private companies involved. Acting as a rational authority, to tackle the problem with certainty and to know that a guaranteed impact will made over a periodߞfor example, to hit the targets set a number of years in advance by the Department under the Billߞsomething far more certain will be needed. That, of course, is incineration.
  I do not decry incineration because it poisons the atmosphere. Modern incineration plants, by and large, do not do so. There is, of course, resistance to their siting by local residents, often understandably, but they are a relatively clean method of waste disposal, if we discount for a moment the increase in CO2 emissions arising from widespread waste burning. Nor do I claim that incineration has no place in the waste hierarchy: it does, and there are items of waste for which the best outcome is incineration.
  My concern is different, and it follows from the logic that I have just set out. Those who decide to go for incineration will want to get the most incineration for their money. They will therefore contract for the largest incineration plant that they can get. A 400,000 tonne plant, for example, is only three times as costly as a 100,000 tonne plant. We can see the effect of that on the development of incineration plants already commissioned or agreed. On 7 November, I asked the Department about incineration plants already under way. On the basis of the written replies to my questions, 11 of the 14 plants listed are over 100,000 tonnes and six are over 200,000 tonnes. It will be essential to attract the investment of a private company to build and run a larger incinerator, as that is the only way to make the impact required with the money available. The company will want to get a return on its investment.
  For example, a company would not want to start running a large incinerator that was agreed with a local authority only to find eight years down the line that policy had changed and it was stuck with a huge redundant plant. It would want to strike a long-term deal over 25 or 30 years. Part of the deal would involve knowing that it would have feedstock for the incinerator because an incinerator without waste to incinerate is not much good. The company will, therefore, strike a deal for a guaranteed waste stream, which is the same waste stream that a local authority is supposed to be diverting to recycling.

  1163
  The Department of Trade and Industry has made it easier to manage the waste stream into incinerators by exempting the putrescible element from the climate change levy, which means that energy produced from incinerated waste is more competitive. That means that incinerators become less viable generators of heat and power if they receive less recyclable and compostable waste. If local authorities are engaged in such a process, they will logically reach a point when their success at diverting waste and dealing with putrescibles starves large incinerators of their feedstock. They would then incur penalties as a result of their contracts which could be in excess of the penalties that they would have incurred by not meeting their landfill targets in the first place.
  I imagine that the response to that line of logic is that it is precisely that: a line of logic with no salience in the real worldߞthe sort of stuff that a former academic might come out with. I decided to test the logic empirically. I asked two parliamentary questions in response to which the Department set out several developments that demonstrate the preference for large incinerators on long contracts. The answers also revealed explicitly that the Department does not know what local authorities are planning for the future. However, it is generally assumed that a relatively small percentage of domestic waste is disposed of using incineration and that that will continue in the future. I wondered how viable that assumption was so I wrote to all waste management authorities to ask their medium and long-term plans for waste management. The results were a little unsettling, to say the least. I have not entirely completed the work, and I am indebted to Hratche Koundarjian for his assistance in collating the results obtained from the 130 councils that provided substantive replies.
  Of those councils, 45–35 per cent.—are contracted to private incinerator firms individually or as part of a consortium. Thirty-six councils, which is 28 per cent., could start using incinerators by 2018, while only 49 councils have no plans to use incineration. Nineteen of the 36 councils considering incineration have relatively short-term plans, 12 have medium-term plans and five have long-term plans. The overall cumulative trend shows that 45 out of 130 councils are involved in incineration, which will become 64 by 2008, 76 by 2013 and 81 by 2018. Incineration will play far from a small role because local authorities may well make rational choices to make a substantial amount of incineration a key element of their waste disposal policy.
  Mr. Drew: My hon. Friend is making a compelling case and I have my own fears about any repercussions that may ensue. Does he agree that there are two further implications? First, owing to the capacity of incinerators that will be built, they will not be local solutions, but sub-regional and perhaps even regional solutions. Secondly, incineration is almost certainly predicated because of the centralisation of urban solutions. We could almost drive away small-scale rural responses because the easy solution to the problem will be to send waste to the next-door city or an alternative for incineration.
  Dr. Whitehead: Yes, indeedߞmy hon. Friend makes an important point. In my work I tried to look at the
  1164
  trend in decision making on incineration, and did not take into account, for example, the way in which long-distance transport may be involved or the way in which the logic of large-scale incineration drives out what should be part of the hierarchyߞsmall-scale incineration in localities where appropriate.
  Notwithstanding those effects, my figures suggest that the rational choice effect that I set out is in fact taking place. In the absence of other developments, a large number of large incinerators may well come on stream in the UK, in most instances providing heat and power, over the next 15 years unless measures over and above the very welcome and important mechanisms in the Bill are introduced. That will mean that the country may well jump out of the frying pan of landfill into the fire, literally, of incineration as the major method by which we dispose of our waste. What is more, in many instances we may be locked into that method of doing things for 25 years or more, most notably at the expense of the measures which really set us freeߞwaste minimisation, reuse, recycling and composting. I fully support the Bill, but I wonder whether the alternative to landfill of large incineration plants in use over a long period is a good idea.
  5.16 pm
  Mr. Peter Luff: This has been a thoughtful debate, with interesting speeches from Members on both sides of the House, including the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead). Mid-Worcestershire wants to pay particular tribute to Mid-Bedfordshire, as the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) was an impressive performance. His resignation from the Front Bench is a loss not just for my party but, on this issue, to the whole House, as he has considerable expertise. We are grateful for his contribution to the debate, notwithstanding his resignation. I was particularly interested in what he said about foot and mouth disease, and hope that the Minister, in the short time he will probably have for his winding-up speech, will address that important point.
  My interest in the issue derives largely from two constituency considerations. First, I have two landfill sites in my constituency. One is a conventional hole in the ground, as referred to by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, at Hartlebury. The other is not a hole in the ground but a landrise site. A mountain of waste is being built between Wyre Piddle—one can see it clearly from the new bypassߞand Throckmorton, the site of a proposed asylum centre, which, I am glad to say, has now been dropped. A huge mountain of waste rises in a bizarre and eerie spectacle with seagulls wheeling overhead. An average of 200 lorry-loads of waste from large areas of Worcestershire and Herefordshire are taken there every day, and that is on top of the private cars that go there to use the private recycling and waste facilities.
  The site still has 18 to 20 years of life, so it should see out my time as Member of Parliament. Sadly, our diversion targets in Worcestershire will probably not be met because we have lost the incinerator that we hoped to have in the north of the county. I do not want to get into arguments about whether it was right or wrong to put that incinerator in that particular location, but I would tell the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman

  1165
  Baker)ߞI hope that he will read the record when he returnsߞthat he need not be quite so pessimistic about the threat of incineration. In the public inquiry, the inspector gave as a reason for rejecting a planning application "perceptions of health risk". I find that an extraordinary and bizarre decision by a planning inspector. However, if an inspector can say that perceptions of health risk are a good enough reason to frustrate a development, many others can use that argument too. Personally, I find that regrettable because incineration is an important part of a comprehensive solution to waste management, as the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) said.
  In common with virtually everyone who has spoken, certainly from the Opposition and, to an extent, from the Government too, I regret that the Bill does not take a more comprehensive approach to the problems of waste management. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) said, we are considering these issues in isolation. Departments do not get many opportunities to introduce legislationߞthere is always a fight for slots in the legislative timetableߞand it is a shame that this important Bill does not take a more comprehensive approach to the problems of waste management. The long title says that the Bill makes
  "provision about waste and…the trading of emissions".
  It does not—it makes provision about biodegradable municipal waste, and only partly deals with that problem. It is therefore a shame that the Bill does not take a more comprehensive approach to waste management.
  Targets are very easy to set, but more difficult to meet, as the Chancellor discovered in his public service agreements with various Departments. Those in the Bill are, by any standard, ambitious, so we will have to see whether its objectives can be achieved in the medium to long term.
  In my constituency, we have recently made considerable progress, in general, in recycling, after what was, to be honest, a period of lethargy. We have been too slow to move, and I have always contrasted my household's enforced habits on recycling with the habits that we adopt when we go to the United States of America on a house swap. There, the biodegradable municipal waste goes down the sink disposal unit; however, there are separate bags for tins, plastics and papersߞit is a really comprehensive solution. It was interesting to note how a family that does not recycle everything at home—it is easy enough to recycle our papers and glass at homeߞeasily fitted into the model of full recycling, when presented with the easy opportunities provided by the local authority in Newburyport, Massachusetts.
  However, progress is being made, and it needs to be made. Worcestershire county council's website says:
  "Last year Worcestershire and Herefordshire threw away over 350,000 tonnes of rubbish. That's enough to fill 4,800 double decker buses every day. Most of this waste went to landfill."
  1166
  Another, more bizarre comparison is that that same waste
  "would fill 42,000 refuse vehicles which would stretch from Worcester to Huddersfield."
  That shows the scale of the problem that the Bill seeks to address.
  I am glad that the bids of all the local authorities in the county were successful under the waste minimisation and recycling fund, and I am grateful to the Minister and his Department for that. As a result, all the district councils are now rolling out their recycling targets. Wychavon district council and Worcester city council, both of which are Conservative controlled, are in the vanguard, I am glad to say. Wychavon's schemeߞa twin-bag approach, involving vans that can take the bags and the ordinary household waste—will be rolled out by the end of April to 94 per cent. of households. That will make a big difference in terms of recycling. All that waste will go to the landfill site at Hill and Moor, where there is a new recycling facility. That constitutes great progress, and all of this is very good news.
  However, the issue on which I want to focusߞthere are many things that I wanted to say about this Bill, but time is pressing and other Members wish to speak—is a worrying aspect of the Government's approach to landfill issues, which has been discussed on several occasions by Members, including by the hon. Member for Lewes. He said something with which I both profoundly agree and profoundly disagree. He spoke eloquently, and rightly, about the impact of fly tipping on the British countryside, and the problems that it poses for the agricultural community in particular. He proceeded to argue for a sharp increase in landfill tax rates, but until we have thought of a way to deal with the fly tipping menace, it would be premature to increase landfill tax, even though there may well be a strong environmental case for doing so.
  At the moment, the landfill tax rate is £14 per tonne. This year, it will rise to £15 per tonne, and a subsequent £3 per year escalator is envisaged, with an eventual target of £35 per tonne. This rapid rise in landfill tax will further increase the number of landfill tax criminals. They are creatures of the Governmentߞthey are the monsters of this tax, which the Government have createdߞand I have them in my constituency. [Interruption.] The Minister shakes his head, but I will tell him what is going on in my constituency, and then he will understand the problem. Ann Gartlan and John Bruce are the namesߞthey do have namesߞof the people concerned. She has been fined repeatedly in the courts, and he has just been released after completing half of a prison sentence for activities related to the illegal tipping of waste.
  The enforcement effort required to control the company in questionߞit has adopted various guises, of which Ivory Plant Hire was the most notoriousߞhas been extraordinary. It has involved a huge amount of effort on the part of the Environment Agency, the Vehicle Inspectorate, the traffic commissioners, the local constabulary, the district council and the county council. We thought that we had won. Suddenly, the courts started to impose decent fines, and one of the people in question was sent to prison; but no, it has all begun again.
  I shall read from a letter written to the county council by Adrian Hardman, a county councillor for Crabbe Yard, in Wadborough, which lies exactly on the

  1167
  boundary between my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir Michael Spicer). The letter states:
  "As you know we have been fighting a war with various criminal organisations that are masquerading as legitimate firms, dealing in waste, which they either tip or crush illegally in my division with no care or concern for the community. Since the ringleader was sent to prison, the problem has not gone away but declined, but is now to quote her letter"ߞ
  a letter from a Wychavon district council officer who is dealing with this matterߞ
  "'as bad as it was in 2000'".
  He goes on:
  "We must take a much more robust attitude to this problem, reminding ourselves that these people are not interested in the law, and adopting the position that it should be up to them to prove that they are within the law by contesting our enforcement notices."
  The county council does not view the problem as a waste matter. The council thinks that a building material is being recycled. It must be joking.
  I have sympathy for the county council. So much effort has gone into controlling the firm in its various guises over so many years, but as Adrian Hardman writes:
  "We must do everything to stop these people, whose sole aim is to profit from landfill tax. We will need a much firmer position for 2005/6 when the Government is aiming to raise it by £3 a ton, which will make the trade even more lucrative."
  The issue is exceptionally serious.
  Sir Michael Spicer: My hon. Friend is making a very strong case. I have known about the character he mentioned for many years at different sites. Such people are prepared to pop in and out of prison every year or so as the price that they are prepared to pay for the vast profits that they are making on the back of the tax. My hon. Friend is right. The legislation must be enforced.
  Mr. Luff: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is a shared problem, but I do not believe that we are unique in the country in facing it. Such businesses exist entirely because of the landfill tax. That is what makes them viable. They can undercut legitimate operators and offer lower rates for the disposal of waste, which they then tip in the most irresponsible way.
  About two years ago, there was an impressive police operation, together with the other agencies, about which I could bore the House at great length, but it did not have the required effect. John Bruce is out of prison. I quote from a letter from Wychavon district council's legal officer, Clare Flanagan, who states:
  "Although I am aware that Ann Gartlan is on site"ߞ
  that is the one who gets the regular finesߞ
  "on a daily basis and that John Bruce is still probably involved in the activities at the yard, neither of them has any connection with the owner Company, UK Plant & Haulage (Management) Limited. I cannot address them in this matter but must deal with the legal entity that is the owner, through its officers, Mr Wood Company Secretary and the Director."
  The failure of the Government to adopt a proper comprehensive approach to waste management has had many undesirable consequences, which other hon. Members have set out in their speeches. The
  1168
  consequence that I described is intolerable for my constituents, and the increase in landfill tax will make matters worse still. Will the Government please consider urgently a more comprehensive approach, at least to enforcement issues? A huge burden is being placed on local authorities and the constabulary in my constituency, and it is created by the landfill tax. They have to pay the price of cleaning up the mess.
  I assure the Minister that this is not a cheap party point; it is a serious plea. There is a real problem. I wish the Bill would also deal with the enforcement of measures to tackle fly tipping and other such issues. Then we could give it an unreserved welcome, instead of merely a qualified welcome.
  5.27 pm
  Mr. David Drew: I am delighted to speak in the Second Reading debate, and I shall do so briefly, so that the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) can also speak briefly. The problems described by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) are replicated in all our constituencies. There are people everywhere who abuse the system for disposing of their waste and misuse their land. However, I would add a rider to that. In a previous incarnation the hon. Gentleman chaired the Agriculture Committee, to which the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee is the successor. We are taking evidence on waste. It was interesting that yesterday the Environmental Services Association emphasised how vital it was that the landfill tax was increased dramatically so that we become serious not just in our language, but in our intentions and actions with respect to waste. There is a debate to be had, although there are not necessarily easy answers.
  I have just returned from Denmark. I shall not rehearse what I said on Friday in the Second Reading debate on the excellent Bill on municipal waste recycling, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock). In Denmark we learned how people respond to both the carrot and the stick. The authorities there are not afraid to use fierce regulation, along with fiscal measures, to provide penalties as well as incentives. People there also respond very well to exhortation. It is a very different country, in terms of how people respond to what they see as their environmental responsibilities. So this can be done, and I hope that the Bill represents one small measure that will help to see it through.
  I would like to make three quick points. The first is the one that concerns me most, although I am sure that it will become manifest in Committee where those concerns might be diluted, if not completely washed away. It relates to the transparency of what we are asking individual householders to do in relation to what the Bill offers. I shall make a point here that is probably a little more detailed than one might expect on Second Reading. I hope that when the Bill is in Committee—if I am on the Committeeߞwe can get someone to explain clause 3, which covers "Non-target years: default rules". I do not understand the formula that has been used. It looks as though the person who came up with the latest local government funding settlement formula has been on a day trip to my right hon. Friend's Department.
  Such is the legacy of the way in which those formulae were derived that we are reminded of the old saying that there are only three people who can understand local

  1169
  government funding: one is mad, ole is bad, and the other is regularly on tap to the Minister, while the rest of us never get to see and talk to him. I just hope that we can get some clarification on this matter. The whole point of the Bill is that we have to change people's attitudes, and if it is seen to be too arcane or as something esoteric with which only parliamentarians will get involved, it will, unfortunately, be lost. It is an important Bill that could actually be seen to be moving things along.
  My second point relates whether these measures are opening the door for incineration. I do not want to say much more than to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) on his particularly lucid explanation of the danger of giving a certain signal to people but ending up with them responding in the wrong way, out of sheer necessity, to deal with the target setting. We are all in favour of imposing better standards of behaviour, initially on local authorities but, through them, on the public. Unless we are clear, however, about how we are going to see that through, the danger is that people will look for the easy option. I am afraid that incineration is the easy option, as was landfill. For most people, if something is out of sight, it is not their problem. Unfortunately, it is a problem for those who have to live near the sites, and we all know that that is not a good way for the environment to operate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test also mentioned variable charging, and putting the responsibility on the householder to see the waste, weigh it and add up the cost. That would not be easy. I do not know whether other hon. Members have had the same responses as I have, following the council tax bills going out this week. This is not a party political point; in the main, council tax bills have gone up quite steeply this year, and there are all sorts of reasons for that. If we are going to tackle these problems seriously, I would argue that we need to disaggregate waste from these calculations. It is one of the most important functions carried out by local government, but often one of the most underrated, and we need to bring home its importance to people.
  Norman Baker: I have heard the hon. Gentleman's point about the weighing of waste. That might encourage more glass recycling, but what would he do to encourage the recycling of plastic?
  Mr. Drew: We have had this debate already, and I do not want to detain the House further. I want to give the hon. Member for Leominster a chance to speak. The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) can read what was said in last Friday's debate. It is important, however, that we look at recycling and at ways of putting it in place at convenient centres.
  My last point relates to how we can ensure that the supply and demand for emissions trading operates at a level that will provide more than just a short-term solution. It really needs to be able to operate over the long term. I can imagine some authorities being keen to supply trading certificates while others will constantly demand them. That would not be good for the environment. I am a great believer in decentralized
  1170
  decision making and placing the responsibility on the people, because only when they see things happening at local level will they respond in the way that we want.
  I hope that we shall be able to give the Bill detailed consideration later, but, notwithstanding my reservations, I think it is a good Bill. I will support it in the hope that it will set the standards that we should be observing.
  5.35 pm
  Mr. Bill Wiggin: I thank the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) for speaking briefly. I shall try to do the same. I too spoke about this important subject on Friday, and I am one of those who signed early-day motion 333A.
  In general I support the theme of the Bill, and welcome the progress towards greater environmental sustainability, a reduction in the amount of waste dumped in this country, and the promotion of better environmental management and practices. In its report of April 2002, the World Economic Forum branded the United Kingdom one of the dirtiest countries in the world. After six years of Labour government, the UK is ranked 98th in the list of 142 countries on the 2002 environmental sustainability index. The Secretary of State herself has admitted that each person in the UK produces about seven times his or her own weight in waste every year. We produce more waste per head than most other EU nations, and recycle less. Municipal waste is increasing at a rate of between 3 and 4 per cent. per annum, and the volume of waste could be double the 1995 level by 2020 if the trend continues.
  I welcome moves to reduce the amount of municipal waste, and to help the UK clean up its act, but I feel that the Government have not addressed a number of issues adequately. I will be brief, so that the Minister will have a chance to comment on them.
  The Local Government Association has explicitly stated that if local authorities fail to meet the new landfill waste targets in the Bill and are penalised financially as a consequence, that may only make the situation worse. It could result in a self-perpetuating vicious circle, whereby local authorities suffering the financial burden of fines and other penalties will find it even harder to meet their prescribed targets. Have the Government taken that into account? How do they intend to reconcile an apparent contradiction with the Bill's overall purpose? According to the DEFRA-commissioned review of the UK landfill tax, published last October, 25 per cent. of local authorities are likely to miss their statutory recycling targets in 2005–06.
  The move away from a traditional reliance on landfill cannot be achieved overnight, and the introduction of a system of penalties will make it more difficult for waste disposal authorities to comply with landfill targets by diverting funds from the task of addressing the real challenges of providing alternatives to landfill. For the sake of local authorities, the Government must bear at least some responsibility for the Bill's implications. They must, for example, play their part in changing public attitudes to household waste in order to achieve significantly higher rates of recycling and composting, and encourage greater public understanding of the need to build new waste treatment plants.
  There is also the possibility that, in trying to move away from landfill, and fearing a failure to meet targets and hence a penalty, local authorities will move to a

  1171
  greater use of incinerators. The amount of municipal waste incinerated without some form of energy recovery rose from 10,000 tonnes in 1999–2000 to 20,000 in 2000–01. We are all aware of the danger that, when local authorities introduce schemes for recycling and reuse of rubbish, they will be forced to use incineration exclusively. Friends of the Earth, for instance, fears that incineration rather than recycling or composting will become the norm. What do the Government plan to do to ensure that authorities do not move too far towards incineration? That is particularly important when they are not recovering energy.
  There is also concern about the possibility that the UK and EU emissions trading schemes will not be compatible. Whereas the UK scheme concerns only industry, the EU approach specifically includes power generation.
  The UK scheme is voluntary and awards allowances by auction, but the EU system is mandatory and issues allowances for free, according to past emissions.
  The other great shame is that the Bill concentrates on target setting, one of the Government's peculiar propensities, instead of addressing the underlying problem, which is the amount of waste generated in the first place. The Minister will be aware of the waste hierarchy, but where are the measures to reduce waste production in the first place and then to encourage the reuse, recycling and composting of waste? Where is the pressure to recover energy from waste? Apart from the penalties related to emissions trading, the Bill is predominantly about landfill.
  It is of concern that the Bill does not envisage a more comprehensive approach to the problem of waste, addressing merely the issue of biodegradable waste, but failing to focus on issues such as plastics, the ever-increasing fridge mountain—to which the Minister will be especially sensitive—or indeed of old and worn-out cars. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) pointed out, any green reward/penalty scheme should allow for the volume and not just the weight of waste, so that it targets lighter waste such as plastic bags, and should have waste minimisation as its ultimate objective.
  Another issue that seems to have been largely overlooked is fly tipping. It was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) whose constituency borders mine, and we share concerns about it. It is an evil and unsavoury practice that is likely to increase as the landfill tax rises. He expressed those concerns well.
  My final concern is the potentially damaging effects that the increase in the landfill tax will have on the British manufacturing sector. The CBI, for example, has said:
  "We are opposed to a substantial increase in the landfill tax on the grounds that it's imposing another substantial cost on businesses and as it currently stands, it doesn't appear to be achieving the desired objective. The landfill tax provides some incentive for waste and resource minimisation but will never on its own provide the appropriate signals for industrial and domestic users to change their behaviour."
  That was backed up by the Engineering Employers Federation, which has cautioned the Government about raising the landfill tax and suggested that if it doubled, small firms could face an increase of between £1,000 and £7,000 tax a year, while larger companies could pay up to £200,000 more a year.
  1172
  Along with other trade bodies representing 10,000 employers, the EEF warned against adding to manufacturing costs at a time when profitability is already at its lowest level for nearly 20 years. The EEF has said:
  "If we continue to make the UK a less welcoming environment for manufacturing companies, then business will simply vote with its feet and the movement abroad of our manufacturing base will accelerate."
  The bottom line is that, while it is undoubtedly imperative to consider ways to address the growing problem of waste, that must not mean that environmental issues should be used as an excuse for the Government simply to raise taxes. Although I broadly welcome the Bill, we must be careful in its implementation.
  5.40 pm
  Mr. Meacher: With the permission of the House, I wish to respond briefly to the points that have been raised. We have had a thoughtful debate from hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, with the exception of the last contributorߞthe hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin)ߞwho simply cannot resist making shallow political points, which is a pity. However, his contribution did not undermine the general tenor of the debate, which was of a high standard.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) for a thoughtful and fair speech. I heard what he said about agreeing with the general purpose and contents of the Bill and I look forward to working with him in Committee. Several hon. Members mentioned the possibility that the scheme in the Bill was too limited or isolated as a part of the general waste management strategy. However, the Government introduced the waste strategy in 2000, and the strategy unit report, "Waste Not, Want Not" has also been produced, to which we shall reply shortly. The scheme is not isolated. The Bill introduces some key legislative requirements necessary to fill out those parts of the waste strategy that do not have legislative cover.
  The hon. Member for Aylesbury raised a number of points, and I shall try to deal with them. He asked about the quantity of emissions saved by the emissions trading scheme. The 34 direct participants in the UK emissions trading scheme have committed themselves to achieving reductions of 4.4 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent. That is a significant total. It equates to approximately 5 per cent. of the UK's emission reductions up to 2010. The scheme is therefore significant and important.
  The hon. Gentleman asked whether the baselines had been drawn correctly, so as not to allow some companies to take advantage through double counting. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) was also interested in the matter. The emission reductions in the UK emissions trading scheme are not covered by any other regulations—that is, a company is not allowed to include emission reductions that result from meeting targets set in other regulations. In addition, giving the scheme's direct participants—of which British Airways is a good exampleߞabsolute targets means that their production could decrease. However, all businesses want growth: if their production increases, as is their aim, their absolute target becomes tougher. That is sufficient protection.

  1173
  The hon. Member for Aylesbury asked about the lack of fit between the UK and EU schemes. That is a fair point, and the matter has caused the Government a lot of difficulty. Our scheme is voluntary: we thought it right to have flexibility in the early stages, to see how the scheme worked. In its wisdom, the EU has decided to have a mandatory scheme.
  The current UK emissions trading scheme will finish at the end of 2006. The proposals in the Bill are designed to go beyond that date, but I am glad to say that we have managed to secure various provisions in the EU scheme. They include arrangements for opting out and opting in to the scheme, which will allow us to manage the transition in a way that we consider broadly acceptable.
  The transition period is important to us. Our main aim is to ensure that the reductions of 4.4 million tonnes in carbon emissions under our UK scheme are achieved. We also want to minimise disruption to participants in our scheme.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked about coal mine methane, a topic raised too by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping). As I said, we of course recognise the benefits of capturing coal mine methane. We have secured climate change agreement for the industry, in terms of access to the emissions trading scheme, but I must make it clear that we are currently awaiting EU state aid approval.
  With regard to entry to the emissions trading scheme, I repeat that there is uncertainty about what UK coal mine methane emissions actually are. That is the problem that the research that we have commissioned is designed to resolve. As a result, coal mine methane is not in the U K inventory.
  The hon. Gentleman asked two other questions. The first had to do with passing penalties from the disposal authority to the collection authority. That is a fair point, and I can tell him that we are not attracted to legislating for that, although we could. We do not want to encourage the apportionment of blame, and we do not want that sort of culture to develop between authorities that must work together. We believe that the power of direction will encourage authorities to work together, and that it represents a better solution.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked about penalties being passed between the four component parts of the UK. The UK as a whole is liable for the EU fine, but if that is due to a failure by a specific Administration, it will have to pay. That will be agreed through concordats between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) asked whether county councils were correct in their approach to incineration and recycling targets. They are, in the sense that incineration is not recycling and does not count towards the recycling targets. That is obvious. But incineration is a form of recovery and would be part of their non-statutory recovery targets. He also asked about the compatibility of the UK and EU emissions trading schemes. I tried to answer that. We believe that the opt-out and the opt-in system means that, on both sides of the transition date of 2008, we can get compatibility with the mandatory EU scheme that is satisfactory to us.
  1174
  The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman. Baker) raised a number of points, as is his wont. He and others referred to fly tipping, which the Government recognise is a serious problem. However, the idea that the landfill tax automatically makes that worse is wrong. There is nothing to stop anyone taking waste to a civil amenity site free of charge. One does not have to dump it in the countryside to escape paying the landfill tax.
  We have done some more positive thingsߞ
  Mr. Luff rose ߞ
  Mr. Meacher: I will come back to the hon. Gentleman, who raised a different point. The strategy unit has recommended more rigorous prosecution of fly tipping and we are considering that seriously. I attended a meeting of the fly tipping forum, which is chaired by a senior official of the Environment Agency, and I looked at a series of ideas, many of which I am keen to pursue, including a big increase in penalties, which I think is critical.
  Norman Baker: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Meacher: I am unwilling to. The hon. Gentleman had a lot of time and I am trying to answer several of his points, but I must try to cover everyone else.
  The Government White Paper on antisocial behaviour, issued on 11 March, included proposals to give local authorities a strategic role for dealing with fly tipping and ensuring that they have sufficient powers to do so. One objection has been that it is all left to the Environment Agency, which does not have the resources and manpower to do it. Local authorities will now have equivalent powers.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the derogation. We have a derogation at each of the trip points: 2006 to 2010, 2009 to 2013 and 2016 to 2020. My view is that we should try to meet the first of those dates and not use the derogation unless we have to. It is not infra dig to have to use the derogation, although there is no question but that, for 2006, we will have to use it. It is too early to say about 2016. I would hope that we will make sufficient progress and that we will not need to use it.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to allowances for sale, and thought that so many local authorities would be off-track that the cost of licences would be high, and that, therefore, local authorities would prefer not to comply because it would be less expensive. First, I am chasing local authorities to make jolly sure that the number who do not comply is as small as conceivably possible. I wrote to 142 authorities last August and I am now pursuing those that we believe are not on-track. The real answer to his point is that the penalties will be set at a level that makes non-compliance the least attractive option.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the export of waste to the Republic of Ireland, but it is allowances that are traded, not the waste itself. Under the Basle convention, waste cannot be exported except for recovery, but it will be for the Northern Ireland Administration to decide the details of their scheme.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked about the waste hierarchy and he referred to clause 17(3). All the options that he quoted are, indeed, options, but they are not

  1175
  stated in terms of the hierarchy. I assure him that the waste hierarchy prevails. He asked whether incineration would have preference over recycling, and my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) also drew a great deal of attention to that issue. We believe that we have given sufficient incentivisation to recycling to make the scenario that was outlined unlikely. I do not now have the time to argue the point, but I am sure that we will return to it in Committee.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) asked what would happen if a disposal authority received a penalty as a result of a fault committed by the collection authority. The point behind the power of direction is that a waste collection authority cannot prevent the targets from being met. As I have said, passing down penalties simply creates a blame culture and removes money from the system.
  My hon. Friend also asked about penalties for authorities that have to continue to send material to landfill under a 25-year contract. He said that such penalties were unfair. The landfill directive was put in place in 1999, and it was the subject of negotiation for many years before that. The need to reduce the landfill of biodegradable municipal waste has been known for a long time, so that casts doubt on the point about there being a need to guarantee a particular quantity of waste for landfill.
  My hon. Friend also asked about incentives. No one has drawn attention in the debate to the fact that the Government have increased the rate support grant in regard to waste management by £1.1 billion in the current spending review period and by a further £670 million in the next. We have provided a local authority waste minimisation and recycling fund of £140 million and increased by 60 per cent. the private finance initiative to £355 million. I do not think that local authorities can say that they are not adequately funded.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire is no longer on the Opposition Front Bench, but he has not lost his critical edge. Among other things, he raised the issue of recycling and the landfill tax. The Government have certainly already agreed that any increase in landfill tax will be revenue-neutral and that it will be used to fund sustainable waste management programmes. We are currently discussing in government how that is best done, but we accept the principle.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about composting and animal diseases. There is no such thing as zero risk, but independent risk assessment shows that catering waste can safely be composted. The place for controls is in the animal by-products regulations and not in this Bill. We take his point that this is not the appropriate place to deal with the issue. Composting at 98° Cߞthe provision is the result of an amendment made in the other placeߞdoes not simply produce compost, because everything is killed and not just the harmful pathogens. That is why we object to the provision.
  I have not had a chance to respond to all the points raised, but I will be glad to do so in correspondence. I look forward to working in Committee with those who have spoken in the debate. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.

  WASTE AND EMISSIONS TRADING BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME)
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002],
  That the following provisions shall apply to the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill [Lords]—

  WASTE AND EMISSIONS TRADING BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME)
    Committal
    1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.

    Proceedings in Standing Committee
    2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 29th April 2003.
    3. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

    Consideration and Third Reading
    4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
    5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on consideration are commenced.
    6. Sessional Order B (programming committees) made on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.

    Other proceedings
    7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
    Question agreed to.

  WASTE AND EMISSIONS TRADING BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with Bills),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of the Act, and

  (b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.ߞ[Charlotte Atkins.]

  Question agreed to.

  WASTE AND EMISSIONS TRADING BILL [LORDS] [WAYS AND MEANS]
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with Bills),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the levying of fees and charges under regulations made under the Act.ߞ[Charlotte Atkins.]
  Question agreed to.

Pembury Hospital
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.ߞ[Charlotte Atkins.]
6 pm
Mr. Archie Norman: I am delighted to have this opportunity to raise the issue of the impending possible closure of the haematology research unit at Pembury hospital in my constituency. It is not a research unit of which I was previously aware, and I understand that the Minister's office was not previously aware of it either. However, on examination, it is a remarkable research operation that has been running for some 17 years and is now threatened with closure because of a lack of financing, and I shall talk about the value for money that it offers.
I am keen to raise the issue in the House not just because the unit's closure would be a tragedy for the country and the NHS, but because broader lessons must surely be learned from the possible loss of an outstanding facility and its dedicated staff. I ask to the Minister to address three questions. It may well not be possible to provide all the answers in the short time available this evening, but I seek an undertaking that he and his officials will consider the issue extremely seriously.
First, what can be done, even at this very late stage, to save the unit, its staff and scientists who have done such good work in the past? Secondly, in the very unfortunate event that the unit cannot be savedߞI appreciate that it is late in the dayߞwhat can be done to ensure that the very good research that has been done in the past can be transferred elsewhere and that the learning is not lost to the country and the NHS? Thirdly, will the Minister comment on the broader implications for the way in which we fund, through the NHS, such long-term research that is of value to the nation and, indeed, the rest of the world?
Surely, if such research units are left to fund themselves year on year, hand to mouth, so that scientists and doctors have to go out cap in hand and spend a great deal of time that could otherwise be spent on clinical responsibilities simply because of the short-term nature of funding, it is no way to build up a long-term research and development capability in our medical sciences. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to those issues.
Dr. Colin Taylor, a consultant haematologist, originally founded the unit some 17 years ago to look at the reasons why some types of leukaemia were unresponsive to chemotherapy, and it has broadened its field research beyond that into other sorts of cancer. The unit has a long track record of research. Overall, it has had 50 papers on its work published in peer review journals and it has presented 90 abstracts at international conferences. The Minister will have a copy of those research documents, provided by my office, and it is a truly impressive list by any standards.
The unit is of international repute and widely respected not just in this country, but in the United States and elsewhere. The type of research that was pioneered by that very small unit is now being taken up elsewhere in the world, particularly in the United States, on a significant scale and, in some cases, a significant

1179
commercial scale. The unit is currently involved in international research work on leukaemia, ovarian cancer, breast cancer and bladder cancer, and the publications that I have referred to testify to that fact.
In addition, the unit, as a result of its research, has started to develop a clinical service that is used by NHS hospitals throughout the country. That service performs approximately 300 to 400 chemotherapy sensitivity tests a year on both solid and haematological tumours. In other words, it provides a service that can test the tumours for their response to the right level of chemotherapy and mix of drugs to produce the best possible result. The service can not only save and preserve life, but can reduce enormously the side effects of cancer treatment, which, as we all know, is often extremely distressing to patients. It is an extremely valuable service.
Sir John Stanley: My hon. Friend knows that my constituents benefit immensely, as do his and people much further afield, from this remarkable life-saving research facility. Does he agree that as such extensive use is made of it by NHS practitionersߞoncologists, surgeons and physiciansߞthat in itself presents a compelling reason why the NHS should ensure financially that it continues?
Mr. Norman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that point. It is not just that the unit is providing a service, it is being used by other hospitals in the NHS in the treatment of cancer even though this unit is not funded by the NHS. It is in all respects a bargain for the NHS, both because of the form of its funding and because of the value of its service. The unit has helped a total of 4,000 patients over time with a number of different tumor types. The research has shown that by using the chemotherapy sensitivity testing technique on patients, for example in advanced ovarian cancer, the five-year survival rate can be increased from 12 to 24 per cent.—in other words, survival rates are doubled for those patients with that acute form of cancer.
To pick up on my hon. Friend's point, it has been reported in a peer review journal by Professor Michael Drummond, who is the director of the centre for health economics at York university, that the potential cost saving to the NHS of using chemotherapy sensitivity testing in chronic leukaemia is £1,470 per patient per year on medication. The test enables the treatment to be specifically right for that patient. It ensures that the response is the most efficient one for that patient. If we assume that that is correct and is also right for other forms of testing that the unit undertakes, the saving per annum for 300 patients is some £450,000 a year. The unit costs less than that to fund. It is paying for itself without costing the NHS anything. It is an absolute bargain. If it closes, the consequential cost to the NHS will be greater and the suffering of patients will be greater. We will have patients who will suffer more and die earlier. That is the issue.
It is easy to talk about research, facts, figures and funding, so let me put some colour on this. I have received many letters from people all over the country
1180
who have benefited, or whose relatives have benefited, from the work of the unit. We must remember that at the end of the day this is about patients who are suffering acutely from severe illness, often in advanced stages of distress. Sharon Howell, whose daughter Sarah died of leukaemia aged 18, said of the unit:
"If it wasn't for their hard work Sarah wouldn't have had an extra two years of life."
Today, a colleague working in the House rang up to say he was so glad that I was raising this issue because his daughter would not be alive today without the work of the Pembury research unit. It matters to people. None of the people who have benefited or the clinicians up and down the country will understand if we let the unit go without ensuring that we have done our best to save it, or, if we cannot save it, ensure that the work is continued and developed elsewhere.
Dr. Jean Sergeant, the principal research scientist at the Pembury unit said:
"It is sad that the work is finishing because what we are doing is helping patients. The only positive thing is that all the work of the unit has been published and is available for the benefit of the public to be used by other researchers. I just hope that the testing can be continued in other units for the continued benefit of cancer patients."
I am not raising this issue in order to criticise anybody. In many ways, it was a tragedy that I did not become aware earlier of the work of the unit and its funding situation. Had I been aware, perhaps I, as the MP, could have done more to help it. It is not that the Minister has cut off funding to the unit, and it is not that any individual has decided to close it. Rather, the unit has had the misfortune of being the victim of its own success. Because it has been such good value over time, it has been funded hand to mouth by research grants that it has applied for and by voluntary contributions from foundations and charities. As a result, the unit has never established a long-term basis for its funding or its secure financial future. Dr. Colin Taylor has told me that one of the reasons why he has concluded that it will be very hard to continue is that he and his colleagues are spending too much of their time trying to raise money instead of concentrating on their research and clinical work. He and many of the staff are obviously distressed at the situation, but feel that, without secure long-term funding, they simply cannot continue.
The costs of the unit are not great; I will give them in round numbers. The unit costs £150,000 to keep open for one year. Of that, £90,000 goes on salaries for scientists and staff, £20,000 goes on consumables, and £40,000 goes on equipment. In the scale of things, those are not substantial sums of money—although I know that there are many different claims on NHS resources. The unit receives rent-free accommodation from the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS trust. That, substantially, is the contribution of the NHS to the unit's funding. It is obviously of a modest order. The unit has, in the past, received 60 per cent. of its funding from research grants and 40 per cent. from local charitable donations. Unfortunately, the unit's two most recent applications for research grants were unsuccessful. Obviously, I cannot evaluate those applications as I am not qualified to do so, but, as far as I can tell, they were unsuccessful not because they were

1181
of insufficient merit, but because there were other priorities. In one case, the funds required simply were not there.
Quite apart from the loss to patients and the extra cost to the NHS, if the unit closes its current national and international collaborationsߞwork on leukaemia, ovarian cancer, breast cancer and bladder cancerߞwill all be discontinued. The units with which the Pembury unit works, and doctors and scientists around the world, will be amazed if it closes. I understand that there are two other units in the country that undertake comparable workߞone in Bath and one in Portsmouth. It is possible that at least some of the testing work can be transferred to those units. However, they, too, face comparable funding problems and are substantially funded by periodic research grants. The Minister may be able to address, or undertake to address, the question of what their financial future is likely to be.
Just to survive, the unit needs £150,000 in funding. However, the issue is broader than that. It will be no good simply providing enough money for the next few months. We are talking about scientists—people who want to devote their career to this work and who believe profoundly and passionately in what they are doing. They need to be given the opportunity to develop their work in the knowledge that they have a reasonably secure future. They should not have to go round cap in hand. It is not just a question of research grants. There is an appetite for helping, and the local community will help. Even in the weeks since it became clear that the unit might close, some £20,000 has potentially been raised in the local community. A remarkable local campaigner, Mr. Simon Bender, has been very active in raising funds. I have no doubt that in Tunbridge Wells, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley), a contribution will be made. The question for the Minister is this: is there any way, from Government or comparable resources, of providing a future for the unit?
I do not want to miss this opportunity to pay tribute, on behalf of not only my right hon. Friend and myself but, I hope, the Government, to the staff, doctors and scientists who have been involved in the work of the unit over the years, especially Dr. Colin Taylor and Dr. Jean Sargent. All the staff work incredibly hard in fairly primitive conditions to keep the unit going. It will be a tragedy if the unit is closed and their work is lost.
The unit is a bargain for the NHS and for the country. How could it have been allowed to continue without being put on a secure basis? What does that say about the way that the NHS funds long-term research and development projects? What does that say about the extent to which funding, especially for cancer research, actually reaches the front line?
I do not want to tax the Minister's patience, but I should like to share with him remarks made by the Secretary of State for Health at the conference held by the all-party group on cancer on 5 November 2002. The right hon. Gentleman said:
"When I became Secretary of State three years ago, I said that reducing the number of deaths from cancer and improving the care and treatment cancer patients receive was a personal priority for me."
1182
We can all applaud that sentiment. He continued:
"I know sometimes there have been concerns about whether this extra funding"—
the extra £570 million—
"is all getting through to front-line cancer teams".
We are asking only for a scintilla of small change from that budget to help units such as Pembury to continue. People working at units in the United States and elsewhere which collaborate with Pembury will be amazed to hear that it is closing for want of a few pennies. By the standard of US funding and the commercial value of the research that is being developed there, the amount is extremely small. If nothing else comes of this debate, I hope that we can create a secure base somewhere in this country for such research and the staff who want to work on it. They need continuity and development of the service that they provide for cancer patients throughout the country. If we can only do that, we shall have achieved something and there will be a lasting testimonial to the outstanding work of the doctors and staff at Pembury.
6.17 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. David Lammy): I congratulate the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) on securing the debate. The future of the haematology unit at Pembury hospital and its research is clearly of importance not only to him and his constituents, but to many people in the UK.
This country has an outstanding record of scientific innovation. In health terms, that rests on mutual support among the NHS, our universities and the bodies that fund high quality research and development. As well as providing solid support for the national science effort, the NHS must support research and development that is relevant to its national priorities and responsive and accessible to the needs of those who use the NHS, as well as its staff and decision makers. We must take an integrated approach to securing the knowledge that we need if we are to tackle health inequalities and provide modern health and social care.
It is estimated that more than £450 million is spent on cancer research in the UK every year. Cancer research funding is made up of several components, including the direct spend on research programmes, infrastructure, support services and laboratories. The first of these, direct support for research, is of most value for coordination and strategy setting. The largest proportion of the total expenditure is in the field of biological research, although research into aetiology and treatment is also well supported. The research is funded by approximately 250 charities, numerous Government bodies and the pharmaceutical industry. It is supported by the National Cancer Research Institute, a partnership between the major funding bodies that has the objective of accelerating progress in research in the UK for the benefit of patients.
By 2004, a new cancer research network will be fully implemented. That will enhance the quality, speed and co-ordination of clinical research and ensure better integration with cancer care. More than 31 of the 34

1183
cancer service networks are now receiving research funds for an integral national cancer research network. Phase 2 of the cancer services collaborative programme commenced in April 2001. The national programme focuses on prostate, breast, lung and ovarian cancers in all 34 cancer networks. There is a total of more than 600 projects, which have yielded in excess of 1,500 real improvements in cancer services for patients. That confirms a healthy picture of a varied and generally well-balanced cancer research base in the UK.
I come now to the specific funding issue that the hon. Gentleman raised. The haematology research unit was set up in Pembury hospital in 1985. It is an independent research unit that carries out research into drug resistance before therapy in the field of chemosensitivity for bladder, breast, acute leukaemia and ovarian cancers, and it has some notable achievements to its credit. I am very happy to pay tribute to that work. Traditionally, it has taken samples from patients from a number of hospitals across south England, testing about 300 samples every year. More recently, its facility has been used some of London's teaching hospitals and more local centres such as the Ashford breast cancer centre.
During its 17 or so years, the unit has had many papers published and the results have been used to help cancer sufferers all over the world. Historically, the unit has received its funding through various routes. Trusts pay for the testing services, but those funds are not sufficient to meet the large operational costs of the unit. Additional funding comes from the haematology research fund, which is supported by the host trust's general charitable trust fund, together with, as the hon. Gentleman said, a research grant from the Medical Research Council. The trust provided accommodation free of charge to the unit at the Pembury site.
I recognise the efforts that have been made by the unit and local people to try to raise funds in support of the unit—they have done so very successfully for many yearsߞbut even their efforts have not been enough to secure the continued long-term operation of the unit. I understand and have every sympathy with the position that the unit now finds itself in.
The hon. Gentleman acknowledges that it is rather late in the day to take action, and in a sense the position is clear. Funding decisions in the NHS now rest with primary care trusts. It is for PCTs, in conjunction with their strategic health authorities, to plan and develop services according to the needs of their local communities. Unfortunately, it is not appropriate for Ministers to get involved in those decisions. This is an independent research unit with charitable status. The NHS has supported it over many years by providing free rent and employment contracts for its staff. The NHSߞspecifically the West Kent and the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS trusts—is involved in a number of clinical trials involving cancer patients. The Kent and Medway strategic health authority continues to encourage research and development across Kent through its research and development and other networks. But, again, it is for the local research and development network to make decisions on a research and development strategy to increase research opportunities in Kent.
1184
The hon. Gentleman, as he indicated, may ask, why do we not tell the Medical Research Council to continue funding the unit? The reason is that the MRC is an independent body that receives its grant in aid from the Office of Science and Technology. It is a long-standing and important principle of successive Governments that they do not prescribe the detail of how individual research councils should distribute their resources between competing priorities.
Mr. Norman: Does the Minister accept that it is clearly not for the primary care trust to fund a unit that provides research of a long-term nature that is of value to the whole country, not just the PCT area? I am sure that he will agree that it is not sensible to ask the PCT, which is already strapped for funds, to fund research of that kind. There must be another apparatus for doing that. Does he accept that the nature of the unit, as I said earlier, is to provide a service to the NHS that is of value today? It cannot be regarded as just a normal piece of research. No one is suggesting that the Government should tell research agencies to make grants, but this is an emergency. Something must be done or the resources will be lost forever.
Mr. Lammy: If I may, I would like to move on to the nature of the research and what is going on across the country. Right across the country, in individual primary care trusts and strategic health authority areas, much work is going on in the locality that is of tremendous national benefit. It is right that such decisions are made in conjunction with the primary care trust and the strategic health authority.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, should the Pembury unit close, every effort should be made to ensure that the work that it undertakes should not be lost to the wider NHS. Two other established units, in Bath and Portsmouth, carry out similar research into chemosensitivity testing. I am advised by officials that discussions are about to take place to determine whether samples tested at Pembury can be managed at those sites. In addition, the Royal London hospital has confirmed that it is able to take on the work that the unit does specifically in the area of chemosensitivity testing for childhood leukaemia. As he will know, those tests form a crucial part of the unit's most recent work on relapsed leukaemia trials, on which other laboratories across the UK are also working.
In addition, I understand that scientists from St. Bartholomew's hospital, London, have spent time with the unit in Pembury learning the techniques that it uses. As I have said, the unit at Pembury has historically taken samples from hospitals across the south of England. Although I can understand the hon. Gentleman's disappointment that this type of research may not continue at the haematology research unit in Pembury, I can assure him that discussions are under way to transfer the unit's testing of samples to other sites in the south of England, and that some specialist work will transfer to the Royal London. As I understand it, samples are sent through the post, so distance is not an issue as long as the samples are received within 24 hours.
For the longer term, I understand that new types of research are being developed that could replace chemosensitivity in the future. Many labs throughout the UK are currently working on gene expression

1185
profiling. GEP is very similar to chemosensitivity, in that the labs take fresh samples of cancer cells from patients and profile them against different drugs. Eventually, it should be possible to match up about 30,000 different types of cancer genes with the most appropriate drug therapy.
To turn back to the hon. Gentleman's area, a research and development network has been established in Kent and Medway, which brings together primary care,
1186
secondary care and universities to work on a research and development strategy to increase research opportunities. I understand that Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS trust is already taking part in several clinical trials involving cancer patients—
The motion having been made after Six o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at half-past Six o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR NICHOLAS WINTERTON in the Chair]

Convention on the Future of Europe
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Gillian Merron]
2.30 pm
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the Minister to open the debate, may I say that the matter before us is a very important one?
The Secretary of State for Wales (Peter Hain): Thank you for your warm welcome, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Knowing of your strong views on Europe, I can think of nobody better to chair this sitting.
Given the importance of the ideas being considered in the Convention, it is vital that Parliament should have sufficient opportunity to debate the issues. That is why the Government have proposed today's Adjournment debate on the Convention. I welcome the interest of the Select Committee on European Scrutiny, before which I am due to appear next week. In the week after, that the Minister for Europe and I shall give evidence to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs.
The Convention has moved into its most crucial and intense phase as we consider the draft treaty articles, which hon. Members have seen. We have made significant progress in several areas—for example, in securing a substantial role for national Parliaments in assessing whether action should be taken at European or national level, ensuring that the charter of fundamental rights does not change the competences of the EU, and resisting further moves to qualified majority voting in the social field while the provisions introduced at Nice have yet to be tested.
So far, so good. However, we have much to do to ensure that the progress that we have made is not undone in the draft articles prepared by the praesidium. There is pressure from some quarters to reopen the discussions of the working groups and the plenary response to those working groups. Some heavy lifting is also required to protect our key interests.
As hon. Members will be aware, the first set of draft constitutional treaty articles generated quite a bit of heat. So they should, because they cover key issues that go to the heart of the Convention's work. They set out the kind of European Union that we are creating—its values and objectives—and they tell us a bit about its genesis. I welcome the clear setting out of the competences of the Union and of the member states although, like many, I do not think that we are there yet. We must make it absolutely clear that the power of the Union stems from the member states, and not the other way round. I welcome the Convention president's public acceptance that that point needs to be clearly stated. A Brussels superstate is not on—full stop, end of story. The EU is and will remain a union of sovereign states.
304WH
I want a scheme of competence that is clear, flexible and simple, yet which preserves accuracy and legal certainty and allows us to safeguard our national interests. Distinct arrangements must be preserved for common foreign and security policy and aspects of justice and home affairs.
The first articles contain some good suggestions, such as the idea of "supporting action", which confirms that there are certain areas in which the EU cannot harmonise legislation. However, I was not happy with the language on economic governance and common foreign and security policy. I made it crystal clear to the Convention that the EU's foreign and security policy must remain intergovernmental, and economic policy must continue to function by member states coordinating economic policy in the Council, within the framework of rules established by the EU.
As a champion of plain English, I was pleased to see the hard work that had gone into making the drafts easier to understand. However, as Baroness Scotland reminded the Convention, we must not allow plain speaking and simplicity of language to replace legal certainty. That is particularly true of a constitutional treaty, which is why I made a number of suggestions to the Convention in my many amendments. I suggested removing ambiguities and ensuring that the constitution paints a clear picture of a Union in which member states freely co-operate and integrate by agreement when it makes sense to do so in pursuit of clearly defined aims against a background of shared values.
The first draft articles also included the F-word. I made it clear at the time—and I continue to do so—that "federal" means different things to different people and different countries. It therefore seems odd to include it in a document that is designed to provide clarity.
Mr. Richard Bacon: I find that odd, too, although not because many speakers in the debate will welcome the word while many others will oppose it. The inclusion of "federal" is odd because the draft articles plainly describe a unitary state. The competences in article 12 indicate that member states can act only when the Union has not exercised or ceases to exercise its competence. Is not "federal" rather an odd way of describing what is basically a unitary state?
Peter Hain: I do not accept that view or the assumptions behind it. We are talking not about a unitary state or about drafting a constitution for one, but about a partnership—a union of sovereign member states. That is quite a different animal. The hon. Gentleman is either being mischievous or he is under a misconception; quite conceivably, he is both.
Instead of using the suggested terminology, we propose simply to say what we mean: certain policies are co-ordinated at the European level to achieve goals that member states cannot achieve by themselves.
The second set of draft articles was rather more technical than the first, so I may lapse occasionally into euro-jargon. I am a firm advocate of simplifying the Union, so I welcome the proposal to reduce the number of instruments and terms that it will use. "Law" and "framework law" are much clearer and simpler than the plethora of terms that has built up over the years. Introducing such changes will help to make Europe

305WH
easier to understand. It should also make the Union more efficient by freeing the Council and the European Parliament to focus on setting the general frameworks in primary law, while leaving the detail to those more directly involved in implementation—usually the nation states and their constituent regions.
Draft protocols have also been produced on the role of national Parliaments and the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. Some people have dismissed the protocols as being of secondary importance, but I believe that they are revolutionary and crucial.
The Laeken declaration drew attention to the need for national Parliaments to play a greater role in EU affairs. The protocols envisage a formal role for national Parliaments such as ours for the first time in the history of European co-operation at the EU level. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) has been a visible, vociferous and very effective campaigner in the convention for the greater involvement of national Parliaments.
I proposed introducing an early-warning mechanism, whereby details of new legislative proposals would be emailed out so that national Parliaments could give their view on whether the EU should take action on a particular policy. The Convention endorsed that proposal, which is reflected in the draft protocols on the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, and in the draft treaty articles. That is a significant achievement. The key to its success will be ensuring its credibility, so I very much hope that the House will firmly grasp the opportunity to become more involved in EU decision making.
Mr. David Drew: My right hon. Friend will accept that the problem is the perception rather than the reality of what is being said. Does he agree that part of the problem is the relationship that national Parliaments will have to a constitution? Will decisions gain legitimacy through a referendum, or—this is usually the British way—will Parliaments be sovereign and make decisions? Will that not at least cause confusion? Is it necessary to hold such a debate, whether though a referendum or otherwise, so that the people are taken along with what happens with the Parliaments?
Peter Hain: I agree that there is a need to bring along the people to which my hon. Friend referred. That is why the Minister for Europe is doing a lot of public speaking around the country, why I did the same when I was in that post, and why we are taking every opportunity to involve people in debate through websites and so on. On the question of holding a referendum rather than having national Parliaments take a decision, as my hon. Friend knows, different member states have different means of ratifying treaties. There will be a treaty at the end of process. We have not gone down the referendum route, except in the case of the original decision to join and—if we indeed decide to hold a referendum—in the case of the fundamental decision of joining the single currency. On the issue in question, we shall proceed as we have done in the past, by ratifying treaties through Parliament, because,
306WH
frankly, that is the best way to ensure the detailed scrutiny and accountability necessary to secure real democratic legitimacy for the outcome.
Mr. Bacon: Many people think that a document that starts with the words
"reflecting the will of the peoples"
should necessarily be subject to a referendum. Will the Minister tell me what it is about something so fundamental—to use his words—as the euro that makes a referendum necessary, but what is not so fundamental about a constitution, which is plainly fundamental to anyone, that does not make a referendum necessary?
Peter Hain: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should start to reject the will of the peoples. It is self-evident that a new treaty arrangement expressed in the form of a constitution should reflect the democratically expressed will of the peoples through their national Parliaments. It is the free, sovereign right of countries such as Ireland to hold a referendum. However, I still hold the view that it is better to adopt the parliamentary process.
Much in the new constitution embeds and clarifies what is in existing treaties. There are new additions, such as the national Parliament accountability, which I would expect the hon. Gentleman to welcome, and which ought to be included. The process is an exercise in clarifying and modernising European Union structures that are contained in hundreds of pages and thousands of words of tangled treaty language that is virtually incomprehensible to the average Member of Parliament, let alone to the average citizen. There is no reason why the fact that the document is labelled a constitution should trigger a referendum.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: I want to follow up on that point. The document strengthens the powers of the centre, is developed by a Convention that is loaded in favour of the EU—even though it probably has a majority of "federasts"— and fundamentally changes the balance of power between national Parliaments and Governments and the centre. That is a major constitutional change. Surely what is proposed must be put to the people, because it can have no legitimacy unless it has the consent of the people, not only in Britain but right across Europe.
Peter Hain: How can something strengthen the centre if it contains a new proviso for national Parliaments to have rights over subsidiarity and proportionality? That is a decentralising measure and a major advance, which came from the Prime Minister's speech in Warsaw several years ago, when he called for national Parliaments to have a role right at the beginning for the first time—the traditional scrutiny arrangements are by and large retrospective—and for nothing to be done in relation to serious legislation unless national Parliaments are consulted as to whether it infringes subsidiarity or proportionality.
I acknowledge my hon. Friend's long and expert interest in the evolution of the European Union, but we should await the outcome. The Convention will strengthen the centre in ways with which we agree, such as creating a more active justice and home affairs policy,

307WH
to give us proper protection against human trafficking, asylum seekers, terrorism and international crime. That is a common-sense approach, and the Convention will not strengthen the centre just as a matter of iron law.
Although we are gaining ground support for more vigorous enforcement of the principle of subsidiarity, I am disappointed by the lack of interest in its partner principle, proportionality, which was also introduced by the Maastricht treaty, and which provides a check on how detailed and intrusive legislation may be. I sometimes think that it is the intrusive and detailed nature of legislation, whether in the form of directives or regulations, that is the problem, particularly for businesses, rather than the principles behind the legislation itself. Both principles—subsidiarity and proportionality—are essentially political. They are certainly not technical matters on which a court should be asked to rule. Given the link between them, it seems logical to me that the early warning mechanism that we are setting up to consider subisidiarity should also decide on proportionality.
I am pleased that the draft treaty articles and draft protocols give formal recognition to the role of the regions in the European Union. In the paper that I submitted to the Convention in advance of the plenary discussion, I set out several ideas for strengthening the role of the regions and formally recognising their involvement in EU business.
Mr. lain Luke: I am glad that my right hon. Friend made that point. Our own example of subsidiarity, whereby this Parliament has devolved powers to Assemblies and Parliaments throughout the United Kingdom, is the proper way forward. It sets a good example to European countries, given that it keeps us within a United Kingdom but gives regional Assemblies and Parliaments a much stronger voice in deciding how to run their affairs.
Peter Hain: I very much endorse my hon. Friend's views. Indeed, the paper that I submitted proposed a strengthened role, in respect of influence in Brussels and consultation via Brussels, for any initiatives that must be implemented at a regional level or, in our country, at national level, such as in Scotland and Wales, in particular. That paper was drawn up in co-operation with the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Executive, and it puts us at the fore in strengthening the role of Europe's regions.
Very significant decisions are already made in the United Kingdom, as in many other member states, by local and regional government, but, at the moment, their voice is not effectively heard in Europe. That is a wasted opportunity because their involvement would improve the quality of the legislation produced. It would be also be a step in the right direction to involve more people in the European Union and reconnect Europe to its citizens. The idea that this is some sort of centralising constitution is confounded by the role that national Parliaments are being given for the first time, and by the enhanced role that we hope the regions of Europe will also be given.
Draft treaty articles relating to justice and home affairs in the budget were published on Monday. We are still closely examining those drafts. Taking the justice
308WH
and home affairs articles first, I welcome the attempt to set out what it is, and is not, for Europe to do. It is good to see that, for the most part, the draft articles build on the significant advances that we have already achieved, for example, in relation to asylum and immigration. I am especially pleased that the draft articles confirm mutual recognition as the foundation on which justice and home affairs should be constructed. My alternate, Baroness Scotland, worked hard and expertly on the justice and home affairs working group to win agreement on that important principle.
We do not accept, however, the proposal for a European public prosecutor, who would investigate and prosecute cases of fraud against the Community budget. My concern lies with the bureaucracy and expense of creating such a post. To whom would such a figure be accountable? Member states already have national prosecutors to do that job. Those individuals are responsible to their courts and Parliaments, but that would not be the case for the European public prosecutor. In 2001, over 70 per cent. of fraud in the EU was committed in individual member states. We should be strengthening the systems that are in place in member states to prosecute criminals in their own country, not creating a new European legal bureaucracy. We are not alone in our concerns on that matter.
The draft budget articles seem to be helpful. They reflect well the Government's thinking on budgetary discipline and on sound financial management—key principles of which the UK has been a strong advocate. The present EU budgetary procedure is complex and opaque. I welcome the fact that the draft articles open the way to simplifying the annual budget process, provided that budget discipline and stability are maintained.
All the draft articles to which I have referred are in part 1 of the new treaty, which clarifies and simplifies the aims and objectives of the Union. Part 2 elaborates on those objectives and aims. We now have the results of a technical exercise by lawyers on part 2 to prepare the ground for merging the current treaties. It involves deleting those parts of the treaties that are now obsolete and amending others in the light of the consensus reached in the Convention.
The legal experts group did a good job; it reflected well the recommendations from the Convention's working groups. However, it followed through on one of the recommendations from the simplification working group—a recommendation to which we raised major objections. That is the proposal to generalise qualified majority voting and co-decision across the board. I have often made it clear that the UK would be prepared to examine each area that remains outside the procedures case by case. However, we do not accept a generalisation. There are some areas, taxation for example, in which we will not accept qualified majority voting.
The Convention has still to conclude its discussions on the important area of institutional reform. I support the widely held view that we should not distort the present institutional balance. However, there is scope to improve the workings of each institution and to make processes simpler and more transparent. A full-time elected chair of the Council would enhance its stability and its ability to provide a strategic overview of EU matters. Many member states support that idea,

309WH
including France, Germany, Spain and Poland. As a result of his experiences of the presidency, the Danish Prime Minister changed his mind and said that he now regards the chair as essential to ensuring the effective functioning of a Council of 25 member states. He made the point that when the EU had 15 member states he had to make two tours during his six-month presidency before each Council. That was a severe strain for a serving Prime Minister. From 1 May 2004, the Union will have 25 member states; how much more of a strain will that be for a serving Prime Minister?
Another suggestion is for the European Parliament to elect the Commission President. However, I am sceptical of that idea. My concern is that such an independent figure, who must be acceptable to the member states through the Council, will get caught up in the politics of the European Parliament. If a way can be devised to prevent that, perhaps by including a high threshold for approval so that the President is not the hostage of one party faction, I would be willing to consider the idea again.
Finally, I cannot deny that events in Iraq have highlighted the need to reform and strengthen the EU's common foreign and security policy. Reports of its demise are wrong and unhelpful. There is a future for CFSP, and we are working in the Convention to identify how we might develop a serious and credible EU global role beyond the one that it has on aid and trade. The UK, like other member states, will not accept any shift from the intergovernmental nature of the CFSP; nor is there much sense in extending QM V to foreign policy. We need greater coherence. A single figure—merging the posts of the Council's high representative for the common foreign and security policy, Javier Solana, and the external relations Commissioner, Chris Patten, and answerable to the Council but with a foot in the Commission—could help us to achieve that.
We have come a long way in the Convention; I have been sitting on it for a month—for a year, rather; I wish it had been a month. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston would agree with that last thought.
We have already come a long way in the Convention, but there remains some distance to go before we conclude our work in June. In response to requests from Convention members for more detailed discussion of the articles, the praesidium has proposed additional plenary sessions. I will attend one such meeting next Wednesday. Further discussion groups have also been set up to examine issues where the working groups were unable to reach consensus. Baroness Scotland has participated in a discussion group on the European Court of Justice, and another group has just begun considering the Union's budget procedure.
There have been calls to extend the Convention until later in the year. Some say that that would give us more time fully to consider the implications and issues involved in our proposals. I am not convinced by such arguments. Indeed, the June deadline has been a spur to progress in the Convention, so I see no sense in delaying the conclusion of the Convention beyond the June European Council, as was originally decided.
310WH
An intergovernmental conference will be convened in due course to consider the Convention's recommendations and decide, by unanimity, the future shape of the European Union. The final decision will he with member Governments such as ours. The precise timing of the IGC has not yet been decided. I am relaxed about when it will begin and how long it will last, but it is important that there is sufficient breathing space between the end of the Convention and the beginning of the IGC to allow for a period of reflection, including, I hope, reflection by this House.
The IGC must debate the issues fully. I would not want it simply to rubber-stamp the Convention's work. It is also imperative that the accession countries are fully involved in the IGC. After all, the forum will decide the kind of Union to which the accession countries will be full members.
The House will appreciate that the Convention is making good progress in fulfilling its mandate from the Laeken European Council in December 2001. The British team, Government, parliamentary and European parliamentary representatives are fully engaged, proposing ideas, persuading others and listening closely. We made some promising gains in devising the new political architecture for a Europe of 25 and more states. Much remains to be done to continue to protect our national interest, but we are confident of rising to that challenge in order to deliver the Europe that British citizens want—safer, richer, stronger and more accountable to its citizens.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next speaker, I note that some 12 hon. Members intend to seek to catch my eye, including the spokesmen for Her Majesty's Opposition and the Liberal Democrats. If hon. Members show some discipline, without doubt everyone will get in. Although I do not normally indicate how I intend to call Members, it will help the Chamber if those who were intimately involved in the Convention may make their contributions early in the debate.
2.58 pm
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: As the Minister mentioned, the Convention has been sitting for rather over a year. The anniversary passed off quietly because it coincided with the extinction of any pretence that there is a common foreign or security policy in the European Union; the Iraq situation caused that.
Despite that rather glaring setback, the Convention is now in a state-building mode and the scale of the undertaking is now becoming clear. The end result will definitely be far beyond the treaty change system that we have seen at Maastricht, Amsterdam or Nice. A European constitution and, by extension, a constitution for this country is being written.
In fact, the Laeken declaration was fairly tentative about that undertaking. It referred to the need for simplification and said:
"The question ultimately arises as to whether this simplification and reorganisation might not lead in the long run to the adoption of a constitutional text in the Union. What might the basic features of such a constitution be?"

Despite that rather hesitant suggestion, we are now into the serious business of considering detailed draft articles. The first 16 draft articles establish the basic

311WH
structure of the Union, giving it a legal personality and making it clear that it is a separate entity from member states, so the idea that it is an association or partnership of states is long past. They also signal the end of the intergovernmental pillars, which have been a feature of the Union since Maastricht. Furthermore, draft article 5 states:
"The Charter of Fundamental Rights shall be an integral part of the Constitution."
The name of the entity is unimportant, but "the European state" would be appropriate. My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) was right, as we are witnessing the birth of a unitary state. Mr. de Villepin, who is supposed to be a great political theorist as well as French Foreign Minister, suggested that it is a federation of nation states. To me, that is a contradiction in terms. We cannot have a federation of nation states as we understand the term. We can have a federation of states like the United States, if we are to have the same status as Massachusetts or Oregon, but in a federation, by definition, powers are given up to the centre, which has powers directly applicable on the people of the constituent states. To talk about a federation of nation states is obfuscation and intellectually deceitful. If we are going to engage the public's attention and eventual consent to an outcome, we must be honest and square with them what is actually happening. I regret that the Minister has persisted with the idea of a partnership of sovereign states. We are building something entirely different.
Mr. Bacon: On that point, is my right hon. Friend as concerned as I am about the legal personality? He will know from the jurisprudence of the United States and its Supreme Court that once the European constitution is in place and has a legal personality, like Massachusetts, the individual states will exist because of the federal layer. A fundamental shift takes place once legal personality starts.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is undeniably right, which is shown by the history of the United States. For example, the Bill of Rights in the US constitution originally applied only to the federal Government, but through judicial activism under John Marshall, it eventually applied to all the constituent states. That process is already under way in the European Union, and the constitution will give it a great accelerating force.
The Minister claimed that the new constitution would at least bring clarity to the powers of the European Union compared with those of the member states. I do not find that in the draft articles. It is a botched exercise, and the long list of shared competences takes us nowhere. As a member state advocate, it is of no comfort to me to know that energy, social policy, the environment and public health are shared competences. That does not define the relative powers.
The articles give the lie to the idea that the Convention is simply about clarification or codification of the existing balance of powers between the two levels. I can give a specific example. Draft article 13 says:
"The Union shall coordinate the economic policies of the Member States".
That goes far beyond anything in existing treaties. It says not "may" but "shall" co-ordinate, which is unrecognisably different from what we have had before.
312WH
It is a giant transfer of authority from member states to the new Union. I beseech the Government to be honest. If they want that to happen, they should admit and defend it. If they do not want it, they should announce now that they are against it and will veto it. Will the Minister give me that assurance?
Peter Hain: Surely the right hon. Gentleman must know that we tabled a strong amendment to get rid of that, and that I attacked it in very strong terms on the opening day of the plenary when it was published. We therefore agree, which he must know as an active member of the Convention.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We may agree, but the question is what the outcome will be. I have sat on the Convention for a year, and have learnt that minority opinions are ignored unless they are very forcefully expressed and backed up with an explicit statement, which the Government can make but I cannot, that we will accept the outcome only if the draft article is changed. That is the only language that the Convention will understand. I have served on two working groups, registered dissident opinions and been completely ignored, even when I had allies, although admittedly we were still in a minority. Everything is simply driven from the top, which is a regrettable way of working. Frankly, it is not good enough for the Government to table an amendment that was scarcely touched on in the plenary debate that I attended.
Some 1,000 amendments were tabled to the first tranche of draft articles, of which I tabled nearly 100. I signed some that were tabled by the Government. We worked on this together. We were each given two minutes to speak to our amendments—two minutes to explain why I could not accept the draft articles and why my amendments should be promoted.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: Without hesitation, repetition or deviation.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Gentleman was in the same boat. We had four minutes between us to explain why we could not accept the powers being transferred to the centre. We are being marginalised; by the word "we", I mean me, my colleagues in the Opposition and the Government representative.
The Minister said that this is all right because it is balanced by the new great powers that national Parliaments will have. What do they amount to? They amount simply to a third of member state Parliaments being able to ask the Commission to review a proposal if they consider that it breaches a subsidiarity principle. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), who I hope will contribute to the debate, has done a great job in trying to strengthen that and make it mandatory, so that the Commission has to withdraw the proposals if, say, two thirds of national Parliaments object. Again, however, that is not receiving a sympathetic hearing in the Convention.
All we are being offered is a review. Subsidiarity has been a principle since Maastricht, and has been treaty law since 1993. The subsidiarity protocol has existed since 1997. The proposals are, therefore, an admission

313WH
that subsidiarity has been ignored, and we are now being asked to accept that we can simply request a review. That does not begin to offset the massive transfer to the centre that is evident in the draft articles already tabled. We have only had some of them; all the draft articles about the institutional balance and common and foreign policy are still to come.
We then had a tranche of draft articles dealing with legal instruments. Mindful of your comments about time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I can only touch on them. They are dangerous, as they are advanced on the understanding that they are to simplify the legal instruments available to the EU. However, they do not do that. I am still greatly confused about laws and Executive actions. In particular, a new category has now been invented of non-legislative Acts. I ask the Chamber to ask itself what it understands by non-legislative Acts. It is clear from the other draft articles that that instrument will be given to unelected bodies, such as the Commission or other agencies, with powers to enact regulations that are directly binding on member states and the people in those member states; in other words, the people whom we represent. That, again, is a huge advance in the law-making powers of unelected European Union bodies. I do not see how that squares with the Laeken declaration, which asks us to democratise the Union.
The Laeken declaration, which is dated December 2001 and was solemnly agreed by the member states, asked us to bring the Union closer to its citizens. How can we achieve that by taking more laws upwards to the most remote tier of government of all, the European Union, by the widespread use of qualified majority voting and by the use of that new and peculiar category known as non-legislative Acts, which is at best obscure, and at worst highly dangerous?
The report includes a new section on justice and home affairs. I served on the working group on that area. The section provides for a common policy on immigration, asylum and borders, and approximation of criminal justice systems. To give one example, the draft article dealing with judicial and criminal procedures states that Acts, including those directly binding on the population—in other words, not requiring national Parliaments to enact them—can be brought forward to approximate the rules governing the admissibility of evidence, the definition of the rights of individuals, and the rights of victims of crime. "Approximation" is a form of harmonisation.
However, the rules referred to differ in the European Union. We have a common law tradition that differs profoundly on matters such as the right to silence or the admissibility of evidence based on hearsay or interceptor communications, but that will now be subject to approximation by qualified majority voting. Therefore, the House might pass laws connected with the rights of suspects, the right to silence being one of the examples that I gave, but those laws could now be overtaken by laws that bypass this place and are directly binding. An attempt could be made to harmonise our
314WH
common law tradition, which has been built up over centuries, with the inquisitorial system that pertains on the continent.
Mr. Bacon: I want to ask my right hon. Friend about the working group on freedom, justice and security, of which he was a member, and particularly about the experts whom the working group consulted. Will he tell me who chose the experts who were consulted? It seems that institutions such as Europol, Eurojust and the European Commission were consulted, as were legal academics, but why were no legal practitioners consulted? Why were no experts from a common law jurisdiction consulted? What does that say about the attitude to diversity that will be necessary if the new system is to have any serious chance of working?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I do not know who selected the witnesses, but everything else was done by the secretariat. That working group in particular was driven from the top.
On occasion, I assembled a slightly leaky little alliance of fellow-minded dissidents, which sometimes included Lady Scotland, Tim Kirkhope, an MEP who is known in our party, and the Irish Government representative, Mr. Pat Carey. In our various ways, the four of us emphasised the diversity that exists: the common law tradition and the difference in the United Kingdom between the Scottish tradition and that of England. Those representations were not taken account of at all.
More worryingly, on areas where the Committee failed to reach a united conclusion, such as on the question of the European public prosecutor, the secretariat ignored that. In the draft articles it is now proposed that there should be provision for a European public prosecutor, completely ignoring the working group's conclusions. I am pleased that the Minister said that he opposed that, but I wish that he opposed an awful lot more.
Let me give a final example from the section of the document to which I am referring. Harking back to the first few draft articles, there is an exclusive competence for the Union in future to conclude international agreements in areas affecting an internal Union Act. Everything that I have been discussing to do with justice, home affairs, asylum, immigration and extradition relates to internal Union Acts. It follows that we shall be prevented from concluding extradition treaties with, say, the United States, because that will become an exclusive competence of the Union. That is completely unacceptable. Again, it is a giant extension of the current situation, whereby the right to exclusive representation is confined to trade matters.
On a common foreign and security policy, I do not know whether to laugh or cry at the sheer pomposity of the draft article that we do have. It asserts that there is a common foreign policy and we must all sign up to it. I remind hon. Members of the phrase:
"Member States shall actively and unreservedly support the Union's common foreign and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity."
What common foreign policy? It is absurd to erect a giant institutional structure for something that does not exist. That is starting the wrong way round. Most countries start with a people—what the Greeks called a

315WH
demos. Then they have a Government, who need to be restricted by a constitution. In Europe, however, we are starting with a constitution, which then finds a Government, who then look for a people and a foreign policy.
That is not only absurd but dangerous, because it will all be judiciable. Let us say that we took a contrary view and failed to support a line that the Union had cobbled together in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity. The European Court of Justice might say that the debate that we had last night in the House of Commons was contrary to the spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity. The document goes on to say that member states
"shall refrain from action contrary to the Union's interests".
That is highly dangerous, and it is about time that we punctured the delusion that some technocratic class in Europe can fashion a European will and enforce it when it simply does not exist.
Mr. Wayne David: Before the right hon. Gentleman gets carried away, he must remember that the draft proposals will be submitted to the intergovernmental conference. It will make the decision, but we are nowhere near that yet.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I respect the hon. Gentleman's intervention because he takes a close interest in these matters, but it is a delusion that we can retrieve everything at an intergovernmental conference. The French and German Governments regard the Convention as an intergovernmental conference. They have tabled a plan and are represented by their Foreign Ministers. No member state has challenged seriously the central architecture that I have outlined, and it is getting awfully late in the day. Doubtless we can get back some lost ground and alter some wording here and there, but we cannot retrieve everything. The essential thrust of what we are witnessing will endure through an intergovernmental conference unless the Government say no at this stage.
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I apologise for arriving late, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but this is an important point. Given that we shall have to be loyal to the Union's view, what would have happened if that had been the case this week? France and Germany take one view on the Iraq situation. Italy, Spain and Britain take another. Who would enforce loyalty on whom, and how would it be enforced?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: That is a good question. There was no qualified majority for either position. However, if the French and German Governments had managed to get more member states on their side, we had been isolated with one or two smaller states and the draft article were to become part of the constitution, we would be in breach of the constitution by persisting with an action that was clearly contrary to the agreed line.
That has not happened, and the arrival of the east Europeans has completely altered the picture. When the President of France told the east Europeans that they missed an opportunity to remain silent on the matter, it created immense resentment, because the last time the Czech Republic heard such language, it was used by Mr. Brezhnev in Moscow, when the Warsaw
316WH
pact was run by the Soviet Union. It was a chilling echo for the Czech Republic of what it thought it had escaped from.
There are two clear lines in which the breach is obvious. However, it has not stopped the Convention building a fantasy institutional structure with powers and a supreme court to enforce it. One can make jokes about it and try to ridicule it but it is dangerous.
Mr. Bacon: On justiciability, does my right hon. Friend agree that if there is a written constitution it is folly to say that some clauses are justiciable and others are not? Either they are all justiciable or none of them is.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: That is true. There is no hierarchy. It will all become justiciable. Matters such as criminal justice and policing policy at present are in the third pillar and not subject to the European Court of Justice. It is clear from the draft articles that by swinging them over into the single institutional structure they will all become judiciable. It extends generally to include police co-operation and co-operation on internal security with other countries.
We have a well-known information exchange system with the United States regarding secret intelligence, which is itself no secret; it has existed since shortly after the second world war. According to the draft article, that will become subject to legislation by the new Union and will be judiciable. It will also be covered by the exclusive competence provision; in other words, only the Union will be able to make bilateral arrangements. The arrangements we have with the United States on intelligence sharing could never be conducted again, which is intolerable.
I plead with the Minister to make it clear that what is proposed is unacceptable. He said that some heavy lifting was still to be done and collectively we will help him with it; I certainly will. I want to preserve our powers of self- government and to return to the concept of a partnership of nation states. That is emphatically not the reality of what the Convention is building. It is apparently being done in the name of the peoples of Europe, which is the opening phrase in the constitution. If we are assuming the views of the peoples of Europe and saying that it reflects their will, we must ask them about it. This matter, of all things, must be subject to a referendum in as many countries as possible, and certainly in this one.
3.24 pm
Ms Gisela Stuart: I am grateful for this debate in Westminster Hall because, as parliamentary representatives, we give evidence to Committees in this House and in the other place but we have not had much of a chance as representatives to have a dialogue with the Government.
I stand at the moment in the middle of a horseshoe, and that is how I sometimes feel sitting in the praesidium. It brings together parliamentary representatives, Government representatives, European Parliament representatives and Commissioners, but it has nothing similar to Cabinet collective responsibility for what it generates. It simply tries to produce a working document on which the Convention can work.

317WH
Over the year, which sometimes feels much longer, I have realised that there are two fundamental problems. First, mainland Europe has a tradition of building political institutions first and hoping that political action and political will follow the theoretical creation of institutions. We have never had that approach. We work from the assumption that once we have the political will to do something we say, "Fine, what institutions do we need?"
The difference is epitomised for me by the creation of the office of European public prosecutor. I have huge difficulties with it. It creates constitutional problems in this country because prosecutions are brought by the Crown in England and Wales and by the Lord Advocate in Scotland. I cannot see the point of it. Surely if the Commission is dealing with fraud, it should take its duty to do so seriously. Why create a new institution? The continental answer is to point out that the text says only that the office may be created by unanimity at a later stage. That highlights a real difference in approach to how things should be done.
Similarly, there is a real difference in approach towards making grand statements that we know cannot be delivered. Others feel that such statements should be made to highlight aspirations.
The third problem is that we are trying to create a legal entity that has never existed before. We all try to draw on our experiences of models with which we are familiar. The Union has so far worked on a basis that has not existed before. While it has a court, its powers are extremely restricted. Depending on which case people wish to make, they refer to the united states of Europe, which is not really legitimate as it is a different structure, or to the member states.
We are in a difficult position in terms of protecting the integrity of the nation state on areas such as common security policy and defence. There is not the political will, the capacity or the absence of national interest for that. One could not dream of running a common security defence policy on the basis of an initiative by the Commission based on qualified majority voting. That is cloud cuckoo land: can anyone imagine any member state sending its troops into battle on the basis of a qualified majority vote decision in Brussels? However, in some areas such as trade, Britain wants far tougher action and far more use of QMV and call-back rights to the European Parliament because we know that our commitment to internal markets and to the Lisbon agenda is much more serious. That is quite a conflict.
In my work on the Convention, I have tried to focus first and foremost on being a parliamentary representative. I pay tribute to the extraordinary input from the House of Commons and the House of Lords to our work, at both an institutional level in creating new committees and at officer level in supporting the work of representatives.
I am concerned about the myth that the Union suffers a lack of democratic accountability. It does not. It is represented by member states and their Governments. If democratically elected representatives of the Governments of the member states are not democratic, I do not know who is. There is also the directly elected European Parliament. There are two streams of democratic legitimacy.
318WH
The public continues to find it difficult to work out who made what decision and when. If we want the Union to move forward and if we really want deeper integration where it is necessary and right and where it has been successful, it must also be remembered that some areas, such as defence, common security and foreign policy and significant areas of criminal law, are the rights of member states. If we want that to continue and to hold the faith of the public in our work, the Union must be anchored in national institutions. At the moment, I do not think that that is possible by institutional design.
I do not subscribe to the notion that the intergovernmental method is more democratic. Frankly, if Ministers meet behind closed doors, I do not know whether it was a Minister or a civil servant who was there, whether any votes were taken or what position my Government took. National Parliaments cannot hold Governments accountable for the decisions they have made in those circumstances.
The democratic deficit, in the way that I perceive it to exist, is the lack of ability for parliamentarians to hold the Executive to account. At European level, that means the European Parliament holding the Commission to account. At national level, it means Parliaments being able to hold their Governments to account.
My right hon. Friend the Minister was quite right to say that the mere acceptance in the Convention that national Parliaments should have a say in subsidiarity, and have an early say within the first six weeks, has been a hugely significant step forward. As I say, it needs to be strengthened in some way so that the national Parliaments are able to say no at some point.
My experience of working with 28 countries over the last year has shown me that, when dealing with national Parliaments, there are at least 56 opinions because there are representatives of both Government parties and Opposition parties. From most continental countries, there were several parties, so that meant 70, 80 or 90 different opinions. Even when the point can be reached where two thirds actually agree on anything, it is on a proposal by the Commission so outrageously unreasonable that even the Commission should realise that it would never get it through the Council of Ministers. However, the theoretical principle must be accepted.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: After hearing the doubts, hesitations and concerns of the Conservative representative, the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), and hearing now my hon. Friend tell us of her own agonies—real agonies and problems with which she must grapple—I want to ask a simple question. Is my hon. Friend happy in her work?
Ms Stuart: I have for a long time given up the desire to be happy in anything that I do.
Governments represent us, and there is a real role for representation in the Council of Ministers. That is why our main interests are represented. Parliaments must also have an early say, and the early-warning mechanism will have its most significant role in alerting Parliaments to proposals. Parliaments will then be able to hold their Governments to account back home.
What I do not buy into, and I may disagree slightly with the Minister on this point, is that, although I agree with and recognise the importance of the regions, I have

319WH
a real problem with proposals to give the regions more legislative rights in their relationship with Brussels. The proper flow of information is to make decisions, then have arguments back home with one's own Government. I am quite clear that even with decision making at European level, if national Parliaments do not like what is being done in their name, they must deal with their own Governments.
Mr. Hopkins: I am interested in my hon. Friend's comments on the regions. In some countries, there is a very strong attachment to regions; many of them were based on previous mini-states. In Britain, we do not have that—
Mr. Mitchell: Yet.
Mr. Hopkins: Well, yes.
Democracy is based upon what we perceive to be appropriate levels of government. I suggest that the levels of government to which democrats in Britain look are the nation state, national Governments and local authorities. There is no basis for regional government in Britain, unlike in other European states. It would lead to severe difficulty if the European Union moved towards an arrangement where much more power was given to regions.
Ms Stuart: I hope that I am not being misunderstood. Some countries are pushing for proposals to the effect that national Parliaments should not have the sole right to go to court for breaches of subsidiarity. For example, German Lander say that it should be for their Lander to do so, but that the Committee of the Regions should be given locus standi.
I have a slight problem with the role of the Committee of the Regions. Fundamentally, whatever its internal structure—whether it takes the Swedish model, according to which it cannot legislate but can raise taxes, the German Lander model or our model—delivery is up to the individual member states, not the European Union. The flow of information should go to national Parliaments, who may then decide how to deliver it sub-regionally.
Mr. Chris Bryant: I urge my hon. Friend not to be too enticed by the argument made by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins). It was poppycock, not least because he seemed to be proposing that every other country in Europe has a clear understanding of regional identities. He may think, for example, that all autonomous regions in Spain date way back to the 16th century just because some of them do. In fact, many were constructs of the late 1970s. I suspect that we may be in a much more transitory stage.
Ms Stuart: My hon. Friend is quite right; several of the later entrants into the European Union created regional structures so that they could be bid for regional funds.
Mr. Luke: I agree with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) because the Scottish kingdom, as part of the United Kingdom, has had a traditional and historic role that is
320WH
separate from that of the UK. It is re-establishing that role, and that should not be hampered. I agree with the proposal that the Scottish Parliament should be able to access European funds, because the current system whereby it has to go through the Treasury causes delays and hardship for small voluntary groups and different projects in the Scottish context.
Ms Stuart: I should leave it to the Secretary of State for Wales to respond to that point.
I shall continue to press for two things: first, the warning mechanism on subsidiarity and proportionality should be strengthened; secondly, there is the latest protocol on the role of national Parliaments. The current period of six weeks, during which Governments are not supposed to reach preliminary agreements, is frequently breached.. It was made clear to me in Brussels that we should forget that idea; it will be breached whatever we do, and Governments will get together and reach agreements. My view is that if the only provision is a six-week break in a process that has been going on for years, that is not a delay. It has been set out in the protocols that parliamentary scrutiny takes place during that six-week period, and that that should not be breached. Governments may have fallen into some bad habits, but it should be clearly stated that no preliminary agreements should be reached during that period. The democratic deficit is much more likely to be overcome if the constitution clearly spells out what is done on behalf of citizens at the European level.
I was fascinated by the outrage of a large number of Government representatives to the first 16 articles, even though they spelled out many things that had already been agreed. Frankly, even Governments find it difficult to see things spelled out so clearly. Are other colleagues at Westminster and the public aware of that? They may say, "So be it. Fine. We are happy with it." However, things must be spelled out to enable people to understand who does what on their behalf in the institution.
We must also define much more clearly who does what. I agree to some extent with the arguments made by my right hon. Friend the Minister and my fellow conventioneer, the right hon. Member for Wells ( Mr. Heathcoat-Amory, but one difficulty relating to competence is that we cannot provide answers until it is clearly defined in part 2. For example, public health is a shared competence in some areas, provided that it is defined in part 2 that it is limited to organ donations and blood.
The treaty negotiation is taking place in public, which has never happened before. I know that people who have negotiated treaties will say some three months before the end that nothing is agreed and we must wait until everything is agreed and we know everything. That is a normal state of affairs. Many of us have never been involved in such things. People cannot usually get all the negotiating positions on the website. That is unusual and innovative.
At this stage, we are beginning to see real tensions showing between those who wish to undermine the building blocks of the nation state and those who say firmly, "That cannot and must not be challenged, because these are our terms of engagement." We are also beginning to see some institutional tensions. For

321WH
example, the European Parliament and the Commission are asking for more powers. In fact, everybody is asking for more powers without justifying how the balance of power works. I was delighted that the British Government made it clear that they feel that the current institutional balance should be maintained.
It is a bit too early to say whether all is really doom and gloom, as the right hon. Gentleman said. I agree with the Minister. For the first time in my life I am beginning to have a true understanding of the term "heavy lift".
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We have had fairly long speeches today, which were very well informed and made by hon. Members who are uniquely involved. For future speeches, when I start drumming my forefinger, I suggest that whoever has the Floor might consider bringing their remarks to an end.
3.41 pm
Mr. Iain Luke: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will look out for that.
I was in the Tea Room earlier and, when I got up to come to the debate, I was asked why I was there, given that Scots have a propensity to make their way home earlier than other hon. Members on a Thursday. I replied that I was off to a debate in Westminster Hall to discuss the future of Europe. My English lunch companion said, "Forget that, mate. The French have scuppered any idea of a European ideal in their actions over the Iraqi situation." I am here today to put the case for a closer union, in spite of the traditional English antagonism against foreigners in general and the perfidious French in particular.
As a Scot, I do not share the little Englander views that are often expressed in debates such as this one. I will address the matter from a much wider European perspective. Nevertheless, I believe in defending the benefits that the United Kingdom brings Scotland. I believe firmly in the UK, but I also believe in political progress and, although people may say that there will never be a united states of Europe, as a canny Scot I say, put your money on it. The process is irreversible and, during the next century, just as the German empire brought about the modern German state, I believe that the EU—formerly the common market—will bring about a federal united states of Europe. I welcome, rather than fear, that prospect. I urge all hon. Members to consider the matter optimistically.
I have made some points on behalf of Scotland, and I am sorry to see that, in spite of the carping we hear about the role of Scotland and the UK in Europe, no Scottish Nationalist Member is present to discuss that party's policy of independence. Hon. Members can perhaps gather from that the interest that the SNP takes in such issues.
Mr. Bacon: I have already taken up too much time in this debate, so I shall be brief.
The hon. Gentleman ought to know that the Scottish National party's spokesman was involved in a trip to Luxembourg and Strasbourg last week, during which he discussed the issues at great length. I do not know why
322WH
he is not here, but it is unfair of the hon. Gentleman to suggest that the SNP does not take an interest in these issues. I have had many discussions with the hon. Member involved and I know that he does.
Mr. Luke: I am still sorry to see that the SNP is not present and that the only Tory representative from north of the border has not attended to put the case of the Scottish Conservatives for being a part of the UK and an active Europe.
I congratulate the Minister, who has a long-term commitment to the ideal of Europe, and all hon. Members from both sides who have been involved in the Convention and the praesidium. I am glad to see the superstructure of a European constitution emerging like a ship from the haar. It will provide a forum for a simpler, easier, construction and constitution that people can understand and identify with. We have been asking for that for some time.
I recall the mythical tale of Europa, the princess from the middle east who emerged on the back of a bull, which was Zeus in disguise. That is how Europe got its name. Europa carried the torch of civilisation from the middle east to the Mediterranean islands. The idea was that civilisation, which had its birthplace in the middle east, was being carried to Europe. Those sitting around the table in the praesidium should be inspired to introduce the rebirth of that idea. We should have an all-embracing Europe, a social Europe, and a Europe that contains a divergent form of culture—a culture that is now so common that we can no longer deny it.
Whatever emerges at the end of the process must satisfy certain criteria if it is to be commonly acceptable. It may be acceptable here and receive the approval of Parliament. but it must also be acceptable to the peoples of the UK and throughout Europe. We can have as many constitutions as we like, but unless they are commonly adopted and identified with, they will make no difference to how people view Europe in the long term.
The first thing that the new constitution should have is the ability to connect the citizens of Europe with its political processes and the political entity of the EU. Politicians get excited by politics, but many of our fellow citizens do not, so the constitution must also be able to excite the imagination and command the loyalty of the citizens of Europe. I did some work on American history for my university degree. The American constitution is revered by Americans. They use it almost as a holy text and swear allegiance to it. I hope that by the end of this process we can develop a document that at least has some credibility and excites the interest of ordinary citizens of the EU.
Ms Stuart: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's challenge, but I remind him that the excitement of the American constitution was not clear until a long time after it was written. Even the most famous phrase, "We the people" came about only because nobody knew whether Maryland would sign. The constitution had to

323WH
be sent to the printers, so the individual states were not listed. I will probably not live long enough to know whether our text is exciting.
Mr. Luke: I am well aware of the lengthy process of getting states to come round to the idea of giving up their individual state rights in order actively to become part of the American constitution.
Mr. Bryant: Surely, any document would incite more excitement and pleasure than the Treaty of Rome.
Mr. Luke: That, I accept. However, I do not see a Thomas Jefferson on the scene to write the prose that we need to excite the people who have to accept the constitution. Remember that the American constitution was the product of many ideas that emerged from the Scottish enlightenment. Hopefully, those who are drafting the European constitution will read Hume, Smith, Robertson and the others who were so informative at that time.
Mr. Mitchell: It is difficult to sit here silently in the face of such disloyalty to Government policy and not intervene. My hon. Friend tells us that he is in favour of a federal Europe, which the Government oppose. He is in favour of a stronger centre, which the Government tell us will not happen. He likes the concept of citizens of Europe swearing an oath of allegiance—as happens in America—to the European constitution. Is he serious?
Mr. Luke: As a Scot, I have had to come to terms with living in a greater nation state—the UK. Although we have local loyalties, we often have to give those up to be active participants in a larger political body. I have a European passport. Why should we need an oath of allegiance to abide by a European constitution?
Such emotive issues aside, three criteria must be satisfied for the constitution to be workable: it has to be simple, direct and understandable. In a previous life, I was a senior lecturer in European studies and I had the privilege of taking many students to the European Parliament in Brussels and Strasbourg. The young people who visit it are excited by that multicultural and multinational institution, but if one takes them back home to teach them about the process of co-operation and the legislative processes and institutions of Europe—if one tries to teach them the incomprehensible—they are put off by the technicalities of the Union, although they are excited by the idea of it.
I have been involved in the past two European elections, and the number of people who get involved is pitiful. That is a sad indictment of a concept that was born from the bloodshed and strife of two world wars to bring about a better future for the European family. Those involved in writing the new constitution should be aware that they must come up with something with which people can identify and to which they can show loyalty. I do not believe that people will ever swear an oath of loyalty to Europe, but there should be some identification with the institution.
We need to shift the balance away from nation states and towards Europe, although that might not be too popular with some hon. Members. I accept that the
324WH
President of the European Council should be elected, rather than nominated, by the member states. There should be an elected European individual who will balance the issue of nation states' rights. [Interruption.] I am sorry; I will cut my speech very short now, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
In closing, although I sometimes take a different view to that of the Government, I accept their view in this case; they are working hard to create something that we can all identify with, given the sceptical views of some hon. Members. Our long-term goal must be to remove the lukewarm attitude still often displayed in the House—and across the country—about our common European identity. I hope that we can build a closer European relationship that will, in future generations, be superseded by a commitment to an inevitable shared European future.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his ready co-operation.
3.52 pm
Rachel Squire: I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke).
This debate could not have taken place at a more crucial time. I, too, pay tribute to our Convention representatives and the working parties for the tremendous contribution that they have made, and will continue to make. I also pay tribute to the members of the Standing Committee on the Convention from both Houses, which have taken a keen interest in the subject. I shall make a few general points and then concentrate on common foreign and security policy, European security and defence policy, and defence policy generally.
It has been emphasised that the purpose of developing a European constitution is, supposedly, to further engage people in a Europe that is more open, accessible, understandable and accountable to them. There are many different proposals, and we are carefully considering how we can make the European Union far more open. To pick up on the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), I certainly favour the idea of making the Council of Ministers more open and transparent. All too often, I have to depend on the media to tell me what is going on and being debated in that institution.
On national Parliaments, we have all been guilty of not giving enough attention to the proposals that the Convention has been considering. We should consider our parliamentary procedures, too. Given the dominance of some of the proposed legislation and regulations from Europe, I am almost inclined to think that we should extend our daily Question Times specifically to concentrate on the latest trade and industry proposals from Europe and to go through the various Departments.
Mr. Bryant: That matter has been exercising my mind, too. Remarkably few questions are asked about European matters at Foreign and Commonwealth questions. Would my hon. Friend support the

325WH
introduction of something along the lines of the new system of cross-departmental questions in Westminster Hall for European matters?
Rachel Squire: I would certainly welcome the idea of making cross-departmental issues that are directly related to Europe a greater part of our daily debating and questioning practices.
I want to see a greater role for national Parliaments, but creating another institution will not increase public support or openness. We must debate how to modify existing bodies such as the Conference of Community and European Affairs Committees to build greater involvement by national Parliaments.
Even those of us who consider ourselves to be both British and European react to the promotion of a federal European superstate. Therefore, I welcome the commitment by the Minister and the Government not to agree to provisions under which certain competences would be administered federally.
Nowhere is my opposition to a federal Europe stronger than on the common foreign and security policy. Recent experience with some of our closest European allies over Iraq makes us all deeply suspicious of some of the motives behind, for instance, draft article 14, which the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) quoted. There were already diverging views about EU development, particularly the common foreign and security policy and the European security and defence policy, but the profound disagreements that have developed recently have highlighted them.
It worries me that France and Germany, in particular, want to develop Europe as a rival superpower to the United States. At the same time, there are those on the other side of the Atlantic who think that the United States should divorce itself from Europe and international coalitions. I say to our European and our United States allies that those who believe that rivalry, rather than partnership, is the way to promote peace and security among nation states on our continent and, indeed, in the world are deeply mistaken. Difficult though it might be—we have all felt a degree of anger recently—I hope that the meeting of the European Council of Ministers today and tomorrow will consider issues on which we can work together.
The eighth working group considered defence. I welcome its proposals on further developing the Petersberg tasks and, in particular, on how Europe can play a greater role in post-conflict stabilisation. Paragraph 29 of its report states that operational capability in Europe under ESDP may prove to be an important element in conflict prevention and crisis. In particular, a contribution could be made to the United Nations.
I recently visited the UN with other members of the Select Committee on Defence. Its representatives told us that they were very pleased with the role that we and two other of our European partners play in peacekeeping and conflict prevention, but they pleaded with us that they would like far more European countries to make a greater contribution. We could certainly work on that.
326WH
I am a Member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, and I resist the opinions of those who would like to see some European defence capability supplanting the role of NATO. I deeply oppose the proposal in the Convention that we should develop a European force to deal not only with Petersberg tasks but with high-intensity warfare and collective defence under article 5. It must be clearly emphasised that the commitment of armed forces to any sort of operation remains, and will always remain, the responsibility of national Parliaments.
In conclusion, whatever our strong feelings at this time, we must look beyond the immediate arguments that European nations are addressing and recognise that our long-term interests will best be served by this country remaining a key player in European development and the Convention, seeking to identify areas of common purpose not only in our continent but elsewhere in the world. I hope that, in the months ahead, European nations will be able to act for the peace and security of our own people, as well as those in the middle east and Iraq.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Again, I thank the hon. Lady for her co-operation. The Scots are certainly showing the way today.
4.1 pm
Geraint Davies: I shall speak briefly. I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the fact that I must leave at 5 o'clock, before he winds up. I shall not focus on federalism versus sovereignty, subsidiarity, majority voting and wider constitutional issues, but on the right of children to be explicitly recognised in the new draft treaty.
In the current treaty, children are mentioned only in relation to offences against them. In formulating a constitution, it is crucial that we explicitly recognise the rights of children, so that our legislators can focus on them. It is the fourth anniversary of the Prime Minister's announcement on eliminating child poverty within a generation. Our Chancellor is working hard on that. We are all aware, from a global point of view, of the millennium goals to eradicate poverty and increase access to primary education, clean water, health care and the like.
It is worth remembering that all EU members have signed up to the UN convention on the rights of the child. It seems strange that, although our national Government and the United Nations recognise children's rights, we are not prepared to recognise and explicitly endorse the rights of children in the draft constitution. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that children's rights cannot simply be subsumed into human rights. I accept that it is a difficult argument, but children's rights are different in several ways. In particular, children are vulnerable, dependent, voiceless and not self-determining. Therefore, unlike other individuals who have rights under a constitution, children's rights need to be explicitly recognised, not overlooked, by the legislator.
If one looks at specific policies and EU directives, one can see that children's rights have been undermined in the interests of commercial considerations. I am thinking particularly of distance selling, toy advertising,

327WH
television advertising and chemicals in toys. If children's rights were explicitly mentioned in the treaty, that would be much less likely to happen. Furthermore, child-specific considerations are relevant for a variety of competences. One that immediately sprang to mind when my right hon. Friend mentioned immigration and asylum was the rights of a child who has been separated from his or her parents by the asylum system. Unless we think clearly and in a focused way about the interests of children being equal throughout the world and the EU, there is a danger that children will inadvertently suffer. In so far as the EU has competences for health policies—be they on obesity, smoking or whatever—there are relationships with children. Whether we are talking about consumer affairs, advertising or social family policy, it is important that children are explicitly mentioned.
Article 3, paragraph 1, contains an explicit reference to the protection of children's rights. I fear that my right hon. Friend supports an amendment that would delete that because he believes that children's rights can be subsumed into human rights. I put it to the Chamber that that is not the case, which is certainly the view of charities that represent children in Britain—the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Save the Children, Euronet and so on—and those throughout Europe. Other rights, such as those relating to animals, are explicitly recognised in the Convention, but it has been suggested that children's rights should not be. Gender and disability rights are rightly mentioned. If we want to frame a new constitution for the future, my firm belief is that children's rights should be explicitly mentioned to ensure their consideration in our legislation.
I give my assurance to Members, particularly those on the Opposition Benches who may be worried that my suggestions would somehow introduce a new competence for the EU, that there is no suggestion of delivering a new competence. I am simply saying that children should be explicitly taken into account by legislation that is already ceded to the EU. The principal competence would remain with the member states, and the principle of subsidiarity would remain wholly supported. If we accept that children have rights and that those rights should be protected, it is important that they are not invisible to legislators because they have not been explicitly built into the new treaty. I hope that the Minister will carefully consider my points.
4.7 pm
Mr. Wayne David: I approach the debate from a pro-European perspective. I am not fixated on the idea of Europe, but European co-operation is common sense, and it is central to allowing us to tackle successfully the challenges facing us in the modern world. However, I am also someone who strongly believes in the principle of democracy, and exercising it at the most appropriate level: as close to the people as is practicable. Today's debate brings those two approaches together. The task that we have as Europeans is to create a framework for our cooperation that makes sense, while, at the same time, being inherently democratic.
For some time there has been a need for a fundamental reappraisal of the point that we have reached. No one can deny that there is a need for clarity
328WH
and simplification in European treaties, and today's debate has been right to focus on issues such as how to create a text that is both sounder in legal terms and accessible to ordinary people. If we are to make Europe relevant to people, we must start using a language that people can understand. Over the years, a distinct eurojargon has developed that means little to ordinary people.
The second reason why the debate is important is because, from the treaty of Rome onwards, there has been a drift towards the European Union's gaining more and more competences. That has happened in an ad hoc way, so people understandably ask where it will end. This is an ideal opportunity to provide a clear definition of what the European Union is about—one in which people can have confidence.
Europe is on the verge of enlargement on an unprecedented scale. The treaty of Nice was necessary to make the European Union function effectively with 10 extra countries, but if we are to have a European Union of 25 or more states, it is important to have a constitution that is legally tight, that makes sense and that can take us forward together.
Giving national Parliaments a greater role is central to the process of making Europe more understandable and more acceptable. I have been encouraged by the fact that so much attention has been given to the issue. I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) in that respect. It is easy to say that we are not satisfied with how far we have got. That might be true, but let us not forget that we started from a very low base—national Parliaments were not recognised in the treaty; we have moved on significantly by taking up ideas such as the red card proposal. During the last months of the Convention, possibly when we reach the intergovernmental conference, we should have a debate that continues to focus on the role of national Parliaments.
There is much to commend articles 1 to 4. However, it is important to stress what is not in there as well as what is. Many are concerned about the phrase that there is a need to move towards an "ever closer union". That is one of the reasons why, as I said earlier, people have understandable reservations about where the European project is leading us. If we do not use that phrase, people across the continent will be reassured.
Some recommendations are very positive. I refer especially to article 2, paragraph 1, which spells out clearly that it is important to recognise national identities. Article 3 is a reformulation of article 2 of the existing European treaty, but it contains some positive statements about what the objectives of the European Union should be. I am glad that there is reference to the need to eradicate poverty and, bearing in mind what my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies) said, that there is a reference to children's rights. However, without nit-picking, I find it strange that there is a suggestion that the Union's objectives should include the discovery of space. Of course, we like to have broad perspectives and grand visions, but that is going

329WH
a little too far. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston will acknowledge that there is scope for that issue to be reconsidered.
Ms Stuart: My hon. Friend might be encouraged to know that the Maltese have suggested that we should also include the discovery of the deep sea.
Mr. David: I suppose that that, at least, provides some kind of balance.
Mr. Luke: Would my hon. Friend accept that there is a need for a vision in the document so that people will have something with which they can identify in the new Europe that we hope to create?
Mr. David: Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend makes a very good point. That is why the opening articles are so important, as they provide the kind of vision that is needed. However, the kind of references about which I spoke, whether on space or the deep sea, weaken that sense of vision.
Articles 18 to 60 are very important because they deal with the EU's competences. They are well set out. However, I find it strange that the competences are set out in such a way as to suggest exclusivity. They suggest that, if the legal advice that I have heard is correct, member states will not be able to take measures that are complementary to the stated competences. There will be exclusivity. That is a major change from the present legal position in the treaties, and it is a change that concerns me.
Another concern is the reference to a flexibility clause. There is one in the treaty, but as one of the purposes of our exercise is to set out clearly and precisely exactly what the Union's competences are, there is no need for a flexibility clause that says that it does not matter if the Council of Ministers wishes to deal with an area that is not included in the treaty because it can be dealt with through unanimity. A proper debate that reached consensus and agreement on the competences should be the end of the matter.
Three other points are important. I share some of the concerns about the proposals from the working group that has been considering justice and home affairs, particularly that for a public prosecutor. That is an extremely worrying suggestion and one that we must debate in earnest. My second point is that it is very easy for us to say that the common foreign and security policy and the European security and defence policy are off the agenda because of events in Iraq, but we should not do that. In many ways, the difficulties of the past few weeks make it more important that we think about and talk through the implications of having a common foreign and security policy.
Mr. William Cash: The hon. Gentleman and I are colleagues on the European Scrutiny Committee and often joust on these matters. However, I must take him up on that point. Does he not agree that the words "single autonomous policy" in the single institutional framework on the common foreign and security policy
330WH
have been shot to pieces? Does he not agree that it has to do with fundamental interests and not just with rhetorical bandyings on the side?
Mr. David: The hon. Gentleman has a point, but only to a certain extent. I would not defend some of the language being used. Nevertheless, the debate must be held. There is still a need to consider the issue seriously; we should not kid ourselves that a fundamental rupture has taken place over the past couple of weeks. I do not believe that that has happened. There is still a long-term communality of interest between other European countries and us, particularly on the CFSP. That is not to say, however, that we will move towards qualified majority voting on the issue. The principles of unanimity and intergovernmental co-operation are important, but let us not pretend that the division that has developed, between Britain and France for example, is more fundamental than it really is. Much still holds us together—far more than what currently divides us.
Finally, as the fundamental basis of the EU is, and should be, co-operation between independent sovereign states that want to co-operate, but which also have a mutual respect for each other, the Council of Ministers needs to be reformed. There should be far more openness and transparency, and legislation must be agreed in public. The policy of a six-month presidency must end. However, I also believe that more permanency is necessary with regard to the Chair of the Council. I recommend strongly that the proposals that seem to command a consensus are firmed up.
To date, the Convention has been a positive exercise. All too often, we have shied away from the fundamental debates about the future of Europe. Such debates as have taken place have tended to be in smoke-filled rooms, behind closed doors, and in a language that people cannot understand. We have at least moved on from that. Europe will never be the same again. We are approaching a critical time, because we have to grapple with some difficult and contentious issues. However, I am quite confident that we have made significant progress and that we shall continue to do so. That can only be good news for the people of Europe and for the EU.
4.21 pm
Alan Howarth: I am very glad to have the opportunity to take part in this thoughtful and expert debate. I am especially grateful for the contributions of those colleagues who have served on the Convention. My right hon. Friend the Minister made an informative speech, and the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) spoke authoritatively, albeit melancholically.
The Government allowed quite a hare to be set running at Laeken. The Foreign Secretary told us at the time, "Don't panic, it's not such a big deal to have a constitutional convention. Football clubs and even the Labour party have constitutions, so we shouldn't take excessive alarm. It's absolutely fine; this is about tidying up." We might all, indeed, agree that there is merit in clarifying the rules of engagement. It provides an opportunity for the Government to re-emphasise the principle of subsidiarity, and declare against the superstate, as my right hon. Friend the Minister has done emphatically enough this afternoon.

331WH
It was also suggested that it would be useful to re-codify some principles. For example, as I understand it, we suffer from two concurrent legal bases. Legislation from 1972 to 1991 is European Community legislation, whereas that passed after 1991 is EU legislation. We would go crazy if we tried to understand such things; indeed, a certain madness does afflict some colleagues who spend too much time on those topics.
Other countries take a different view on the nature of the undertaking. The French and the Germans see it as an historic opportunity to move through ever-clo,4er union to a new entity. The phrase "ever-closer union" does not appear in the draft, because the draft takes us beyond that stage.
It was helpful to hear my right hon. Friend 1 he Minister's disavowal of the Government's acceptance of a centralising thrust of the Convention's conclusions, but I am doubtful about his interpretation of some of those conclusions as not centralising. He wants a partnership of states, but I do not think that the process is moving in that direction. I should therefore like to ask him about what is proposed and what it means, and what the Government's position is. I am not a constitutional lawyer, but, as a Member of Parliament, I have a responsibility to help to preserve our constitution and our parliamentary democracy.
Do the Government agree with the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union that article 24,
"creating a new category of 'regulation' and categorising some Union legislation as 'legislative acts' and some 'non-legislative acts' does not seem helpful"?
The right hon. Member for Wells raised that issue. My right hon. Friend the Minister said that the drafting is now easier to understand, but I confess that I still have some difficulty with it. I should be grateful for his help, whether in his winding-up speech or perhaps, if he is willing to answer that and other questions, in a letter to every hon. Member who has participated in the debate.
What is my right hon. Friend's view on the budget process? What is the Government's position on the proposal to remove the distinction between compulsory and non-compulsory expenditure? Would our discretion in those areas of public expenditure be safeguarded, and if so how? Does my right hon. Friend agree with the European Parliament's demand to have a say on both? Does he agree with its demand to have the final say in cases of conflict? If not, who do the Government think should have the final say?
A number of hon. Members have spoken about the importance of maintaining and enhancing the robe of this and other national Parliaments. I am interested to know the Government's view of the red card proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston in the Convention. Do the Government accept the concept of shared competence on, for example, health and social security matters, which I think were not previously within EU competence? I should emphasise that I am referring to a shared competence on the basis that the EU's policies and laws would have primacy.
Does my right hon. Friend accept that all member states should have the overriding duty proposed in the articles to contribute to the achievement of the Union's objectives? We have often talked in this debate about the
332WH
extension envisaged in the draft articles of the powers of the European Court of Justice and the extension of qualified majority voting. It would certainly help me and perhaps other hon. Members if my right hon. Friend spelled out what extension of the jurisdiction of the ECJ would be acceptable to the Government and in what spheres an extension of QMV would be acceptable.
I am more than happy to be persuaded that my apprehensions are misplaced, but I should like to hear more of my right hon. Friend's thoughts on the proposal that the common foreign and security policy second pillar should be dissolved and carried into a new concept and definition of EU competence.
We would all agree that it is a fairly bitter irony that we are debating that issue here in this of all weeks. The Council is also to debate it, commencing this evening. This week the French, abetted by the Germans, have destroyed the functioning of the United Nations and created a gulf between Europe and America. They have split Europe and—I deeply regret having to say this—made war unavoidable. Tonight European leaders will discuss the Convention while they are openly and angrily antagonistic about foreign and security policy. The bipolar or multipolar global power structure that we hear spoken of and the notion of Europe as a major force in international affairs seem a fantasy this evening.
Mr. Cash: The right hon. Gentleman will accept that I am completely in favour of the Government's policy on Iraq. However, does he accept, in relation to the discussions taking place tonight, that one seminal problem is the fact that the Prime Minister has, Janus fashion, promoted a common foreign and security policy and the war against Iraq, even though the common foreign and security policy is aimed directly at undermining the war against Iraq?
Alan Howarth: The hon. Gentleman seeks to take us too wide of the topic of debate.

Regardless of the view that we take about these events, the principle of national self-determination in foreign and security policy is an essential characteristic of a nation state. I find it impossible to envisage qualified majority voting in this field or to envisage that our policy could be justiciable in the European Court of Justice. I am pleased that the Government reject that proposition, but do they hold that the right of initiative in common foreign and security policy should remain with the Council? Is that conceivable in the proposed new structure?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) said, the United Kingdom should always work strenuously through diplomacy to achieve a shared view in the European Union. However, the UK is not going to take its marching orders from the EU, and nor will the accession states, which have been patronised by President Chirac, who called them badly brought up children, and which have made it clear that they share our analysis of the Iraq problem.
I turn to justice and home affairs. Are the Government content that that third pillar should likewise be collapsed? A country's criminal justice system also goes to the heart of its distinctive nationhood. As the right hon. Member for Wells reminded us, we have a common law tradition, and that

333WH
would be superseded under the terms of the Convention as it currently stands. Abundant co-operation is needed in this field, too—for example, in dealing with terrorism and other varieties of serious and organised cross-border crime. That co-operation exists and it is improving all the time, but we cannot accept that qualified majority voting and the European Court of Justice should determine our policies in these areas.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary blew a gasket when Mr. Justice Collins ruled that it was not permissible under our law to reduce asylum seekers to destitution. That judgment was upheld in the Court of Appeal. If the Convention has its way, the Home Secretary ain't seen nothing yet. I would be interested to learn what is the Home Office's remit to my right hon. Friend the Minister as he negotiates on behalf of the Government in the Convention. And what, more precisely, is the position of the Department of Trade and Industry? I understand that for purposes of policing the internal market it is content that power should be transferred to the first pillar, but how do we define what is involved in that and keep it watertight so that other crime is dealt with on a different constitutional basis? That is a crucial question. Would we be required to join Schengen? Would Schengen continue as a protocol?
Article 5 states that the charter of fundamental rights shall be an integral part of the constitution. Many of us have vivid memories of the day when my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz)—in his former capacity as Minister for Europe—explained that that charter had no more constitutional standing than the Beano. Since then, it has been bingo for the eurocrats. Why do our apologists for EU aggrandisement always pretend that European union is not a process?
Article 13 declares that the EU shall co-ordinate the economic policies of the member states. My right hon. Friend the Minister explained that the Government are not happy with that, but that is what the article says and the Government's amendment did not prevail. I asked my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in a parliamentary question what view he took of this recommendation, and he could not bear to give me an answer. However, we know that he takes strong exception to the upbraidings by the Commission and ECOFIN of his fiscal policy. He is correct to do so because the UK's fiscal and other economic policy has been right for the UK, and it has worked a great deal better than the fiscal and economic policies of countries that have subjected themselves to the stability and growth pact. He is also correct in principle, because it is the mark of a free democracy that it determines how its taxes are spent.
Interestingly, the Chancellor has proposed that regional policy should be repatriated, which I am sure is to the great distaste of the Commission because it would take away about one third of its spending. Central bureaucracies enormously dislike radical decentralisation. I suspect that it would also be to the distaste of the accession countries.
However, the Chancellor generally knows what he is doing, and his proposal drives a stake through the heart of the euro and perhaps even enlargement. I say that because the euro is tolerable only if substantial funds are available in the central budget for transfers of spending between richer and poorer countries. Will the Minister
334WH
tell us what are EU resources as a percentage of European GDP before repatriation of regional policy, and what the percentage would be afterwards? I fancy that it would be less after such a move. At the moment, it is only some 1.27 per cent. of European GDP, compared with federal spending of 25 per cent. of GDP in the United States of America and 40 per cent. of public expenditure in this country. There are proper debates to be had about the appropriate percentage, but it is unarguable that we need a substantial kitty to ease the stresses and strains caused by a single currency and single interest rate.
The draft articles contemplate that some member states will not participate in the euro, but I am unclear how the EU will co-ordinate the economic policy of those member states. The mindset and philosophy of the Convention is predicated on the assumption that participation in the currency union is the norm. The logic of its proposals will be that countries that do not join the euro will not be able to remain in the new European Union. That is crossing a rubicon that many of us have been desperate not to cross. Those who believe that it is in Britain's interest to be a part of the European Union but not the euro may find ourselves with the crunch decision that we hoped that the statesmen of Europe would have the wisdom not to force.
The Council will be busy addressing the consequences of the single interest rate, large movements of labour and capital within the eurozone and the social and political stresses arising from the rigidity of the single currency and interest rate. There will be growing pressure in the eurozone to increase its budget and, therefore, for new powers to raise tax at a European level and common policies on tax and spending. Will the Minister tell us whether the Government will accommodate those pressures? Do they want the European Union to have a power and duty to coordinate economic policy?
It is ever more evident that there are two concepts of Europe. There is the drive from the original six and the Commission towards a country called the European Union, constructed as defined in article 1 on a federal basis. It would be a new constitutional entity with a new legal personality and a Union of which its people are citizens, as advanced in article 7. The peoples of those countries essentially took that decision long ago. Prepared psychologically by their historical experience, they are at ease with the thought of a single European state, even if they continue as democratic citizens to have doubts about aspects of policy.
On the other hand, there are those who take the view that the proper European Union is an association of member states, which is enlarging, pooling sovereignty—a dubious, slippery term, but we go along with it—in different areas. Those include defined areas, notably trade and, with some reservations, agriculture and fisheries, areas in which the argument has prevailed that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. There are also some modest Community programmes in fields of joint competence such as science and culture.
The Convention conclusions reflect the first school of thought. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston offered some interesting reflections on the differences in political culture that are making it awkward to arrive at a shared vision for the processes of

335WH
the Convention. The United Kingdom belongs to the latter school. Our people are not in the main xenophobic—I adore the French—and they accept the realities of power in the world, of interdependence and of the dangers of isolation. But they resent being hustled along by an elite that they suspect of dealing disingenuously with them, as every "thus far, and no further" has been overtaken in the onward march to ever-closer union and the aggrandisement of European Union powers.
The deep integration implied by these articles, the loss of self-determination in foreign and security policy, justice and home affairs and economic policy go far beyond what Britons are ready to accept. Rightly and necessarily, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister will seek to heal the new wounds of the European Union tonight at the Council and as the Iraq crisis passes its peak. But in that impulse to heal, I hope that they will not rush to anoint the draft constitution.
I accept, as my right hon. Friend said, that a June deadline for the Convention's conclusions is suitable; let us get the proposals out. However, an intergovernmental conference in the second half of 2003 is far too soon. There are vast implications in these draft articles and what we need are thoughtful, unhurried study and debates—technical and political—among the peoples of the European Union. That process cannot be completed over the summer holidays.
My right hon. Friends the Minister and the Prime Minister have discouraged expectation of a referendum. It is one thing for the Prime Minister to twit the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) about Maastricht and so on at Prime Minister's questions, but that is not a sustainable or adequate response. It would be politically dangerous for the Government. Parliament, the media and the public will not accept integration into a new written constitution of the European Union in a fit of absence of mind and t he subordination to it of the British constitution, which may be inchoate, elusive, in need of reform, changing, and organic, but which is effective, expressive of our identity and rooted deep in our history. I assure my h( in. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke) that the people will be excited by these proposals; they will be excited to deep anxiety by them.
The Government say that they support the process of the Convention in the interests of bringing about greater clarity. Why not test that clarity in a referendum? 1 he hon. Member for South Norfolk was right to draw attention to the opening words of article 1, which speaks of a reflection of the will of the peoples of Europe. If we are to adopt a new constitution, let us ensure that is indeed such a reflection. My right hon. Friend the Minister was the most vigorous of advocates of referendums on Scottish and Welsh devolution. In certain circumstances, there could be a referendum on the euro, which, by the way, must be a separate and different referendum. It would be inconceivable not to have a referendum if the IGC recommends changes that even approach the vastly ambitious and fundamental constitutional changes that we are examining.
336WH
There is an anecdote about a tourist in Whitehall who asked a policeman which side the Foreign Office was on. The policeman replied, "It is supposed to be on our side but I sometimes wonder." I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to reassure us.
Mr. Cash: Come back$
4.43 pm
Mr. Chris Bryant: I had hoped to be able to start by saying that it was a delight to have had a debate in which there were no little Englander speeches, on the basis that one Scot, three Welsh people, one South African, a German, an English person representing a Scottish constituency and an English person representing a Welsh constituency had spoken. However, there have been some little Englander comments, and there was a hefty dose of them when the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) adopted the "Dad's Army" approach to foreign policy: "We're doomed, Captain Mainwaring, we're doomed."
We have come to the point in the Convention when we are debating an unfinished product. It is a jelly that has not yet set and we have not yet decided which mould to put it into. It is important that we—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I enjoy lively debate, but I want only one speaker at a time.
Mr. Bryant: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am intrigued that hon. Members have described two different versions of how Europe will progress. I spent some time last week in Spain with the all-party group on Spain. Of course, it was a unique moment because of Spain's relationship with Britain, the United States and Portugal, and the meeting in the Azores on Sunday. It was also interesting because I perceive a new divide in European understanding. One is heavily Atlanticist, and includes Britain, Spain, Portugal, to some degree Denmark, sometimes the Netherlands and most of the applicant members from eastern Europe who are coming into the EU next year.

On the other side are those who have what one might call a continentalist vision of Europe. That is based predominantly on the understanding of the Franco-German alliance, with others brought onside. I am intrigued by this partly because of my own interest in Spain, but also because in both English and Spanish, the word for the rest of Europe is the continent—el continente. I suspect that as enlargement brings new members into the EU, that understanding of what Europe is about will hold much greater sway over the minds, not only of people in the peripheral countries—I speak geographically, rather than politically—but in France, Germany, Belgium and Scandinavia.
People often ask why Aznar and Blair get on so well. The British ambassador in Spain, soon to be the British ambassador in Berlin, firmly maintains that it is because they do not speak each other's language and have to converse in French, but speaking French does not seem to have enabled the Prime Minister to get on with all world leaders. Of course, we have heard much in the last few days about the French and their slamming the door on diplomacy last week in the United Nations, and I

337WH
agree with the Government about going down the United Nations route. In the end, the French made it impossible for us to secure a second resolution. They overplayed their hand.
However, it would be wrong of us at this point to write off the French as allies. They are probably among our most important allies; they certainly are historically. The Portuguese may be our oldest allies, but the French are among our most important. Ten per cent. of British exports go to France—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am fascinated by the history that we are getting from the hon. Gentleman, but could he relate his remarks to the Convention on the Future of Europe?
Mr. Bryant: I am very grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although you are perhaps being slightly unfair to me. British and French relations are vital to achieving a successful outcome in the Convention.
Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Bryant: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I note that he has not been here for the whole of the debate and he has criticised others for discourtesy.
Mr. Cash: There are matters relating to the war with Iraq in which I have been involved in my other capacity. Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that whereas Clausewitz said that war was the continuation of diplomacy by other means, the French have turned that on its head and for them diplomacy is now war by any other means?
Mr. Bryant: I obviously cannot comment on that. I would be straying a long way from the Convention.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: You would indeed.
Mr. Bryant: I note that one of the proposals that came from Mr. Giscard d'Estaing early on in the process of the Convention was that the constitution should have a clear statement of a religious intent. I am glad to see that so far there is no reference to God in the preamble or in the articles, and I do not believe that that will change.
Ms Stuart: That means that my hon. Friend has seen the preamble, whereas I have not. However, he may be too confident; God may still reappear in the preamble.
Mr. Bryant: God moves in mysterious ways her wonders to perform. God is not referred to in the articles and I hope that he or she will not appear in the eventual preamble, because to state that Europe is a wholly Christian entity would be wrong. Spain has a long history of an Islamic presence, and the Moorish aspects of its culture are important to it. Moreover, such a statement would not take account of the present multiracial, multi-ethnic and multi-religious constitution of Europe. I hope that that issue will not arise again.
338WH
The Convention will bring us real gains. I have mentioned before, and other hon. Members said earlier, how important it is that France and Germany have finally proposed what we proposed two years ago—that the presidency of the Council should be fixed rather than rotating every six months. I would prefer that presidency to be for five years rather than for two and a half, but that is still to be decided.
As one who used to work in Brussels for the BBC and who regularly tried to work his way through the labyrinthine processes of the presidency, I cannot stress too much how important it is for the work of the presidency and the Council of Ministers to be open and transparent.
We should also put an end to this stop-go business. The copyright directive took years to make its passage through the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament, partly because different presidencies gave it different levels of priority. That meant that many people in different European industries were unable to make secure investments for the future because they were not sure how the copyright directive, which would affect them directly, would come out.
The continuity of priorities is as important as the continuity of personalities. However, we should not be naï about that. Some people have suggested that the President of the European Council would be someone that George Bush could suddenly telephone about any matter of import in Europe. I do not believe that that will happen. There might be benefits in terms of the President of the Council being able to tour the member states and garner their opinions on a regular basis in the way that a sitting Head of Government or Head of State could not do, but it is unlikely that that person will stride the world stage.
Mr. Luke: Does my hon. Friend accept that, if that happens, the President of the Council of Ministers and of the European Council should speak for Europe and not for any of the states that make up the European Union?
Mr. Bryant: I agree. One of the difficulties at the moment is for the President of the Council, who is Greek, not to speak with two heads. The same will apply to the Italians, although perhaps it will be easier for Mr. Berlusconi.
It is also important for us to move towards a system in which there is robust approval for the President of the Commission by the European Parliament. If that person does not command the approval of at least 70 to 75 per cent. of the MEPs, we will not be moving forward in a way that provides clarity for the Union.
I would also like to raise the issue of how the whole Commission is appointed, and whether the European Parliament's role in that will be to vote for, to approve, or only to be able to vote out the Commission. It should be possible for the European Parliament to veto individual members of the Commission.
The second real gain that I hope will result from the Convention is tidier treaties. My daily work used to involve trawling through different elements of the treaties and trying to remember whether clause 76, as it was commonly known in Brussels, had become clause 95 or 93, so I am aware that the documents have become

339WH
difficult to handle. Also, the Brussels and Strasbourg machinery has been taken over by its own jargon—a jargon that is not just in one language, but in many. M y right hon. Friend the Minister was right to say that if we can move towards documents that use plain language, we will have done an enormous service to the Union. I note with interest that most of the negotiations that have taken place in recent months involving applicant members for next year's enlargement were conducted in English. I suspect that English will be the language of Europe in future.
I support the clearer delineation of competences. The Nice European Council called on the Convention to consider how to establish and monitor a more precise delineation of powers between the European Union arid member states that reflects the principle of subsidiarity. I think that all hon. Members would agree that that is suitable. I also support the idea of having three types of competence in the articles—exclusive and shared competences, and those in which member states might support the action of the Commission, or the other way around.
However, there is still more work to be done. In particular, although article 12 on shared competences would provide us with some significant gains—for example, in terms of French energy policy and its liberalisation—it is less clear than it could be. There are some issues, such as public service broadcasting, that should be wholly the responsibility of the member state and should not be interfered with by the Commission. The Commission has a tendency towards competency creep, and we must go some way to make sure that that is prevented in the articles and in the final format.
I also hope that there will be better relations with national Parliaments. Since becoming a Member of Parliament less than two years ago, I have been surprised at how spartan the scrutiny of European legislation is, not only in its final form, but in its developing form. The European Scrutiny Committee does a good but inevitably limited job, because it is just one Committee and there is a significant quantity of material that needs to be scrutinised.
Mr. Luke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Bryant: I will, although time is tight.
Mr. Luke: Does my hon. Friend accept that sterling work is done by many members of European Standing Committees, including the members of European Standing Committee C on which I sit, on issues relating to trade and the environment? Quite a bit of scrutiny goes on outside the European Scrutiny Committee.
Mr. Bryant: My hon. Friend makes a good point, but I still think that we need to go considerably further. So many issues are the subject of ferocious battles in I he European Parliament and the Commission, with Ministers representing British interests, but many of us have little idea of what is going on in those debates. We need to find better ways in this House, and in the House of Lords, to provide adequate scrutiny.
I said earlier that there were, perhaps, two broad views of Europe: the Atlanticist and the continentalist. However, the main battle has tended to be between
340WH
those who have been referred to as federasts and those thought of as adamantly supporting the sole and exclusive rights of member states. Sometimes, that second form turns into a belief in an atomised Europe, which cannot possibly be in the interests of the people of Europe. However, as an ardent supporter of a move towards greater integration with Europe, I hold that it is right to remove from the new treaty the concept of ever closer union, because such a concept is circular by its very nature. I would prefer something more akin to the Latin tag, semper reformanda. The European Union will always need to reform itself, but that does not necessarily mean that we have to achieve ever closer union.
Finally, my view is perfectly expressed by the following:
"where it can be clearly shown that we can achieve together what we cannot so effectively achieve separately we have no hesitation in stating that the EU and its institutions must have the competence and the effectiveness to act for and on behalf of the citizens of the Member States."
I quote from "The Future of the EU: a Positive Conservative Approach", a memorandum to which Lord Brittan, Lord Howe, Lord Heseltine and John Major, among others, put their names.
5 pm
Mr David Chidgey: I shall try to keep my remarks within the 10-minute time limit that we discussed, so that the Minister will have time to answer the questions that I want to put to him.
The debate has been robust and generally healthy. It comes at a seminal moment in the development of the European Union. We are all aware that the recent schisms among some nation states on Iraq could be seized on to support an isolationist stance. Others, who I believe are in the majority, take a more considered view that the Convention provides an opportunity to address the issues that divide the nation states, no more so than in recent weeks, and to strengthen, not weaken, the common aims and interests that unite us.
The reports that have been published have shown that the Convention is making steady progress on the difficult task of framing a constitution for the new Europe. I want to pay tribute to our fellow parliamentarians from all parties who have served on the Convention. It is a long and painstaking task to negotiate each amendment and article, to find common ground that recognises the diverse views and aspirations of nation states, and to secure a consensus that strengthens the fundamental principles of the EU while rigorously protecting the interests of the nation states.
The end product will be a document that each nation can claim as its own, which will clarify the roles of the member states in relation to the EU and the role of the EU in relation to the peoples of Europe. Clarity must lie at the heart of the Convention. There must be clarity in the legitimate competences of the EU and in those competences that are, and must remain, the prerogative of the nation state.
There is no doubt that clarity is in short supply in the EU. Its institutions and procedures are often opaque, and its legitimacy is questioned as a result. The EU must be made more transparent if it is to be made more democratic. That is why the work of the Convention is

341WH
so important in redefining the collective articles of the EU and the treaty obligations that have flowed from them. It must be clear to jurists, politicians and, most importantly, to the peoples of Europe what the EU is for, and what it is not for.
There are also practical reasons why the workings of the EU must be improved and simplified as a matter of urgency. Enlargement will be upon us in a matter of months. The functions and goals of an enlarged EU of 25 countries will be very different from those of an EU of 15 members. Reform is imperative. The candidate countries rightly have a role on the Convention. When the outcomes of the Convention are debated at the next IGC, whenever that may be, those countries should also have the right to participate fully in that IGC. Some candidate countries clearly fear that an early IGC will undermine their position. The Minister referred to that in his opening remarks about the timing of the IGC. When he makes his winding-up speech, will he assure us that the Government will be more specific about when they want the IGC to take place?
A constitution for Europe would be welcome in order to realise the aims of clarity and legality and to strengthen democratic accountability. I notice that the Government have now accepted the need for a constitution, and I welcome their conversion. However, it remains an irony that they support a constitution for the EU but oppose one for the UK. If it is believed that a constitution could improve the democratic accountability of the EU, surely it could do the same for Britain.
The constitution currently under discussion draws together many elements of the existing legal framework of the EU. The Convention proposes that the charter of fundamental rights should be incorporated in the constitution—a proposal that Liberal Democrats support. I understand that the Government have some reservations about that proposal, although they appear to have accepted the incorporation of the charter in principle. Perhaps the Minister could outline the Government's position on that for us today.
The Government also believe that the constitution should attribute to member states the right to confer powers on the Union, while most other members of the Convention accept that, once a constitution exists, it, not the member states, should be the ultimate repository of rights. The charter of fundamental rights surely echoes that view. How does the Government's acceptance of the charter, in principle, square with their position on the constitution as a whole?
The articles to the Convention so far published set down the basic principles of the Union's role, the limits to its powers and the powers of member states. However, the detail has been reserved, in large part, for part 2 of the constitution. The contributions that we have heard today have been illuminating, in some ways entertaining, and, some would say, depressing. Nevertheless, I believe that the House is much better informed as a result of the debate.
Not unexpectedly, given the present climate, articles on the sensitive issues of the common foreign and security policy and the European defence policy have been postponed. Similarly, the reform of the European
342WH
institutions has been left for a later date. Rather than postpone the discussion of foreign policy because of recent events, a strong case can be made that recent events make the issue of European co-operation more, not less, pressing. The divisions that have characterised the debate over Iraq within the EU, which have been misread my many and consequently mishandled, have highlighted the need for a mechanism that would assist in identifying unified positions in the European Union, when they can be established. Frankly, with four European countries currently on the Security Council, we could have done better in this current crisis in the United Nations.
There is a strong demand in Europe for the EU to play a larger role on the world stage. It already does in many areas, such as trade, the provision of humanitarian aid and the promotion of human rights. I agree with the majority on the Convention who would like the abolition of the post of Commissioner for external relations and the creation of a new agency for foreign and security policy, headed by a high commissioner who would chair the External Relations Council of member states. With oversight of aid policy and a more robust administration, he or she would be able to represent the EU on the world stage much more effectively.
The Government have tabled many amendments to the articles already published, but they have not outlined their vision for the future of Europe, in either a policy document or a White Paper. Those wider issues have not yet been discussed in the Convention, but they represent some of the fundamental issues with which it is concerned.
In my closing remarks, I shall outline some of the elements of the Liberal Democrat view on the future of European institutions, which we expect to be covered in the subsequent articles of the Convention. I invite the Minister, in his response, to share with us the Government's thinking on these key issues. The task of simplifying the European Union and making it more democratic and easier to understand would be served if the Commission had an elected head—a figurehead for Europe who had a direct relationship with the electorate of the Union. The MEPs should elect the President of the Commission, who would then choose his cabinet of Commissioners from a pool of nominations from the member states on the Council. How do the Government propose to reform the process of selecting Commissioners? The Minister mentioned the possibility of having a full-time elected chair. Will he clarify his views on the presidency? We believe that the presidency of the Council should remain with the member states; not with another elected individual. The legitimacy of an elected individual depends on the width of his electoral base. A President elected by the member states would not command any further legitimacy, but would further centralise that authority. A rotating presidency remains the best way of sharing authority and legitimacy within the Council.
The French and German proposal calls for an elected president for the Commission and the Council, creating a double-headed structure. The Government's initial reaction to that idea was scathing. What is their current position and what is their alternative? Our final proposal is that the Minister should gain a mandate from and report back to Parliament before and after

343WH
attending European Council meetings. Although that is a domestic matter, I should appreciate the Minister's views.
The hon. Members who serve on the Convention are steadfastly addressing a very difficult task. They have raised important points to which I hope the Minister will respond. Their success will bring clarity and certainty to the competencies of the European Union and to those of the member states, to the ultimate and overarching benefit of the peoples of Europe. We recognise and endorse the value of their work.
5.11 pm
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I apologise for the absence of the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring). I know that he has spoken to the Minister before the debate, and I appreciate that I shall provide a poor substitute for his natural eloquence and knowledge of the subject. I shall also make a mess of the statistics given by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant): he might be happy to know that I am half Scottish and half Cornish, was born in Wales and sit for an English seat. [Interruption.] Nobody could ever describe me as a little Englander.
I am grateful to the Minister for calling this second debate and for coming to the Chamber as the Government's representative on the Convention. Although the world's attention is, naturally, focused elsewhere today, the outcome of the Convention has not diminished in importance. Any constitutional treaty emerging from the Convention is meant to provide the EU's framework for the next 50 years.
I have been impressed by the quality of the speeches this afternoon, and many interesting points have been made. I hope that hon. Members will not mind if I do not single any of them out, because time is short. However, I want to pay tribute to the work done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) over the past year. His diligence and expert advice enlighten the debate at every stage. As my colleagues have often said, the Convention was set a vital task. The Laeken declaration rightly stated that the European Union must become closer to its citizens.
The European Union faces a crisis of democratic accountability and connection with its peoples. That was shown by the turnout for European elections, which fell below an average of 50 per cent. across Europe. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, the process is moving the EU further from its citizens. We want to solve this grave predicament for the EU. We want a European Union fit for the 21st century, with a membership of 25 or more, and able to deliver its core task—the job that its peoples want it to do and that it was set up to do—of helping to provide prosperity and stability in Europe. Sadly, I am not confident that the Convention is meeting that challenge.
My fears are shared by our representatives in the European Parliament and now, it seems, by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart). I am pleased that she has spoken today because she, too, has worked hard and with sincere intent in her role in the Convention. I was fascinated to read the interview with her in The Independent last week. She has started to understand what we have been saying for a long time,
344WH
which is that the Convention was always likely—not certain, but likely—to try to build a Europe better suited to some of its elites than to its people. I remember her telling my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) of the words of Eli Weisel:
"It is not because I cannot explain that you do not understand—it is because you do not understand that I cannot explain."
I hope that there is beginning to be a meeting of minds. Conservative Members have warned for a long time that a huge gap is developing between the people who make the decisions and the electorate. We have said that there is too little will to strengthen national Parliaments at the Convention. We have noted that a gap is opening up between reality and the grand aspirations of the integrationists at the Convention. We have repeatedly argued that there is no European demos—no feeling of common European nationhood. Above all, we have said again and again that Europe can no longer be built from the top down; it must work from the bottom up.
It is clearer than ever that the aspiration to introduce a common foreign and security policy does not correspond with the behaviour of European nations, or how they want to behave. It is no surprise—indeed, it is good sense—that the Convention has postponed discussion of the place of the CFSP in any new treaty until the situation has settled down. Moreover, recent events have shown that, despite the over-warm words of the Secretary of State for Wales, the Government's policy is a messy muddle on this issue above all others.
In his speech in Cardiff in December, the Prime Minister called for a unified European foreign policy, but the Government were confused even then. The Prime Minister outlined his plans in Cardiff, but he willed the end without willing the means. Now, we see that he does not care for the reality of policy either; indeed, he and President Chirac have made it unworkable. We can only speculate about how a real CFSP would stand now. Would it be for war or against war? Would it be stuck at the lowest common denominator, leaving us unable to do anything'? Today's European Council meeting will be interesting, but we can only imagine the chaos that would ensue if it actually had to determine a unified European foreign policy. It would he a farce—and a tragic one at that.
Despite the Minister's opening remarks, the Government's whole policy has been characterised by a drift towards integration, with no real vision of the kind of Europe that they want. There is one honourable exception, and we all agree on the desirability of enlargement. However, that stands out because there is little else. The Government have been so poor at producing ideas that they have had to borrow them from others. They learned from the Conservative party the importance of giving the principle of subsidiarity real teeth. They picked up the idea of a president of the European Council from the French. They drafted in a distinguished expert—Professor Dashwood—to write a European constitution, but they have been unable to make up their mind whether it represented their thinking. Other ideas have been so ill thought through that they have had to be dropped. A second chamber for the European Parliament, which garnered minimal support across Europe, is my favourite. The Lords report described it as
"an unreal solution to a real problem".

345WH
Time is limited, so I will concentrate on a few points. First, I agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston that national Parliaments are far too weak. The consensus in the Convention appears unable to recognise that, for all their faults, national Parliaments are the political bodies that the peoples of Europe understand best and to which they feel closest. National Parliaments must have real power over European legislation. It is pleasing that they may be able to warn of breaches of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, but will the Minister go further than he has done today and agree that that is grossly inadequate? They must be allowed to halt legislation that breaches those principles; after all, only they have a real interest in seeing them enforced. It is not unreasonable to expect institutions to enforce principles only when they have an interest in doing so. I hope that the Government will adopt our proposals on the issue as their policy.
I want briefly to mention the draft constitution's proposals on delegated legislation. Like others, I believe that they envisage too little oversight by democratic bodies. As matters stand, they represent too large an extension of Executive power. There is no legislative control, particularly by national Parliaments.
I welcome the Minister's e-mail early-warning initiative on draft legislation, but I remain unconvinced that we shall be offered the necessary protection, which would be afforded by strengthened powers of scrutiny.
I also look forward to hearing from the Minister about where the Government stands on the charter of fundamental rights. Their position seems to shift like the sands of the desert. Does the Minister agree that if the charter were incorporated into a treaty, it would be hard, no matter what the restrictions, to prevent a trickle-down effect?
I remember the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) saying that the charter would be no more use in court than a copy of the Beano. The Government said that they would not accept its incorporation into treaties, but now we are told that its incorporation is acceptable provided that there are horizontal restrictions. With such a history, is the Government's position really credible? I would be interested to hear in due course the legal basis for that, providing of course that, as last weekend, the advice from the Attorney-General or the Lord Chancellor is published.
It should come as no surprise that the draft constitution is so ambitious. That is the nature of constitutions; they are not like golf club rules, they redistribute the balance of power. Whatever the content, any constitution would represent one of the greatest changes in the balance of power that our country has ever experienced. I find it disappointing and incredible that the Government who set up referendums for a Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, London and, I believe, even Hartlepool refuse to allow the British people a say on a European constitution.
All true democrats, whatever their persuasion, cannot agree with the Government's incoherent stance on the matter. I believe that the Government will end up agreeing with us on this point, and the Minister might as well do so now while he can make the move gracefully.
346WH
The Minister said that he was relaxed about when the IGC starts and how long it lasts. I hope that he will find time in his winding-up speech to explore that timetable in more detail for us.
We believe that the British people want a decentralised Europe doing less, but doing it better. We know that co-operation is essential in many areas, but harmonisation is unnecessary. The Convention's document must not be a constitution for a federal European state. The Secretary of State has tabled many amendments of his own to the draft constitution, and in the past he has seemed surprised at its integrationist nature. I do not know why, but I welcome his words:
"A Brussels superstate is not on."
I hope that he will now embrace the suggestions of my party and, indeed, those of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston and devote all his energies to fighting for a Europe of nations, not a nation of Europe.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call the Minister, who will reply with the permission of the House.
5.22 pm
Peter Hain: I apologise in advance for not taking any interventions in order to respond to colleagues in the short time available. I welcome the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) to the position. In the contrast between her elegant response and that of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey), we saw the two opposite poles of European policy, neither of which works. There was a federalist blueprint from the Liberal Democrats, which would be rejected in Eastleigh just as much as it would in the rest of the United Kingdom, and, I am afraid, there was the same old dreary Euroscepticism from the Conservatives.
However, I am delighted to see my old friend the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) here. Does he have his leader's permission to be here? I do not want to shop him, but I thought that the new leader of the Conservative party, when he took over 18 months ago, said that mouths should be zipped up on Europe, especially the hon. Gentleman's, so I was delighted to see him in his usual good form.
The right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) is doing a very diligent job in the Convention. However, he is being completely ignored, not because he is not diligent or expert but because he is back in the old handbag-waving stance that the Conservatives took under both Margaret Thatcher and John Major, which leads to Britain's position being completely ignored. His apoplectic tone—
Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman is testing me too far.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has indicated that he is not going to give way.
Peter Hain: The constitution is a first draft. There are items in it that the right hon. Member for Wells does not like and that I do not like, and we are seeking to amend them. The Conservatives have an inferiority complex on this matter. They always expect to lose in Europe, whereas what we have shown since 1 May 1997 is that we consistently win the argument.

347WH
I was asked about legal personality. Under the present treaty structure, the European communities have a legal personality that was endorsed by previous Conservative Governments, but the European Union does not. There would be advantages to having a single legal personality for the European Union's international profile, such as ease of understanding by EU citizens. However, we would never accept that, unless it was clear that common foreign and security policy remained intergovernmental and that member states retained their rights to representation on international bodies.
I do not agree that the UK is being marginalised in the Convention—we are quite influential. On the difficulties over Iraq, intelligence sharing with the United States of America would not be blocked by a European common foreign and security policy. My hon. Friends the Members for Caerphilly (Mr. David) and for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) made the point that although we have a large and serious difference of opinion with France over Iraq, we are co-operating closely with the French on the Convention. We share a similar vision of the institutional architecture of the new Europe—that it should based on the nation state, rather than on Brussels. Together, we have drawn up a common defence and security policy, and co-operated to take that forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) is doing a great job on the Convention. She is highly regarded for her diligence, and seems to live in Brussels as a representative of this Parliament. I applaud her. I agree with her that the European Council needs to be more accountable and that Council of Ministers meetings need to more transparent so that Europe's citizens can see proceedings, which would ideally be televised, of their heads of Government and Ministers in sectoral councils taking decisions on their behalf. My hon. Friends the Members for Rhondda and for Eastleigh made the same point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke) made an eloquent speech that stressed his commitment to the European Union ideal. I agree that the concept behind the new European constitution is to create greater clarity and simplicity to allow citizens 10 understand how Europe works. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire) gave a well-informed speech about where the issue of Europe had reached. I agree that the accountability of Europe to the House is not adequate. I was intrigued by her suggestion of extending departmental questions 10 include a European slot. That is not official Government policy, and I am here to represent the Government.
348WH
However, I proposed that idea when I was a shadow Whip for European affairs in 1996. We need a radical consideration of how the House of Commons could better scrutinise decisions and ensure that the European Union is held accountable for them. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda also made important points on that subject.
I shall address the points raised my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies) on children's rights. I fully share his concerns. He referred to my amendment to article 3.4. The reason for the amendment is that children's rights per se should not be a specific objective of the European Union. Human rights include children's rights, and the charter includes a specific provision for children's rights. The problem is that lawyers believe that including children's rights in the UK would lead to the extension of EU competence into family law. We do not want to encourage that, and I am not sure that my hon. Friend would not want to either.
My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly brought his expertise and experience to the debate. He was right to say that when considering a proposal for an early-warning mechanism for national Parliaments—a new extension—we must not forget the point from which we started. Currently, there is no effective national Parliament re-involvement until the end of the process, so that is a radical change, and it was strongly resisted by the Commission and European parliamentarians. The fact that it has now been broadly endorsed is important.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth) asked several telling questions. I shall write to him about article 24, and send him a paper that I submitted on the difference between compulsory and non-compulsory budgets. As for shared competences and their extension, there may be a case for extending shared competence on tackling bioterrorism in the area of public health. That makes a lot of sense given the problems that we face. On extensions to qualified majority voting, justice and home affairs issues could be considered on a case-by-case basis in relation, for example, to the battle against terrorism.
Finally, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda: I should like there to be a five-year, full-time President and an end to the rotating presidency. He also made some good points about the European Commission President.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I regret that, despite the importance of the debate, time is up.
It being half-past Five o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  International Women's Day
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Minister for Women if she will make a statement on her Department's contribution to International Women's Day. [103903]

  Ms Hewitt
  As part of the celebrations for International Women's Day, the Women and Equality Unit launched an excellent pack for young people—"Does Sex Make a Difference", and I opened the International Women's Day adjournment debate in the House of Commons, and launched a special 50p coin to commemorate the hundredth anniversary of the formation of the Women's Social and Political Union.

  Student Debt
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Minister for Women what consultations the Minister has had with the Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education regarding the different level of difficulty men and women have in repaying student debts. [103904]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have discussed with both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills and my hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education the issue of student debt, and its impact on women in particular.

  Child Care
  Linda Gilroy
  To ask the Minister for Women what steps she is taking to support the development of child care as a business. [103906]

  Ms Hewitt
  Child care businesses, particularly micro-businesses and social enterprises, need support and skills training in order to be sustainable. We are working with DfES and DWP to improve links and support between Business Link Operators and child care business support officers to this end. A specific targeted programme of support, including provision of good practice, workshops, resource packs, a helpline and a website, is scheduled to start in May and run until March 2004.

  Private Members' Clubs
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Minister for Women what plans she has to propose legislation against sex discrimination against women in private members' clubs. [103907]

  Ms Hewitt
  I welcome the Sex Discrimination (Clubs and Other Associations) Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) on 4 February 2003. There is no question that the 864W
  inequalities which persist in some mixed-sex clubs are out of date and contrary to this Government's principles of opportunity for all.

  While I can make no commitment on parliamentary time, this is a matter which we will keep under review.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Small Businesses
  Ms Julia Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to ensure that small businesses are encouraged to bid for public sector contracts. [103890]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Small firms make a vital contribution to the public sector. A survey of selected departments and agencies shows 50 per cent. of our contracts go to SMEs with a value of £730 million.

  We have cut the requirement to provide three years accounts, to two years and I now want the requirement abolished to encourage start-ups and fledgling businesses.

  And this new booklet "Smaller supplier—better value" supports our new web portal for small firms seeking Government contracts.

  But there is much much more we can and must do.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and industry how many representations she has received expressing a desire for stricter legislation on the use of fireworks. [103892]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Since the beginning of November 2002 I have received 2,078 representations indicating a desire to see tighter controls on fireworks. These comprise 1,588 letters from the general public, 476 letters from MPs, eight Petitions, and six meetings with representatives from various organisations interested in improving fireworks legislation.

  Agency Workers Directive
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations she has received from businesses on the proposed temporary agency workers directive. [103893]

  Alan Johnson
  The Government held a public consultation on the proposed directive from 10 July 2002 to 18 November 2002. A summary of responses to the public consultation has been placed in the Library of the house, along with an Explanatory Memorandum and a Regulatory Impact Assessment.

  World Trade
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on current negotiations regarding TRIPS. [103894]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government are disappointed that the WTO did not reach agreement on TRIPS and Public Health by the deadline of December last year.
  865W
  The US was the only member of the WTO who could not accept the proposal on the table.

  We will continue to work with all WTO members to resolve this issue as soon as possible.

  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she is taking to achieve a world trade agreement in the interests of developing countries. [103898]

  Ms Hewitt
  We are committed to ensuring that the Doha Development Agenda delivers substantial benefits to all WTO members, especially developing countries.

  In particular this means making substantial progress on agricultural liberalisation, TRIPS and Public Health and Special and Differential Treatment.

  Halving protectionism, according to EU figures, would increase developing countries income by an estimated $150 billion per year—more than three times the world's current aid budgets.

  Post Office
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the implementation of the Post Office Urban Re-Invention Programme. [103895]

  Mr. Timms
  Following parliamentary approval in October, the programme is going ahead in accordance with the code of practice agreed with Postwatch. I met with Postwatch yesterday to assess their role in reviewing each urban sub-post office closure proposal.

  Community Pharmacies
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations she has received relating to the Office of Fair Trading recommendations regarding community pharmacies. [103896]

  Ms Hewitt
  Stakeholders have been feeding in their views on the OFT's report, both through the appropriate health departments and to DTI directly.

  Iraq
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to ensure that British industry plays a substantial role in reconstruction following a possible conflict in Iraq. [103897]

  Ms Hewitt
  We wish to see UK companies play a substantial role in the humanitarian and reconstruction process in Iraq. British firms have a wealth of experience in the Middle East. We have made this clear to USAID and will continue to discuss with British business how they can best contribute to the development of Iraq for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

  Child Care
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to increase child care provision by employers. [103899]
  866W
  Alan Johnson
  We recognise that employers play an important role in providing access to good quality, affordable child care. The Paymaster General launched a consultation in February on proposals to extend the tax and national insurance exemptions on employer supported child care. The tax and national insurance proposals aim to provide a better incentive for more employers to support a wider range of formal child care for all working parents, helping the growth and sustainability of child care provision.

  In addition we will be looking at the results of the Work-Life Balance survey of employers to see what other support is needed to provide more child care provision by employers.

  Ambition Construction Programme
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to his answer of 3 March 2003,Official Report, column 808W, on house building, how many new deal clients have been (a) funded and (b) trained by the Ambition Construction programme in skilled jobs directly relevant to the house building profession in (i) 2001, (ii) 2002 and (iii) 2003 to the latest date for which figures are available. [102659]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  I have been asked to reply.

  In 2001, we launched the Ambition initiative to help unemployed and disadvantaged people gain the right skills to meet the needs of employers in key sectors such as construction.

  Ambition: Construction has been operational since June 2002 with pilots currently running in six locations. Training is provided across the full range of building skills, including bricklaying, roofing, plastering, joinery, glazing and painting and decorating. The aim of this training is to provide participants with the skills they need for a wide variety of jobs in the construction industry, including house building.

  By the end of February 2003, 420 people had started training on the programme. Most of the training courses on this programme last 26 weeks and so only 64 people have so far completed training. However, 54 of these have already started work.

  Correspondence
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for West Worcestershire of 15 July 2002 on behalf of Mr. Roger Turner. [103974]

  Ms Hewitt
  I apologise for the delay but I am informed that my noble Friend the Minister for Trade, will be replying very shortly.

  Departmental Phone Directory
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the most recent internal phone directory for the Department was published; how often it is updated; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [101786]

  Ms Hewitt
  The internal phone directory for my Department is published electronically in the form of an online database known as people@dti. Keeping their
  867W
  contact details up to date is the responsibility of individual members of staff who make changes through the Department's Human Resources system. Such changes update the directory overnight.

  My Department is in the process of developing an offline version of the directory for those in government who do not have access to the online version. When this is available, and staff have been informed in accordance with the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998,1 will place a copy in the Library of the House.

  Details of our senior staff are, however, available in publications such as the Civil Service Yearbook, Vacher's Parliamentary Companion, Vacher Dod's Civil Service Companion and the PMS Parliamentary Companion.

  Hydroelectricity
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to facilitate imports from Norway of renewable electricity generated by hydro-power. [99199]

  EU-15 Trade in goods with Iraq: 1997 to January-June 2002

  Value US$000

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  January to June 2002

  Total EU-15 Exports

  220,199

  542,165

  651,532

  1,038,550

  1,729,640

  849,855

  France

  24,546

  85,300

  77,837

  129,042

  591,869

  212,556

  Italy

  5,027

  37,580

  72,453

  242,276

  327,336

  148,373

  Germany

  126,571

  244,468

  300,460

  361,895

  301,408

  203,872

  Spain

  5,374

  14,055

  29,085

  57,282

  92,983

  37,832

  Belgium

  —

  —

  37,339

  52,279

  88,366

  46,750

  UK

  10,492

  42,099

  56,899

  77,174

  87,825

  27,846

  Austria

  1,490

  9,671

  12,341

  28,740

  76,845

  58,677

  Sweden

  1,517

  9,253

  4,222

  20,309

  69,676

  43,993

  Denmark

  7,131

  15,195

  8,402

  20,165

  39,298

  17,947

  Netherlands

  12,559

  24,977

  42,752

  32,522

  37,693

  24,026

  Finland

  269

  1,377

  6,884

  7,744

  8,981

  3,359

  Greece

  188

  2,040

  870

  4,093

  5,868

  16,314

  Portugal

  113

  61

  1,043

  50

  926

  —

  Ireland

  46

  204

  949

  4,915

  303

  1,070

  Luxembourg

  —

  —

  —

  62

  261

  7,243

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  January to June 2002

  Total EU-15 Imports

  1,571,605

  2,091,528

  3,922,926

  5,808,776

  3,183,755

  678,503

  France

  6,260

  78,332

  88,430

  42,531

  888,243

  224,752

  Netherlands

  173,635

  —

  1,114,705

  686,149

  796,171

  241,363

  Italy

  202,673

  401,046

  804,817

  1,682,160

  605,934

  60,636

  Spain

  439,391

  507,381

  623,586

  1,198,505

  438,252

  78,702

  Greece

  18,208

  76,153

  78,550

  308,297

  230,156

  16,431

  Austria

  132,451

  134,965

  210,671

  284,021

  170,532

  51,619

  Portugal

  71,516

  118,698

  196,336

  161,685

  52,788

  —

  UK

  48

  35,969

  671

  94

  1,252

  55

  Germany

  527,418

  738,830

  805,158

  1,325,241

  377

  4,948

  Denmark

  —

  2

  —

  3

  26

  —

  Sweden

  —

  —

  —

  119,931

  21

  1

  Luxembourg

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Belgium

  —

  —

  —

  159

  —

  —

  Finland

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Ireland

  7

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Source:

  Eurostat Extra and Intra EU Trade

  DTI/SU-SA
  868W
  Mr. Wilson
  I understand that National Grid Transco are considering, with Statnett, the Norwegian grid operator, the construction of an interconnector between the UK and Norway that will enable the import of electricity from Norway—and exports to Norway. While this is a commercial project, and not directly a matter for my Department, I nonetheless welcome it as increased interconnection provides greater flexibility and security.

  I am aware that a high proportion of Norwegian electricity is generated by hydro-power, although from time to time, and especially in periods of low rainfall. Norway is a net importer of electricity, which may be from fossil sources.

  Iraq
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the value was of(a) imports and (b) exports between each EU member state and Iraq in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [102665]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information is as follows:

  Nationalised Businesses
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many nationalised businesses are run by her Department. [103555]

  Ms Hewitt
  DTI has lead policy responsibility within Government for the following Nationalised Industries:

  British Nuclear Fuels PLC

  British Coal Corporation

  British Shipbuilders

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Church Repairs (VAT)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners pursuant to his oral statement of 3 February, Official Report, column 20, on church repairs and VAT, when he expects the review of the sixth VAT Directive to be completed. [104248]

  Mr. Bell
  I refer the hon. Member to my written answer of 12 March 2003.

  Work is ongoing between Commission officials and Member States to finalise the details of the revision to the Sixth Directive. The aim is to get sufficient agreement in the Council for the 'Recast' Directive to be formally adopted before the next enlargement of the EU, scheduled for May/June 2004.

  The recasting of the Sixth Directive is a separate exercise to other elements of the Sixth Directive being revised, such as the reduced rates review, scheduled to take place later this year, or the Labour Intensive Services Experiment.

CABINET OFFICE

  Civil Service (Travel Expenses)
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what grades in the Civil Service are allowed to travel by air(a) first class and (b) business class at public expense when on official duties. [102887]

  Mr. Alexander
  Government departments and agencies have delegated authority to decide the rules governing travel by air for their own staff in connection with their employment, subject to the conditions set out in Chapter 8 of the Civil Service Management Code. Paragraph 8.2.1 requires departments and agencies to ensure that staff use the most efficient and economic means of travel in the circumstances, taking into account any management benefit or the needs of staff with disabilities.

  Advertising and Publicity
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what his estimate is of total Government spending on advertising and publicity for each of the last five years;870W
  what value for money assessments of such spending have been carried out; if he will publish these; and if he will make a statement. [103700]

  Mr. Alexander
  The UK Government have spent the following on advertising in the last five years.

  Year

  Cash expenditure (£000)

  Prices in real terms (£000)*

  1997–98

  60,000

  65,800

  1998–99

  106,000

  110,600

  1999–2000

  113,500

  114,100

  2000–01

  192,400

  186,600

  2001–02

  162,600

  162,600

  * In real terms at 2001–02 prices based on advertising media inflation rates.

  Source:

  COI

  Advertising is used by Departments when they judge it is the most cost effective way of delivering the publicity necessary to support a policy or proposal. These figures represent the advertising commissioned on behalf of Departments and Agencies by the Central Office of Information. The figures for the total publicity spend of Government Departments is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The responsibility for ensuring that the guidance, on propriety is observed and that value for money is being achieved rests with Ministers and Heads of Departments. The central guidance on these issues is "Guidance on the work of the Government Information Service" which can be found on the GICS website (www.GICS.gov.uk) and on the Cabinet Office website www.cabinet-office.gov. uk

  Precedents Book
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will place in the Library a copy of his Department's Precedents Book. [103990]

  Mr. Alexander
  The information requested relates to internal discussion and advice and is therefore exempt from disclosure under Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Scotland
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many special advisers in the Department(a) have left and (b) will be leaving to work in Scotland for the Labour Party in the forthcoming Scottish parliamentary elections. [103623]

  Mr. Alexander
  The rules relating to special advisers' political activities are set out in the Model Contract for Special Advisers. Further guidance in respect of elections for the Scottish Parliament is set out at paragraph 13 of the Guidance on Conduct for Civil Servants in UK Departments, published by the Cabinet Office on 10 March.

  The reasons for a special adviser's resignation are a private matter between the Department and adviser, and are therefore exempt from disclosure under paragraph 12 of the Code of Practice on Access to Information.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  "Waste Not, Want Not"
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make an interim statement on progress towards the development of(a) public expenditure programmes and (b) institutional arrangements needed to implement the recommendations of the Strategy Unit report, "Waste Not, Want Not". [103697]

  Mr. Meacher
  Following last November's pre-Budget report, a Ministerial Group was established to consider a number of issues, including the proposed new public expenditure programme. The group has met on three occasions, and its decisions will form a key part of the Government's response to the Strategy Unit report. Defra has begun implementing a new institutional structure to drive delivery of the new programme, and is in the process of appointing a programme director.

  Animal Diseases (EU Aid)
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs why the claim for a share of the 2003 EU financial package to tackle BSE and other animal diseases was submitted late by her Department; and if she will make a statement. [103579]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 18 March 2003]The TSE programme was not submitted as a result of an oversight and a subsequent misunderstanding with the commission. The programme was submitted on 22 October when we asked the Commission to reconsider making an EU contribution. The Commission have now confirmed that it is not legally possible for a payment to be made.

  Avian Influenza
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to protect the British poultry industry from avian influenza. [102372]

  Mr. Morley
  In order to protect the British poultry industry from avian influenza (AI) the Department has taken the following steps.

  On 21 February 2003 and 3 March 2003 Defra and the Devolved Administrations issued Declarations under Regulation 27 of the Animals and Animal Products (Import and Export) (England and Wales) Regulations 2000 (and equivalent legislation in the devolved territories) introducing a ban on the import of live poultry and hatching eggs into the UK from Hong Kong and the Netherlands respectively following outbreaks of avian influenza in these countries. These Declarations make it a criminal offence to import live poultry and hatching eggs into the UK from both Hong Kong and the Netherlands. Following a suspicion of AI in Belgium, a further Declaration was issued on 12 March 2003 prohibiting the import of live poultry and hatching eggs from Belgium.

  In addition to the above, on 14 March 2003 Defra also banned the import of racing/show pigeons into England from the Netherlands and Belgium under domestic
  872W
  legislation due to the disease risk they presented. Similar Declarations are being introduced in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  In normal circumstances, all birds (poultry or captive birds) entering the UK must be accompanied by an EU model health certificate stating that premises and area of origin are free from AI. In addition, captive bird imports into the UK from Third Countries are subject to a 30 days quarantine during which birds must be laboratory tested for avian influenza.

  Defra has reminded egg and poultry producers in the UK about the need for stringent biosecurity measures at all times. To minimise the introduction of AI into their flocks by means of faecal contamination, poultry producers should ensure that their boots, clothing, equipment and vehicles are disinfected. Access by wild birds should be minimised, for instance by clearing up feed spillages. Officials have asked poultry producers in the UK to be vigilant for any signs of respiratory disease in birds and contact their local veterinary office immediately if they have any concerns.

  The Department is monitoring the AI situation in the Netherlands and Belgium, and should there be any significant change the risk assessment for the UK will be reviewed.

  Environment Council
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether she supported French proposals at the Environment Council on 4 March to create a programme to monitor by satellite hydrocarbon discharges at sea; and if she will make a statement. [103825]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 19 March 2003]The French made a statement proposing enhanced European co-operation in satellite monitoring of hydrocarbon discharges at sea under "Other Business". There was no substantive debate of the issue and the United Kingdom did not intervene.

  The UK has used satellite surveillance on a trial basis, with the Coastguard Maritime Rescue and Coordination Centre acting as the focal point. The experience was positive, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is keen to develop the facility further. The UK already shares satellite information with other Contracting Parties to the Bonn Agreement, and we are working with those Parties and with the EC Management Committee on Marine Pollution with a view to establishing an international monitoring programme.

  Fly-tipping
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) individuals and (b) businesses have been successfully prosecuted for incidences of fly-tipping in each year since 1992; and what fines have been levied as a result. [99270]

  Mr. Meacher
  Both local authorities and the Environment Agency have the powers to prosecute for fly-tipping offences. There is no central register of this
  873W
  information for local authorities. The Environment Agency has collected the requested data since January 2002.

  Prosecution data for the 1999, 2000 and 2001 calendar years are available, but relate to the number of offenders prosecuted for the offence of unlawfully depositing waste as described by section 33(1)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Similarly, prosecution data for the 1996–97, 1997–98 and 1998–99 financial years are available, but only relate to section 33 offences generally. The Agency is unable to provide prosecution data for 1992–93, 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96.

  Data are provided on this basis.

  Offences for breach of all of section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  1996–97—41

  1997–98—345

  1998–99—367

  All offences under s33(1)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  1999—141

  117 individuals—total fines: 63,470

  24 businesses—total fines: 115,071

  2000—206

  170 individuals—total fines: 156,255;

  36 businesses—total fines: 425,800

  2001—225

  187 individuals—total fines: 158,857;

  38 businesses—total fines: 144,050

  Offences under s33(1)(a)—fly-tipping only

  2002—70

  59 individuals—total fines: 51,100;

  11 businesses—total fines: 26,200

  2003 to date—7

  4 individuals—total fines: 950;

  3 businesses—total fines: 9,200

  The Government are currently discussing with the Environment Agency the potential for setting up a national recording system for fly tipping, which would record this type of data from both the Agency and local authorities in England.

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total cost was to public funds of the operations of the Forestry Commission in(a) Scotland and (b) the UK in the last year for which figures are available. [103039]

  Mr. Morley
  Forestry is a devolved matter, and the cost of Forestry Commission operations in Scotland is the responsibility of the Scottish Executive.

  However, in the year 2001–02 the commission's net operating cost for GB was £82.7 million.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to review the internal audit procedures of the Forestry Commission. [103040]
  874W
  Mr. Morley
  There are no plans to review the Forestry Commission's internal audit procedures. These are carried out in accordance with the standards and guidance issued by HM Treasury.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the administrative costs were of the Forestry Commission for each Government Office for the Regions in(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01, (c) 2001–02 and (d) 2002–03. [103291]

  Mr. Morley
  The Forestry Commission is a cross border public authority funded separately in England, Scotland and Wales by Treasury, the Scottish Executive and the Welsh Assembly Government respectively. It does not incur administrative costs for the Government Offices for the Regions.

  Glass
  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many tonnes of(a) green, (b) white and (c) brown glass have been (i) landfilled, (ii) dumped at sea and (iii) recycled, in each year since 1997. [103336]

  Mr. Meacher
  The latest available information for UK glass recycling, obtained from the British Glass Federation are listed.

  (Thousand tonnes)

  Clear

  Green

  Brown

  Mixed

  2002

  196.4

  242.5

  55.4

  Unknown

  2001

  197.1

  270.6

  65.1

  4.8

  2000

  217.8

  279.5

  65.4

  3.9

  1999

  171.7

  262.8

  61.6

  2.5

  1998

  148.7

  267.5

  60.1

  1.4

  1997

  147.1

  219.6

  65.5

  Unknown

  Figures are based on glass that has been recycled back into container manufacture within the UK.

  Since 2000 the UK as a whole has recycled approximately 20 per cent more glass into alternative uses, but colour split is unavailable and not included in above table.

  Data for tonnages of glass landfilled or dumped at sea are not available.

  GM Foodstuffs
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on how the Food Standards Agency's 2002 consumer attitudes to food survey has affected her Department's policy on GM foodstuffs. [102862]

  Mr. Morley
  My Department noted the Food Standards Agency's 2002 consumer attitudes to food survey. Surveys such as this informed our decision to hold an open and inclusive GM public debate on all the issues surrounding genetic modification.

  Our overriding objective on the issue of genetic modification is to safeguard human health and the environment and each application to release a GMO will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. However, Defra is not responsible for evaluating GM foods, this

  875W
  is a matter for the FSA. Issues raised, in the survey, e.g. food safety and hygiene and labelling are therefore matters for the FSA to address.

  Illegal Imports
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how often the Stakeholder Forum on illegal imports has met since 31 March 2002. [103775]

  Margaret Beckett
  The Stakeholder Forum on illegal imports met on 31 March 2002. It was not established as a continuing body. However, the Government will

  Status

  Number

  Total revenue costs

  Total capita costs

  Total project costs

  Total shortfall requested

  New

  7

  1,228,999

  6,198

  1,088,551

  807,559

  Awaiting further information

  14

  1,984,174

  614,500

  4,453,019

  1,996,059

  Awaiting panel

  9

  2,330,178

  3,550

  1,205,681

  1,473,433

  No applications have yet been approved.

  Livestock Movements
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her policy is on establishing a 90-mile limit between market and abattoir. [103061]

  Mr. Morley
  In a written statement on 23 January 2003,Official Report, column 2OWS, announcing the Government's decision to reduce the 20 day standstill to six days, I 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.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the provision at markets of overnight lairages. [103062]

  Mr. Morley
  In a written statement on 23 January announcing the Government's decision to reduce the 20 day standstill to six days, I stated that Defra would consult on a number of proposals aimed at improving biosecurity and disease detection, for possible introduction from 1 August,Official Report, columns 20–24WS.

  The consultation exercise is now under way. One of the proposals is for a ban on animals being kept overnight at markets. We will consider carefully all the responses to the consultation paper, including any suggestions for alternative measures which might achieve the same objectives, before we reach a view on the merits of the proposals.
  876W
  reconvene a similar body of stakeholders shortly to review progress on illegal imports.

  Landfill Tax
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the statement of the hon. Member for Wentworth of 3 February,Official Report, column 5WS, on the landfill tax credit scheme, what projects have received approval for transitional funding; and, in each case, how much funding has been approved. [103631]

  Mr. Meacher
  The position regarding applications to the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme Sustainable Waste Management Legacy Fund as at Friday 14 March was as follows:

  Public Expenditure
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will announce the public expenditure programmes and institutional arrangements needed to implement the recommendations of the Strategy Unit report, "Waste Not, Want Not". [103698]

  Mr. Meacher
  Announcements will be made alongside the Government's response to the Strategy Unit report, which we plan to publish around the time of the Budget.

  Waste Recycling
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what further measures are planned to help increase the amount of household waste which is recycled. [102355]

  Mr. Meacher
  Last year the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit examined the extent of the waste problem, pressures for change and recommended a range of measures to improve performance on sustainable waste management in its report "Waste Not Want Not". We will be publishing our response to the report shortly.

  Since publication of Waste Strategy 2000, which set national targets for the recycling or composting of at least 25 per cent. of household waste by 2005 and 30 per cent. by 2010, we have set statutory recycling and composing targets for all local authorities to achieve these goals. We have also introduced the Waste Minimisation and Recycling Fund to support local authority investment in appropriate infrastructure. We have also set up the Waste Resources Action Plan (WRAP) to help create stable and efficient markets for recycled materials and to remove market barriers to waste minimisation, reuse and recycling. And the Waste Emissions and Trading Bill will, by setting reducing ceilings on the amount of biodegradable municipal waste going to landfill, provide an indirect incentive to increase recycling.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Cyprus
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the communique issued by the UN Secretary-General on 11 March concerning the future of its plan to resolve the Cyprus issue. [103260]

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the reunification of Cyprus. [103100]

  Mr. MacShane
  The British Government fully supports the decision of the UN Secretary-General, announced in his press statement of 11 March, to bring to a close the intensive phase of negotiations to secure a comprehensive settlement in Cyprus.

  We share Mr. Annan's sense of sadness that this opportunity to secure accession to the EU by a reunited island has been missed. Throughout the talks, the UN Secretary-General, his special adviser, Alvaro de Soto, and his team have negotiated skilfully and professionally. But Mr Denktash's refusal to put the UN proposals to a referendum in the north of Cyprus, and his rejection of the idea of implementing a work programme for the next two weeks, aimed at preparing for a referendum before Cyprus signs the Treaty of Accession with the European Union on 16 April, left Mr. Annan with no alternative to the decision he took.

  I have placed a copy of Mr Annan's statement in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what discussions he plans to have with President Papadopoulos of the Republic of Cyprus on restarting discussions towards future negotiations on Cyprus; [103273]

  (2) what discussions he plans to have with the Government of Turkey on its future role in discussions regarding Cyprus. [103274]

  Mr. MacShane
  The UN Secretary-General has said that he remains at the disposal of the parties in Cyprus, should they ask for UN support in re-starting the settlement negotiations on the basis of his proposals of 26 February. We fully support the UN Secretary-General in this approach, and we will be making this clear to all concerned.

  Value: US$ 000s

  January to June

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Total EU-15 Exports

  220,199

  542,165

  651,532

  1,038,550

  1,729,640

  849,855

  France

  24,546

  85,300

  77,837

  129,042

  591,869

  212,556

  Italy

  5,027

  37,580

  72,453

  242,276

  327,336

  148,373

  Germany

  126,571

  244,468

  300,460

  361,895

  301,408

  203,872

  Spain

  5,374

  14,055

  29,085

  57,282

  92,983

  37,832

  Belgium

  —

  —

  37,339

  52,279

  88,366

  46,750

  UK

  10,492

  42,099

  56,899

  77,174

  87,825

  27,846

  Diplomatic Relations (France, Germany and Russia)
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with(a) France, (b) Germany and (c) Russia. [104010]

  Mr. MacShane
  The United Kingdom's bilateral relations with France, Germany and Russia remain close. We work with France and Germany effectively on important issues such as European defence and the Convention on the future of Europe, and with Russia on the fight against terrorism. There are areas of policy on which we do not agree on tactics e.g. Iraq. But although our approaches on Iraq may differ, there is no difference between us on the fundamental point of the absolute need to disarm Saddam.

  Edgar Fernandes
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last discussed the case of Mr. Edgar Fernandes with the Turkish authorities; and if he will meet the hon. Member for Leicester, East to discuss the case of Mr. Edgar Fernandes. [103218]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have been monitoring the investigation into Mr. Fernandes' murder since 1998. Our consular staff in Turkey have regularly attended court hearings relating to the case. We have also raised the case with the Deputy Director General of the Turkish Ministry of Justice, the prosecutor and the family's lawyer. The lawyer and the prosecutor have assured us that rumours that the case may be closed are unfounded. Our consular staff will attend the next court hearing on 10 April and will continue to keep the family fully informed of developments. I do not consider that a meeting with my hon. Friend would be productive at this stage, but we will review this point once the outcome of the case is known.

  Iraq
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the verification of UN sanctions placed on Iraq in each of the last five years, including a list of imports and their sources. [102664]

  Mr. Rommell
  Exports to Iraq are monitored by the UN Office of the Iraq Programme. They provide a breakdown of Iraqi imports by sector. The document is available on the Internet atthe following address http:// www.un.org/Depts/oip/background/basicfigures2.html.

  The following is a breakdown of Iraqi imports from EU countries over the last six years:
  879W

  Value: US$000s

  January to June

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Austria

  1,490

  9,671

  12,341

  28,740

  76,845

  58,677

  Sweden

  1,517

  9,253

  4,222

  20,309

  69,676

  43,993

  Denmark

  7,131

  15,195

  8,402

  20,165

  39,298

  17,947

  Netherlands

  12,559

  24,977

  42,752

  32,522

  37,693

  24,026

  Finland

  269

  1,377

  6,884

  7,744

  8,981

  3,359

  Greece

  188

  2,040

  870

  4,093

  5,868

  16,314

  Portugal

  113

  61

  1,043

  50

  926

  -

  Ireland

  46

  204

  949

  4,915

  303

  1,070

  Luxembourg

  —

  —

  —

  62

  261

  7,243

  Fully comprehensive information concerning the source and type of goods imported by Iraq is not readily available, and would incur disproportionate cost to discover.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements he has made to compensate surviving family members of civilians killed by the United Kingdom and United States military campaign against Iraq. [104011]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK is committed to acting in accordance with international law. If military action is undertaken lawfully, no right to compensation arises. We have always been, and will remain, in the forefront of efforts to help the Iraqi people. Unlike Saddam Hussein, we have always tried to minimise the adverse effects of our actions on Iraqi civilians.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Albanians have been(a) arrested, (b) charged and (c) convicted in Kosovo of being involved in the destruction of Orthodox churches since June 1999. [103461]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer of 18 March].There have been no Albanians arrested, charged, or convicted, in Kosovo for being involved in the destruction of Orthodox churches.

  I told Kosovo Albanian leaders during my visits to the province that the destruction of churches and all religious sites were acts of barbarism which bring shame and dishonour to all concerned. NATO-led KFOR continues to patrol and guard churches.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance is available for Serbs who were forced to leave Kosovo to return to the province in respect of(a) accommodation and (b) security. [103462]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 18 March 2003]The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) co-ordinates sustainable returns of all Internally Displaced Persons and refugees to Kosovo, including Serbs. The UNHCR, as well as cross-border Non-Governmental Organisations and local authorities, provide information on all aspects of the return process, including on accommodation and security, as well as public services, economic opportunities, and acceptance by the existing 880W
  communities. It is ultimately a decision for each individual as to whet her to return to Kosovo, based on the information provided by these agencies.

  We recognise the problems facing Kosovo Serbs. Though returns have clearly not been sufficient, United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), under the leadership of Michael Steiner, has established an Office for Returns and Communities, and a Strategy for Sustainable Returns for 2003. UNMIK and the NATO-led KFOR provide security within the Province.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list internal flights made by Ministers in his Department in 2002, including in each case the(a) cost, (b) departure location and (c) destination; and of these how many were (i) first class, (ii) business class and (iii) economy class. [103583]

  Mr. Straw
  The following is a list of internal flights made by Ministers in that capacity in my Department in 2002.

  1. I flew to Manchester from London Heathrow on 27 July 2002. The cost of the Business Class ticket was £158.50.

  2. I flew to Edinburgh on an RAF HS125 on 27 August 2002, then on to Belfast, before returning to London. I was accompanied on the aircraft by a Private Secretary; a Special Adviser, three officials and a Special Branch Protection Officer. The cost of the aircraft was £2,028.84.

  3. I flew from London to Birmingham on an RAF helicopter on 6 September 2002. The cost was £1,838.09 and I was accompanied by my Private Secretary and a Special Branch Protection Officer. For further details, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Chelmsford, West (Mr. Burns) on 5 February 2003, column 306W.

  4. My noble Friend Baroness Symons flew to Teesside from London Heathrow on 29 November 2002. The cost of the Business Class ticket was £403.50.

  5. The then Minister for Europe, my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Peter Hain) flew to Belfast from London Heathrow on 26 February 2002. The cost of the Economy Class ticket was £166.40.

  6. The Minister for Europe, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) flew to Glasgow from London Heathrow on 7 July 2002. The cost of the Business Class ticket was £261.40.

  881W

  7. The Minister for Europe, my ho n. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) flew to Glasgow from London Heathrow on 17 October 2002. The cost of the Business Class ticket was £289.40.

  Libya
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Libyan authorities regarding the murder of PC Yvonne Fletcher in 1984; and what progress has been made in finding the killer. [103351]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The ongoing investigation into the murder of WPC Yvonne Fletcher is an operational matter for the Metropolitan Police. Officers from the Metropolitan Police made two visits to Libya in 2002 to discuss the investigation with the relevant Libyan judicial authorities. I also raised the issue with the Libyan Foreign Minister when I visited Libya in August 2002. The Metropolitan Police will continue to pursue this investigation.

  Scotland
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many special advisers in the Department(a) have left and (b) will be leaving to work in Scotland for the Labour Party in the forthcoming Scottish parliamentary elections. [103609]

  Mr. Straw
  No special advisers have left and none will be working in Scotland for the Labour Party in the forthcoming Scottish parliamentary elections.

  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans Ministers in the Department have to(a) visit Scotland on official business, (b) announce public appointments and (c) make Ministerial announcements in April. [103658]

  Mr. Straw
  Departmental business during the campaign period preceding elections to the Scottish Parliament will be conducted in accordance with the Guidance on Conduct for Civil Servants in UK Departments in respect of elections to the Scottish Parliament and National Assembly for Wales, published by the Cabinet Office on 10 March.

  China
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department has had with the Chinese Government regarding the pending death sentence on Tenzin Deleg Rinpoche. [103863]

  Mr. Rammell
  We have raised the case of Tenzin Deleg Rinpoche (together with that of Lobsang Dhondup) three times with the Chinese authorities. We also supported strongly worded EU demarches to the Chinese and an EU declaration on the case. The Chinese authorities have confirmed that his original sentence, the death sentence, suspended for two years, has been upheld.

  We shall continue to raise our concerns with the Chinese about this case and the treatment of Tibetans more generally.
  882W

  Turkey
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with other European Union member states on human rights issues in Turkey; and if he will make a statement. [103795]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary last discussed human rights issues in Turkey with EU colleagues at the European Council in Copenhagen in December 2002. At official level, our dialogue with EU partners is constant, in Ankara, Brussels and elsewhere.

  UN Compensation Commission
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who the UK representatives are on the UN Compensation Commission; how much compensation has so far been disbursed, broken down by country of origin of the case; and how much has been committed to be disbursed(a) in total and (b) by country of origin of the case. [103840]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK, as a Security Council member, sits on the Governing Council of the United Nations Compensation Commission and is represented by HMG officials in Geneva and London. Claims for compensation from the UNCC are dealt with by the FCO Consular Claims Section and through our diplomatic mission in Geneva.

  The commission has received about 2.6 million claims seeking compensation in excess of US$300 billion. The majority of these claims have been resolved. Nearly 100 Governments have submitted claims, as well as various UN organisations. Details of which countries have submitted claims can be found on the UNCC website: www.unog.ch/uncc.

DEFENCE

  Advertising Expenditure
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [102327]

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department has spent in each of the last 24 months on(a) television, (b) radio and (c) newspaper advertising for each of the armed forces. [103525]

  Dr. Moonie
  This information is not held centrally in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  However, since 1999–2000 Ministry of Defence's advertising and publicity costs have 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
  883W
  National Employers' Liaison Committee. Copies of these documents have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Age Diversity
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department completed its diagnostic review for compliance with the Government's Code of Practice for Age Diversity in Employment; and what changes his Department plans to make following the review. [99420]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence reviewed its employment policies in accordance with the Government's Code of Practice for Age Diversity in Employment and took steps to integrate age into its equal opportunities policies through implementation of the Performance and Innovation Unit's report "Winning the Generation Game". This made specific recommendations for the civil service to ensure that policies are age-proofed in preparation for the legislation to be introduced in 2006. The review was concluded in May 2002. It included consideration of raising the retirement age to allow those staff who currently have a retirement age of 60 the option to stay on to the age of 65. The conclusion was that there should be no change to the retirement policy at this stage, but that it should be kept under review in light of the emerging legislation. The Ministry of Defence is committed to ensuring that its employment policies do not discriminate unfairly on grounds of age or for any other reason.

  Armed Forces' Pay
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has held with representatives of Her Majesty's forces on the formation of a federation to represent the armed forces in negotiations over pay and working conditions; and if he will make a statement. [103868]

  Dr. Moonie
  None. The independent Armed Forces Pay Review Body (AFPRB) makes recommendations to the Government on pay, after gathering evidence from a wide variety of sources, including Service personnel of all ranks. The AFPRB system commands widespread respect throughout the Services.

  Members of the Armed Forces may also express their views about working and living conditions through Continuous Attitude Surveys, Service personnel liaison teams and their own chains of Command, who have a duty to look after the welfare and well-being of personnel under their authority.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the high and low pay banding system will apply to all members of HM forces; and if he will make a statement. [103870]

  Dr. Moonie
  The majority of Armed Forces personnel have now transferred to Pay 2000, which was implemented on 1 April 2001 and introduced an incremental, two-tier system of higher and lower pay bands for regular serving other ranks. A full review of Pay 2000 will take place to inform the 2004 pay round 884W
  but there are currently no plans to introduce higher and lower pay bands for officers, although they will continue to be subject to an incremental pay system.

  Armed Services (Free Travel)
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what ranks in the armed services are allowed to travel by air(a) first class and (b) business class at public expense when on official duties. [102886]

  Dr. Moonie
  Air transport is the normal method of movement for Service Personnel and their families travelling to and from the United Kingdom. Operational airlift for all personnel, including senior officers, is conducted using either trooping flights or commercial charter for which there is no business class entitlement. The booking of seats on civilian commercial flights to destinations not served by air trooping services, or to which service flights are not available at the time required, is permissible but only with the prior approval of the appropriate budget holder.

  The number of flying hours in one day dictates the seat class entitlement at public expense. There is no entitlement to first class travel for flights under 2.5 hours duration.

  For flights over 2.5 hours, only 4-star Service officers are permitted to travel first class. Where there are only first or third class seats available, 2-star officers and above may also travel first class.

  For flights of 4 hours duration or longer, 1-star Service officers may travel first class when a business class seat is unavailable.

  All ranks of the armed services are entitled to travel business class—if a seat is available—for flights over 2.5 hours. Leave travel is undertaken at economy rates.

  Award Schemes
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the award schemes in(a) 2001 and (b) 2002 promoted by the Department; what their scope was; when the relevant participating organisations are scheduled to be sent results; and whether other parties will be given notification of the results at the same time. [102056]

  Dr. Moonie
  Although some parts of the Ministry of Defence have been involved in the sponsorship of award schemes open to external candidates, we have not devoted significant resources to the promotion of any such scheme in 2001 or 2002.

  Blood-Clotting Bandages
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether blood-clotting bandages will be available to troops deployed in the Middle East. [103038]

  Dr. Moonie
  No. There are currently no fibrin (blood clotting agent) impregnated bandages licensed in the United Kingdom and such bandages will not be issued to United Kingdom service personnel deployed in the Middle East.

  Chemical/Biological Weapons
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate the Government have made of the useable lifetime of(a) anthrax (wet form), (b) smallpox, (c) VX and (d) mustard gas; and if he will make a statement. [103578]

  Dr. Moonie
  The stability of these materials depends very much on the initial purity and the precise storage conditions. Their usable lifetime as chemical or biological warfare agents, can range from a few months to several tens of years. It should be noted that even partially degraded material may still pose a significant hazard.

  Departmental Telephone Directory
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the most recent internal telephone directory for the Department was published; how often it is updated; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [102027]

  Dr. Moonie
  The most recent paper copy of the internal phone directory for the Ministry of Defence was published in June 1999. However, the directory has been regularly updated and maintained on the internal Defence websites, allowing access to over 100,000 staff. This is in line with the Government targets for electronic working. For those without internal web access, the directory is published quarterly on CD ROM and distributed to over 1,000 Defence staff, authorised industry partners and Defence trading funds. The latest CD ROM is due to be published at the end of March 2003.

  The directory is protectively marked RESTRICTED. The Directory is therefore only available to HMG Armed Forces staff, MOD Civilians and cleared Defence industry partners and trading funds.

  Entertainment
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his estimate is of the total spending of his Department on entertainment in each year from 1994–95 to 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [92392]

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his Department's hospitality budget(a) is in 2002–03 and (b) was in each of the last three years; and how much was left unspent at the end of each financial year. [99577]

  Dr. Moonie
  Expenditure on entertainment by the Ministry of Defence in each year since 1996–97 was as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1996–97

  5.145

  1997–98

  5.035

  1998–99

  5.563

  1999–2000

  5.538

  2000–01

  6.001

  2001–02

  6.030

  Figures for the years prior to 1996–97 cannot be provided on a consistent basis.
  886W
  Due to the introduction of Resource Accounting and Budgeting, from 2002–03 onward entertainment costs will be reported on a different basis. The outturn for 2002–03, on this basis, is estimated to be £6.309 million.

  These figures reflect expenditure incurred by the Ministry of Defence, the establishments and formations of the Armed Forces at home and abroad, and by individual officers occupying appointments for which entertainment allowances were payable. Expenditure incurred on entertainment is strictly for official purposes only, and is made in accordance with departmental guidance on financial procedures and propriety, based on the principles set out in Government Accounting.

  EU Defence Ministers Council
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the recent progress of plans to create a Council of EU Defence ministers; and what the functions of that Council are expected to be. [103873]

  Mr. Hoon
  Defence Ministers currently meet twice each year in the formation of the EU Council of Ministers known as the General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC). There have recently been proposals, in the framework of the Convention on the Future of Europe, for a new Council configuration bringing together Ministers of Defence, focusing on defence capability matters, including particularly the running of the proposed European Defence Capabilities Development and Acquisition Agency. Although establishment of such a new configuration would not require a change in the Treaty, it is likely that the issue will be dealt with as part of the Convention deliberations. No decisions have yet been taken.

  General Dynamics UK
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 15 January 2003,Official Report, column 636W, on General Dynamics UK, which company was contracted to provide the Defence Stores Management System; whether the programme is still running; and if he will make a statement. [102566]

  Mr. Ingram
  Four companies (Electronic Data Systems, ASI, and Cap Gemini Ernst and Young, with IBM acting in a project integration role) were contracted to provide elements of the Defence Stores Management Solution (DSMS). The programme was suspended in January 2002 on grounds of affordability, and the Department is currently reviewing its requirements for an advanced inventory management capability that takes account of developments in software technology and in the light of independent external advice from McKinsey and Co.

  Gulf Forces
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the UK forces serving in the Gulf area are under 18; and if he will make a statement as to their roles. [104048]

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

  International Military Services Ltd.
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether UNMOVIC has requested information about sales of(a) materials and expertise relevant to the delivery of weapons of mass destruction and (b) missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres from International Military Services Ltd. [103834]

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

  The United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission have not sought any information from the Government about the alleged provision of any goods or services to Iraq by International Military Services Ltd.

  Iraq
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many units of the armed forces(a) regulars and (b) reserves have specific chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear training; how many of these have been deployed to the Gulf; and if he will make a statement. [103432]

  Mr. Ingram
  All armed forces personnel, including the reserves, are given training to protect themselves in a Nuclear, Biological or Chemical (NBC) environment, as part of their basic training. This is refreshed at regular intervals. The Joint NBC Regiment, which also includes a reserve element, and individuals within other units, receive specialist NBC training.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) UK military personnel and (b) military personnel of other nationalities have died in military operations in Iraq since 1990; and if he will make statement. [99605]

  Mr. Ingram
  There have been 25 United Kingdom military operational fatalities in Iraq since 1990, 23 during the Gulf conflict in 1991 and two in 1994.

  We do not hold data in respect of other nations.

  Medical Facilities (Gulf)
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the extent to which British forces will be dependent on hospital and other medical facilities provided by(a) the USA and (b) other countries in the event of conflict in the Gulf. [102375]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 11 March 2003]If hostilities were to occur, British forces would have access to a comprehensive range of United Kingdom medical facilities that we have deployed to the region. As is normal practice, we have also agreed reciprocal arrangements with the United States and have arrangements in place to enable United Kingdom personnel to have access to specialist medical facilities in other countries.

  Military Forces Training
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those countries in which British military forces have provided training since 1997. [103465]
  888W
  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 19 March 2003]Between January 1997 and March 2003 British Military Forces provided Ministry of Defence endorsed, in country, training to 71 countries. A complete list of those countries is shown in the table.

  1

  Angola

  2

  Antigua

  3

  Argentina

  4

  Australia

  5

  Bahrain

  6

  Bangladesh

  7

  Barbados

  8

  Belize

  9

  Bermuda

  10

  Botswana

  11

  British Virgin Islands

  12

  Brunei

  13

  Bulgaria

  14

  Chile

  15

  Colombia

  16

  Czech Republic

  17

  Egypt

  18

  Eritrea

  19

  Estonia

  20

  Ethiopia

  21

  Falkland Islands

  22

  Ghana

  23

  Grenada

  24

  Guyana

  25

  Hong Kong

  26

  Indonesia

  27

  Jamaica

  28

  Jordan

  29

  Kenya

  30

  Kuwait

  31

  Latvia

  32

  Lebanon

  33

  Lithuania

  34

  Macedonia

  35

  Malawi

  36

  Malaysia

  37

  Maldives

  38

  Mauritania

  39

  Mauritius

  40

  Monserrat

  41

  Morocco

  42

  Mozambique

  43

  Namibia

  44

  Nepal

  45

  Nigeria

  46

  Oman

  47

  Pakistan

  48

  Palestine

  49

  Philippines

  50

  Poland

  51

  Qatar

  52

  Romania

  53

  Rwanda

  54

  Saudi Arabia

  55

  Seychelles

  56

  Sierra Leone

  57

  Singapore

  58

  Slovakia

  59

  South Africa

  60

  South Korea

  61

  Sri Lanka

  62

  Swaziland

  63

  Tanzania

  64

  Thailand

  65

  Trinidad

  66

  Turks and Caicos Islands

  67

  UAE

  68

  Uganda

  889W

  69

  Uruguay

  70

  Venezuela

  71

  Zimbabwe

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what Royal Navy training exercises and planned deployments have been cancelled as a result of Operation Fresco. [103997]

  Mr. Ingram
  The majority of personnel providing fire cover for Operation Fresco have been taken from ships and submarines undergoing periods of refit or maintenance, or which had returned from operational deployments and were not programmed to undergo further deployments. Only two of the ships from which personnel were taken for fire-fighting duties were prevented from undertaking operational tasks: HMS Manchester was withdrawn from NATO's Standing Force Atlantic, and HMS Lancaster from Atlantic Patrol (South). As a result, HMS Lancaster was withdrawn from the Chilean-hosted exercise Teamwork South 2003.

  Although the firefighters' dispute has reduced the number of naval vessels going through operational sea training, there has been no need to cancel joint maritime courses as a result.

  Overseas Trips
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the overseas trips made by himself and other members of his Ministerial team in 2002; and what the(a) purpose and (b) cost was in each case. [101491]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 22 January 2003,Official Report, column 334W, by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office.

  Scotland
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many special advisers in the Department(a) have left and (b) will be leaving to work in Scotland for the Labour Party in the forthcoming Scottish parliamentary elections. [103619]

  Dr. Moonie
  The rules relating to special advisers' political activities are set out in the Model Contract for Special Advisers. Further guidance in respect of elections for the Scottish Parliament is set out at paragraph 13 of the Guidance on Conduct for Civil Servants in United Kingdom Departments, published by the Cabinet Office on 10 March.

  The reasons for a special adviser's resignation are a private matter between the department and adviser, and are therefore exempt from disclosure under Exemption 12 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans ministers of the Department have to(a) visit Scotland on official business, (h) announce public appointments and (c) make ministerial announcements in April. [103653]

  Dr. Moonie
  Departmental business during the campaign period preceding elections to the Scottish Parliament will be conducted in accordance with the 890W
  Guidance on Conduct for Civil Servants in United Kindom Departments in respect of elections to the Scottish Parliament and National Assesmbly for Wales, published by the Cabinet Office on 10 March.

SCOTLAND

  Fishing Industry
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she discussed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer new funding for fishing communities following the EU decision in December 2002 on quota cuts. [103957]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have regular discussions with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a wide range of issues.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Scotland Office was first informed of the £55 million EU funding for Scotland's fishing industry; and by whom it was informed. [103959]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Other Government Departments and the Scottish Executive keep the Scotland Office regularly informed of all important matters relating to the fishing industry.

TRANSPORT

  Biofuels
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the(a) number and (b) locations of biofuel filling stations in the UK; and what efforts are being made to increase the number of filling stations where biofuels are sold. [103550]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government estimate that there are currently approximately 100 filling stations retailing biodiesel in the UK, with the distribution of outlets largely skewed towards the north of the country. The number and regional availability of these sites is expected to continue to increase as the market develops further, driven by the 20 pence per litre duty incentive, introduced in July 2002, and positive customer reaction to the fuel.

  Biofuels are one of the many ways in which companies and individuals can reduce the impact on the environment of their transport decisions. In order to give consumers better access to information on biofuels, the Government have commissioned the Energy Saving Trust to develop its TransportEnergy website (www.TransportEnergy.co.uk) to include helpful advice on biofuels, including the location of UK retailing sites. This information should be on-line shortly.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Brain Injuries
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will include brain injury as a
  891W
  classification sub-heading within the overall published statistics for accidents sustained and injuries treated in NHS hospitals in Northern Ireland. [103239]

  Mr. Browne
  To routinely include brain injury as a classification sub-heading could be misleading and would not necessarily meet the needs of the majority of the users of the published statistics.

  The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is currently working towards the production of detailed statistics to be published on the Internet. These will include tables showing the number of patients admitted to hospital by the type of injury or disease using the International Classification of Diseases (ICD10).

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the facilities funded by the Department of Health for post-acquired brain injury rehabilitation. [103240]

  Mr. Browne
  Information on the range of facilities is not held centrally. Provision of post-acquired brain injury rehabilitation varies widely depending on the clinical needs of the individual. It includes statutory provision and that provided by specialist voluntary sector organisations, which may also be funded by the Department.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many acquired brain injury incidents related to road traffic accidents and other causes there were in each of the last three years, broken down by health board area; and what the survival rates were among such patients. [103241]

  Mr. Browne
  Details on the number of persons admitted to hospital with an acquired brain injury related to road traffic accidents and other causes by health board area are provided in the tables. Information on their survival rates is not available.

  Admissions to hospital with brain injuries related to road traffic accidents and other causes 1999/200 to 2002

  Board or Residence

  Related to Road Traffic

  Other causes

  All Brain Injuries

  1999–2000

  Eastern

  42

  176

  218

  Northern

  27

  62

  89

  Southern

  40

  98

  138

  Western

  39

  131

  170

  Total

  148

  467

  615

  2000–01

  Eastern

  36

  183

  219

  Northern

  24

  93

  117

  Southern

  33

  64

  97

  Western

  18

  85

  103

  Total

  111

  425

  536

  2001–02

  Eastern

  41

  179

  220

  Northern

  27

  101

  128

  Southern

  21

  77

  98

  Western

  24

  67

  91

  Total

  113

  424

  537

  Figures have been supplied from the Hospital Inpatients System (HIS) for 1999–2000, 2000–01 and 2001–02, the latest three years for which data are available.
  892W
  Brain injury has been defined as persons suffering from an intracranial injury (SO6 in the international classification of diseases ICD10).

  Data are supplied by Health Board of residence.

  Discharges and deaths are used as an approximation for admissions.

  Ladies' Hockey
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money has been allocated to ladies' hockey in Northern Ireland from(a) lottery funding and (b) Exchequer funding in (i) 2000–01, (ii) 2001–02, (iii) 2002–03 and (iv) 2003–04; and how much money in total has been allocated to the women in receipt of funding for help in preparation for the 2004 Olympic Games. [103707]

  Angela Smith
  The total amount of money allocated to ladies' hockey in Northern Ireland from(a) lottery funding and (b) Exchequer funding in the years listed is as follows:

  £

  Funding

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Lottery

  0

  8,850

  24,400

  Not available

  Exchequer

  22,000

  22,000

  26,000

  Not available

  Note:

  The lottery figures take into account awards made from the Talented Athlete, Talented Athlete Next Generation and Talented Junior programmes.

  No additional funding is available or has been allocated to ladies' hockey beyond those listed above. Furthermore any funding awarded is to assist ladies' hockey prepare for major competitions in general rather than for specific competitions such as the 2004 Olympic Games.

  Local Government Finance
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what cash reserves are available to Castlereagh Borough Council; and what statutory requirement there is for local authorities to keep reserves. [103359]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I am not in a position to state the level of cash reserves available to Castlereagh Borough Council. There is no statutory requirement for district councils to keep reserves nor is there any obligation on them to publish annual accounts. There is provision, however, in local government legislation which allows the ratepayers of the district access and opportunity to examine the detail of the accounts of their local council.

  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the indebtedness is of the councils in Northern Ireland. [103360]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The latest figures available relating to the level of indebtedness of district councils are at 31 March 2002 and have been extracted from the unaudited accounts for the financial year 2001–2002. The amounts of loans outstanding, per head of population for each district council are set out in the following table.
  893W

  District council

  Amount (£)

  Antrim BC

  232

  Ards BC

  231

  Armagh C and DC

  439

  Ballymena BC

  344

  Ballymoney BC

  125

  Banbridge DC

  321

  Belfast CC

  88

  Carrickfergus BC

  239

  Castlereagh BC

  277

  Coleraine BC

  385

  Cookstown DC

  55

  Craigavon BC

  160

  Derry CC

  188

  Down DC

  136

  Dungannon and ST BC

  48

  Fermanagh DC

  47

  Larne BC

  167

  Limavady BC

  265

  Lisburn BC

  250

  Magherafelt DC

  2

  Moyle DC

  310

  Newry and Mourne DC

  252

  Newtownabbey BC

  369

  North Down BC

  200

  Omagh DC

  209

  Strabane DC

  73

  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what level of debt Castlereagh Borough Council has acquired up to the end of the last financial year. [103361]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  At 31 March 2002, the amount of loans outstanding, per head of Castlereagh Borough Council's population is 277. This figure has been extracted from the unaudited account for the financial year 2001/2002.

  North-South Ministeriall Council
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the total cost is in 2002–03 of the Secretariat of the north south ministerial council. [103251]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The 2002–03 budget allocation for the north/south ministerial council joint secretariat (north) is £735,000. Final outturn figures for 2002–03 will not be available for some time.

  Pharmacies
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what impact he expects the implementation of the proposed OFT recommendations to have upon people employed in community pharmacies; [103329]

  (2) what benefits he estimates would be gained by the deregulation of pharmacies as recommended by the OFT investigation into the control of entry regulations for pharmacy contracts; and what studies have been carried out to assess the impact of pharmacy deregulation on the businesses of community pharmacies; [103327]

  (3) what effect he estimates (a) increased competition in the pharmaceutical industry will have on prescription charges and (b) the deregulation of control of entry requirements for pharmacy contracts will have on disadvantaged groups in society; and if he will make a statement; [103330]
  894W
  (4) what effect he expects the implementation of the proposed OFT regulations will have on (a) the distribution of pharmacies and (b) pharmacist and patient relations. [103328]

  Mr. Browne
  The Office of Fair Trading examined the UK market for retail pharmacy services in order to consider whether consumers are best served by the current statutory controls under which pharmacies can dispense NHS prescriptions. The OFT conclusion was that they are not and their report therefore recommended abolition of these controls in order to improve competition; reduce prices for over the counter medicines; and improve both access to, and the quality of, pharmaceutical services.

  Competition and consumer matters are reserved to the United Kingdom Government in Westminster and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is responsible for co-ordinating the response across Government to the report. However, Health Service pharmacy policy is a devolved matter and the regulations imposing controls on pharmacies are a matter for Ministers in each country. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is therefore working closely with Health Departments and other Government Departments to make sure that Government's response to the report takes account not only of competition and consumer interests, but widerpublic policy objectives. It is not considered that the report will affect current prescription charge arrangements.

  No decisions have been reached on the OFT recommendation and, as yet, there are no proposals for changes to the legislation. We have invited views from a wide range of stakeholders and are considering these carefully. This includes responses from political representatives, the pharmaceutical profession, the Health Service, patient representative bodies and the general public.

  Publicity and Advertising
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much(a) his Department and (b) each agency and non-departmental public body sponsored by his Department spent on (i) publicity and (ii) advertising in each year from 1995–96 to 2002–03 (estimated); and if he will make a statement. [92243]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  For the Northern Ireland Office it is not possible to disaggregate spend on publicity and advertising. The figures below cover both, for the core Department and its Agencies. Information on NDPBs is not held centrally.

  £

  Total

  1995–96

  2,326,800

  1996–97

  1,247,400

  1997–98

  1.077,706

  1998–99

  2,466,691

  1999–2000

  695,017

  2000–01

  591,075

  2001–02

  1,223,491

  2002–03

  *1,083,477

  *Full year estimate based on spend to date.

  895W
  Within the Northern Ireland administration it was not possible to disaggregate figures for publicity and advertising in all cases. Combined figures for publicity and advertising for the Northern Ireland Departments, its agencies and NDPBs for each year are set out in the following table.

  £

  Total

  Departments

  Agencies

  1995–96

  3,153,960

  1,956,472

  1996–97

  3,016,797

  2,850,578

  1997–98

  2,938,884

  2,955,319

  1998–99

  4,606,517

  2,809,096

  1999–2000

  4,508,125

  3,393,004

  2000–01

  5,064,446

  6,673,867

  2001–02

  5,223,778

  6,177,507

  2002–03*

  2,265,393

  7,229,788

  * Estimated.

  Royal Prerogative of Mercy
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on how many occasions the Royal Prerogative of Mercy has been exercised in respect of members of terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland in each year since 1998. [85886]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I am sorry for the delay in replying.

  Since 1998 the Royal Prerogative of Mercy has been granted 18 times in respect of individuals convicted of terrorist offences relating to Northern Ireland. The breakdown of cases is as follows:

  1998: 1

  1999: 1

  2000: 7

  2001: 6

  2002: 3

  Stevens Inquiry
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the cost was of the Stevens inquiry in each year since its establishment; and which Department is meeting the cost. [102641]

  Jane Kennedy
  The cost of the Stevens inquiry in each year since its establishment is:

  £

  2000–01

  1,036,483.57

  2001–02

  1,932,338.35

  2002–03

  920,473.42

  These costs are being met by the PSNI, which receives its funding through the Northern Ireland Office.

  Swimming
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money has been allocated to swimming in Northern Ireland from(a) lottery funding and (b) Exchequer funding, in (i) 2000–01, (ii) 2001–02, (iii) 2002–03 and (iv) 2003–04; and for which country the two swimmers allocated funding to prepare for the 2004 Olympic Games will be competing. [103708]
  896W
  Angela Smith
  The total amount of money allocated to swimming in Northern Ireland from(a) lottery funding and (b) Exchequer funding in the years listed is as follows:

  £

  Funding

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  (a) Lottery

  43,861

  32,828

  26,468

  Not available

  (h) Exchequer

  20,000

  20,000

  23,500

  Not available

  Note:

  The lottery figures take into account awards made from the Talented Athlete, Talented Athlete Next Generation and Talented Junior programmes.

  Two swimmers are currently on funding programmes associated with the Lottery Sports Fund and both have as their targeted events, competition at the 2004 Olympic Games. Both athletes, as members of the local governing body for the sport, Swim Ulster, which is affiliated with the national governing body, Swim Ireland, will compete for Ireland if selected for Olympic competition. However, selection for competition at the 2004 Olympic Games has not yet taken place and it would be premature to state that either swimmer will be competing.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Television Licence
  Nick Harvey
  To a sk the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many households received free TV licences in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02, broken down by type of licence; how many households are expected to receive free TV licences in (i) 2002–03, (ii) 2003–04, (iii) 2004–05 and (iv) 2005–06; and what the cost has been. [103805]

  Dr. Howells
  The number of free licences issued, by type of licence and in total, in 2000–01 and 2001–02, the forecast total for each of the years 2002–03 to 2005–06 (for which a breakdown by type of licence is not available), and the actual or forecast costs for each year, are as follows.

  Number of free licences issued by type of licence (thousands)

  Colour

  Black and white

  Accommodation for residential care

  Total free licences issued (thousands)

  Cost £ million)

  2000–01

  2,963

  36

  154

  3,153

  323

  2001–02

  3,348

  25

  478

  3,851

  372

  2002–031

  3,904

  390

  2003–041

  3,927

  407

  2004–051

  3,952

  425

  2005–061

  3,982

  448

  1 Forecast

  Notes:

  Expenditure is in nominal terms and for the United Kingdom. Numbers and forecasts of licences issued are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Actual and forecast costs are rounded to the nearest million pounds.

  Source:

  For 2000–01 and 2001–02: Ernst and Young Audit Reports.

  For 2002–03 and subsequent years: pre-Budget report, November 2002
  897W
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people were(a) eligible for and (b) in receipt of a free TV licence in each of the last three years in Chorley constituency. [104071]

  Dr. Howells
  TV Licensing, which administers free television licences for the over-75s as agent for the BBC, is not able to provide geographical breakdowns of the number of free licences issued. However, estimates based on the 1991 Census indicate that there were approximately 5,700 people aged 75 or over living in the Chorley constituency.

  Television Programming
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what recent research her Department has undertaken regarding programming on(a) terrestrial, (b) cable and (c) satellite television channels; and if she will place copies in the Library; [103818]

  (2) what recent quantitative research and assessments her Department has undertaken relating to the news content of (a) terrestrial, (b) cable and (c) satellite news programmes; and if she will lay copies of those results in the Library. [103787]

  Dr. Howells
  My Department has not undertaken any research in these areas.

  Museum Funding
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she expects that funding will be available for Hubs allocated phase two status in the Renaissance in the Region Museum Funding Initiative; how much funding is available for the(a) phase two Hubs and (b) the phase one Hubs; what process the phase two Hubs will be required to undertake in order to receive their funding; and whether this process repeats the initial competition for phase one status and funding. [102534]

  Dr. Howells
  We will be providing £70 million for regional museums from this year until 2005–06, which will represent a 200 per cent. increase in central Government funding by the end of the spending review period. Extra funding will also be made available to the national museums to enable them to work in partnership with regional museums. Additionally, there will be funds from the Department for Education and Skills to support museums' education.

  The funds will be distributed through nine Regional Hubs led by major regional museums. The Regional Hubs selected for priority funding are the North East, South West and West Midlands Hubs, but Resource: The Council for Museums, Archives and Libraries will continue to provide a level of support to all nine Regional Hubs.

  Resource will put its recommendations to Ministers on funding allocations for all nine Regional Hubs ready for announcement in April. All Regional Hubs will then be asked to submit a detailed Business Plan by January 2004, setting out their programme of work for 2004–06. This will not be a competitive process and will build on information previously submitted.

  Scotland
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many special advisers in the Department(a) have left and (b) will be leaving to work in Scotland for the Labour Party in the forthcoming Scottish parliamentary elections. [103621]

  Dr. Howells
  The rules relating to special advisers' political activities are set out in the Model Contract for Special Advisers. Further guidance in respect of elections for the Scottish Parliament is set out at paragraph 13 of the Guidance on Conduct for Civil Servants in UK Departments, published by the Cabinet Office on 10 March.

  The reasons for a special adviser's resignation are a private matter between the Department and adviser, and are therefore exempt from disclosure under paragraph 12 of the Code of Practice on Access to Information.

  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans ministers of the Department have to(a) visit Scotland on official business, (b) announce public appointments and (c) make Ministerial announcements in April. [103655]

  Dr. Howells
  Departmental business during the campaign period preceding elections to the Scottish Parliament will be conducted in accordance with the Guidance on Conduct for Civil Servants in UK Departments in respect of elections to the Scottish Parliament and National Assembly for Wales, published by the Cabinet Office on 10 March.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Working Group (14-to-19)
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what funding has been allocated for the 14–19 working group. [102298]

  Mr. Miliband
  The total support required by the working group has not yet been finalised. Administration costs in relation to those staff currently assigned to support the group are expected to be £230,000 in 2003–04.

  Aim Higher Scheme
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what opportunities the Aim Higher scheme will provide to schools to access additional funding; and whether it will be open to schools not eligible under the Excellence Cluster scheme in West Cumbria. [103141]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Excellence Challenge programme, which will be renamed Aimhigher, provides direct funding to schools and colleges in areas of disadvantage to raise attainment and aspirations of young people. We will be expanding this programme to include Excellence Clusters, including West Cumbria, from this September. Areas which are not covered by this programme may benefit from funding through the Higher Education Funding Council's Aimhigher: Partnerships for Progression initiative.

  Ballet Schools
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many ballet schools there are in England and Wales; and what Government support is available to pupils. [103044]

  Mr. Miliband
  My Department does not keep lists of the many small ballet schools in England. The Council for Dance Education and Training holds a comprehensive list of providers.

  There are four independent specialist ballet schools in England offering places to exceptionally talented children aged 11 to 19. They all participate in the Government's Music and Dance Scheme (MDS), which provides means-tested support with fees, and they all provide vocational training alongside a good academic education.

  Means-tested support for fees and maintenance is also provided for students aged 16+ by three of the MDS schools and a further four private further education institutions through the Department's Dance and Drama Awards.

  Schools issues in Wales are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Connexions Service
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what grants have been made by the Connexions service to voluntary organisations working with young people for each region in which it operates. [103678]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Connexions Partnerships make both grant awards and contract payments to voluntary organisations. The latest available data are for the nine months to December 2002. It reflects the different stages of development of the 41 Connexions Partnerships that were operating for all or part of the period. Information from Partnerships suggests that grants awards and contract payments will increase further towards the end of the financial year to March 2003.

  Region

  Grant awards £k

  Contract payments £k

  Total payments to voluntary organisations £k

  Eastern

  149

  0

  149

  East Midlands

  138

  85

  223

  London

  345

  778

  1.123

  North East

  28

  0

  28

  North West

  1,141

  0

  1,141

  South East

  0

  128

  128

  South West

  154

  532

  686

  West Midlands

  61

  369

  430

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  58

  553

  611

  Total

  2,074

  2,445

  4,519

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what targets he has set the Connexions service for the level of grants it should be making to voluntary organisations working with young people. [103679]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  There are no targets for the level of grants that Connexions Partnerships should make to voluntary and community organisations.
  900W
  Under most circumstances, we would expect Connexions Partnerships to enter into a contract with each of their service providers, including voluntary and community organisations. However, in some cases the need for a contract may present a barrier to an organisation's involvement, particularly in the case of some small voluntary or community groups. In such circumstances, Partnerships can allocate up to £30,000 to an organisation as a grant award in any 12-month period. The total amount awarded in this way is subject to an overriding limit of 5 per cent. of the Partnership's DIES grant allocation, although this may be exceeded with the agreement of the local Government Office. While Partnerships are strongly encouraged to make use of this facility, priorities and structures inevitably vary between and within areas, and it is for this reason that we do not set targets.

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much has been spent by Connexions, in each region, on(a) purchasing property, (b) renting property and (c) construction and refurbishment work in each year it has been operational. [103680]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information requested is not collected in the detail and format requested. The following table gives the expenditure of Connexions Partnerships by region for 2001–02 and the first nine months of 2002–03 recorded as "Premises Costs" in their accounts. This expenditure will include items such as rent, purchase of property, refurbishment, construction, fixtures, fittings, local taxation etc.

  Region

  Number of partnerships 2001–02

  Premises costs 2001–021 £ million)

  Number of partnerships 2002–03

  Premises costs 2002–032 (£ million)

  Eastern

  1

  207

  5

  1,307

  East Midlands

  1

  267

  5

  1,113

  London

  2

  184

  5

  1,877

  North East

  —

  —

  3

  953

  North West

  3

  1,438

  5

  2,643

  South East

  1

  637

  3

  862

  South West

  2

  1,258

  6

  1,654

  West Midlands

  3

  1,459

  6

  2,586

  Yorkshire and Humber

  2

  899

  3

  696

  Total

  15

  36,349

  41

  413,691

  1 12 months

  2 9 months

  3 Reflects the total annual expenditure for the 15 Partnerships that were operating for all or part of the year.

  4 Reflects the total expenditure for the 9 months to December 2002 for the 41 Partnerships that were operating for all or part of the period. Although a further three Partnerships began operations during October and November 2002 they were not required to produce accounts for December, so no information is available for them.

  Further Education Funding
  Ann Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make funds available for further education colleges to accept year 11 pupils who are without a school place. [103354]

  Mr. Miliband
  Local Education Authorities are responsible for ensuring all children of statutory school age have access to full-time education. They can use their funding to purchase education for children over the age of 14 from further education colleges, where this is an appropriate way of meeting their needs.

  Fire Prevention
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what funds he has allocated(a) for fire prevention measures and (b) for the installation of water sprinkers in (i) schools and (ii) PE colleges in 2003–04. [103674]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department does not specifically fund either fire prevention measures or the installation of water sprinklers in schools and FE colleges. If the assessment of risks to particular premises identify specific fire prevention measures, including water sprinklers, as necessary then the expenditure would come from normal school, local education authority or FE college budgets, drawing on capital allocations made available to them by the Department.

  Foundation Degrees
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether all foundation degree students will be guaranteed a future funded year's study in order to upgrade to a full degree. [103113]

  Margaret Hodge
  As well as being awards in their own right foundation degrees can lead to one or more honours degrees. Foundation degree graduates are eligible to apply for the honours degree. The entry requirements are determined by the higher education institution offering the programme of study.

  Primary School Admission Criteria
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether an LEA is free to set proximity to school premises as the admission criterion for a primary school. [102872]

  Mr. Miliband
  Yes. Where a LEA is the admission authority for a school it decides on the school's admission arrangements, which must include criteria for deciding which pupils should get places if there are more applicants than places. Proximity to the school is a lawful and acceptable criterion.

  School Buildings
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the findings of the Audit Commission Report on Improving School Buildings. [101837]

  Mr. Miliband
  We welcome this report whose conclusions provide an endorsement of our school capital investment programme and our initiative to encourage the development of asset management planning in LEAs and schools. We intend to build upon the progress made in improving the school stock in our new approach to capital investment, for which proposals were set out in the recent consultation paper 'Building Schools for the Future'.

  We are discussing with the Audit Commission our approaches to addressing the specific recommendations for Government.

  School Sixth Forms
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the average A level points score per pupil for 11 to 18 years schools with sixth forms containing(a) 50 or fewer, (b) 51 to 100, (c) 101 to 150, (d) 151 to 200, (e) 201 to 250 and (f) more than 250 pupils in each of the last three years. [100882]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 13 March 2003]The average GCE A/AS point score per candidate aged 16–18 in school sixth forms in 1999 to 2001 (the most recent three years for which data are available):

  Number of students in sixth form

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Less than 50

  14.7

  15.7

  15.3

  51–100

  14.7

  15.1

  15.9

  101–150

  16.7

  17.2

  17.2

  151–200

  18.7

  18.5

  18.8

  201–250

  19.4

  19.9

  20.5

  More than 250

  19.7

  19.6

  20.2

  Total

  18.4

  18.6

  19.1

  Schools (Warrington)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools in Warrington, North have, since 1997, had(a) new classrooms, (b) new dining rooms, (c) new toilet blocks and (d) other new buildings. [103186]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 17 March 2003]We do not hold complete information in the form requested. However, in 1997–98 the Government introduced New Deal for Schools (NDS) as a new additional programme targeted specifically at addressing the backlog of urgent repairs in school buildings that had built up after eighteen years of under-funding under the previous administration. This programme was bid-based and was in addition to other capital funds made available to Warrington local education authority (Cheshire local education authority prior to local government reorganisation in 1998–99). NDS ran through four phases from 1997–98 to 2000–01. Table A shows the schools in the Warrington, North constituency which benefited from investment through the original NDS programme for these purposes. From 2001–02 most capital funding available for building improvements in schools has been allocated to local authorities and schools by needs-related formulae. It is for local authorities and schools to decide how their capital allocations are invested and prioritised between projects, in line with their local asset management planning. Also, from 2000–01 every school has received direct capital allocations to address their highest priorities. In addition, each year authorities have been able to bid for Basic Need funding for the provision of new pupil places. Table B shows all capital funding for school buildings allocated to Warrington local education authority (including voluntary aided schools) since 1998–99.
  903W

  Table A: New deal for schools

  £

  Allocations to schools in the Warrington North constituency

  NDSI 1997–98

  St Philip's Westbrook CofE Aided Primary School

  Construction of extension to existing teaching area

  LEA-wide grant

  *971,000

  NDSI 1997–98

  Warrington St Ann's CofE Primary School

  External adaptations to form a new SEN room

  LEA-wide grant

  NDS3 1999–2000

  St Stephen's Catholic Primary School

  Provision of nursery toilet

  1,053

  NDS3 1999–2000

  Beamont Community Junior School

  Replacement of dining room

  Project including two schools

  *386,100

  NDS3 1999–2000

  Beamont Community Infant School

  Replacement of dining room

  Project including two schools

  NDS4 2000–01

  Woolston Community High School

  Science and technology block to replace deteriorating mobiles

  424,000

  * Denotes allocations made to package projects to the local authority, which will be able to advise the value of projects at schools in the Warrington, North constituency which benefited from these allocations.

  Table B: Warrington local education authority capital allocations

  £ million

  Total

  1998–99

  3.3

  1999–2000

  4.2

  2000–01

  7.9

  2001–02

  8.1

  2002–03

  8.3

  2003–04

  8.8

  Grand total

  40.6

  Student Grants
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will estimate(a) the sum available in the Higher Education White Paper for student grants for each year of the spending review and (b) the cost of the Excellence in Cities Opportunity Bursary schemes in each year; and whether the bursary scheme will remain available to top up grants. [103426]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Government has earmarked almost £300 million in funds for the new Higher Education Grant. The Grant will be phased in, cohort by cohort, starting in autumn 2004, and therefore, during this spending review period, the costs will gradually build up towards that level of expenditure.

  £37 million has been set aside to provide up to 26,000 opportunity bursaries over the three years starting in 2001–02. 2003 is the last year of the opportunity bursaries pilot; it is being replaced by the new grant. Students with opportunity bursaries will remain eligible to receive their payments in years two and three of the course, when the new grant is introduced.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimates he has made of the extra income that will be received under the proposed £3,000 tuition fee limit; and if he will make a statement. [103358]

  Margaret Hodge
  It will be for each university and college to decide what fees they charge from 2006 subject to securing an acceptable access agreement. The extra income raised will depend on those decisions.

  Teachers
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers(a) left and (b) joined the teaching profession in Essex between May 1997 and the latest available date. [103122]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table shows the numbers of teachers leavings1 full-time or part time2 service in the maintained schools sector and teachers entering or returning3 to full-time or part-time teaching in the maintained schools sector in Essex.

  The DfES annual survey of teachers in service (618G) shows that the number of full-time equivalent regular teachers working in the maintained sector in Essex rose from 10,580 to 10,920 between January 1998 and January 2002.

  Essex

  Leavers

  Entrants/returners

  1 April 1997 to 31 March 19944

  1,190

  1,290

  1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999

  1,090

  950

  1 April 1999 to 31 March 20005

  970

  1,040

  1 Leavers are those who were in full-time or part-time teaching in the maintained schools sector immediately before the period shown, who were not in service in that sector at the end of the period shown. Teachers leaving are based on pension returns. Some teachers may have moved from known service to service not recorded on the teacher pension return. Some leavers will be taking career breaks and will return to service at a later date.

  2 Around 10 per cent.-20 per cent. of part-timers may not be included.

  3 Those in service in the maintained schools sector at the end of the period shown who were not in service in that sector in England immediately before the period shown. Includes newly qualified entrants, those who deferred entry and those returning from breaks or transferring from outside the maintained schools sector in England.

  4 Higher than usual numbers of premature retirements, following changes to the retirement regulations, contributed to the high levels of leavers in 1997–98.

  5 The most recent data available at LEA level are for 1999–2000.

  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers were employed in(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools in the (i) City of York and (ii) North Yorkshire education authority in each year since they were established. [103135]

  Mr. Miliband
  The table provides the full-time equivalent number of regular teachers in the maintained sector, as at January of each year.
  905W

  Schools

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  City of York

  Nursery/primary

  630

  610

  630

  650

  650

  680

  Secondary

  600

  600

  600

  640

  660

  650

  North Yorkshire

  Nursery/primary

  2,140

  2,060

  2,100

  2,170

  2,230

  2,270

  Secondary

  2.340

  2,400

  2,470

  2,550

  2,590

  2,570

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  Source:

  DfES Annual Survey of Teachers in Service (618G)

PRIME MINISTER

  Operation Ore
  Adam Price
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he has been informed of the identity of any of the individuals under investigation as part of Operation Ore. [104059]

  The Prime Minister: It is Government policy not to comment on ongoing police investigations.

TREASURY

  Budget
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what basis he chose this year's Budget date. [102881]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Budgets are traditionally held in either March or April.

  Landfill Tax
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his statement of 3 February 2003,Official Report, column 5WS, on the landfill tax credit scheme, how much transitional funding is available in the year commencing 1 April 2003 through the landfill tax credit scheme for eligible projects falling into Objects C and/or CC in (a) the UK. (b) England, (c) Wales, (d) Scotland and (e) Northern Ireland. [103633]

  John Healey
  The transition funding for England comes from England's share of the £100 million that the reform of the LTCS made available for 2003–04, as announced in PBR 2002. The devolved Administrations will be allocated their share of this £100 million according to the Barnett formula and will determine how this is spent.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 12 March 2003,Official Report, column 283W, on national insurance, if he will publish the estimates made by the Government Actuary's Department regarding changes to benefit rates and contribution rates. [103967]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the "Report by the Government Actuary on the Drafts of the Social Security Benefits Uprating Order 2003 and 906W
  the Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating and National Insurance Funds Payments) Order 2003", published in February 2003. A copy is held in the House Library.

  Service Pensions
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to delay the payment of service pensions until a serviceman reaches 65 years. [103179]

  Dr. Moonie
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Pensions Green Paper, "Simplicity, Security and Choice: Working and Saving for Retirement" was published for consultation in December of last year and includes a proposal that the age at which unreduced pensions should be payable to members of Public Service Pension Schemes should be raised from age 60 to 65, to reflect increasing longevity and common practice in the private sector. The paper acknowledges that some occupations require a recognised physical capacity which justifies payment of pension at a lower age and the Armed Forces pay an immediate pension as early as age 37. However, for those members who leave before reaching such an age, their pensions benefits accrued through future service from a date to be decided would also be deferred to age 65. The Ministry of Defence will be offering its comments on this and other proposals put forward in the Green Paper shortly.

  Special Advisers
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many special advisers in the Department(a) have left and (b) will be leaving to work in Scotland for the Labour Party in the forthcoming Scottish parliamentary elections. [103625]

  Ruth Kelly
  The rules relating to special advisers' political activities are set out in the Model Contract for Special Advisers. Further guidance in respect of elections for the Scottish Parliament is set out at paragraph 13 of the Guidance on Conduct for Civil Servants in UK Departments, published by the Cabinet Office on 10 March.

  The reasons for a special adviser's resignation are a private matter between the Department and adviser, and are therefore exempt from disclosure under paragraph 12 of the Code of Practice on Access to Information.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many calls were received by the working
  907W
  families' tax credit and disabled person's tax credit dedicated telephone line for hon. Members and members of the devolved administrations in each year since its creation; and what the cost of the line has been in each year. [103519]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In October 2000, the Inland Revenue introduced the dedicated Hotline numbers for queries from MPs and members of the devolved assemblies about working families' tax credit and disabled person's tax credit. For the remainder of the 2000–2001 financial year, there were 234 calls to the Hotline. In the 2001–2002 financial year there were 418

  WFTC Oct 1999 to Dec 1999

  WFTC Jan 2000 to Dec 2000

  WFTC Jan 2001 to Dec 2001

  WFTC Jan 2002 to Dec 2002

  WFTC Jan 2003 to date

  Answered

  1,037,915

  6,115,528

  5,882,380

  6,060,443

  813,187

  DPTC Oct 1999 to Dec 1999

  DPTC Jan 2000 to Dec 2000

  DPTC Jan 2001 to Dec 2001

  DPTC Jan 2002 to Dec 2002

  DPTC Jan 2003— to date

  Answered

  35,935

  207,946

  227,568

  232,389

  39,356

  An estimate of the staffing cost of the line in each year is given in the table.

  Period

  £000s

  1/10/99 to 31/3/00

  1,406

  1/4/00 to 31/3/01

  6,511

  1/4/01 to 31/3/02

  7,776

  1/4/02 to 28/2/03

  7,223

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much his Department is spending on advertising the new(a) child tax credit and (b) working tax credit, with particular reference to (i) television advertising, (ii) radio advertising, (iii) leaflets, (iv) factsheets, (v) claim packs and (vi) A3 posters. [103526]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Spending on the promotional campaign for the new tax credits is currently estimated as follows: (i) media costs for:

  (£000s)

  Television advertisements

  8,016

  Media costs for radio advertisements

  876

  Leaflets

  642

  Factsheets

  No costs to date

  A3 posters

  21

  The cost of producing claim packs is estimated at:

  4,031,000

  All estimated costs include VAT. Postage costs are not included.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement regarding the take-up rate of the new(a) child tax credit and (b) working tax credit. [103527]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) on 19 March 2003,Official Report, column 760W.
  908W
  calls. Between April 2002 and early March 2003, there have been 314 calls. Advisers on the Hotline also carry out a range of other customer service duties, and so it is not possible to isolate the cost of the Hotlines.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many calls were received by the working families' tax credit and disabled person's tax credit public telephone line in each year since its creation; and what the cost of the line has been in each year. [103520]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The schedule below gives details of the number of calls answered by the WFTC and DPTC helplines since they first opened.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what means childless people have been alerted to their possible entitlement to claim working tax credit. [94020]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The new tax credits—Working Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit—are introduced in April. A high-profile publicity campaign has been running since last autumn to alert people to their entitlement and to encourage them to claim. The campaign has so far included national television advertising, national and local radio advertising, adverts in the national press as well as on-line publicity. Treasury ministers led a series of roadshows across the United Kingdom in September and October. Leaflets and posters have been produced and are being made widely available. The Inland Revenue is also piloting new ways of working with local community groups to maximise take-up. At the same time Jobcentre Plus offices are making sure their clients are aware of the help they can get, through the Working Tax Credit, as they move into work.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Court of Protection (Portfolio Holdings)
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the average change was in the value of portfolio holdings held by the Court of Protection for minors, over the last four years. [103168]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Public Guardianship Office (PGO), is the administrative arm of the Court of Protection. It does not maintain detailed historic records of individual investment portfolios. Individual clients' investments are managed by private fund managers—either a panel broker under contract with the PGO, or of the clients' choosing. Brokers hold individual records but do not distinguish between minors and clients.

  It could be expected that on average, investment return from equity markets would have been broadly similar to that of the market generally. Over the past

  909W
  four years, the FTSE All Share Index fell from 2825.39 (end of February 1999) to 1731.50 (end of February 2003), a decline of 39 per cent. The performance of individual cases varies according to investments held.

  All of the minors have a proportion of their funds retained in the Special Account, a cash deposit account operated by the Court Funds Office, which pays a favourable rate of interest, currently 6 per cent.

  European Court of Human Rights
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans she has to make representations to the Council of Europe to secure an amendment to the European Court of Human Rights rules of procedure to the effect that detailed reasons for its decisions declaring cases inadmissible in committee are given. [103281]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  None. Whether reasons are given is a matter for the Court. The Court has ceased to write explanatory letters in these circumstances as part of its attempts to streamline its procedures in order to deal with its backlog of cases (35,000, and rising at the rate of 1,000 per month). Cases declared inadmissible by a Committee of three judges are often vexatious and clear-cut.

PRIVY COUNCIL

  Departmental Website
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council what the total cost of the Privy Council's website was in the last 12 months; and how many hits it received in the same period. [104200]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) announced the relaunch of the Department's website (www.pco.gov.uk) on 18 July 2002,Official Report, column 453W.

  The costs including development and design for the site since relaunch are £49,293.63. Costs prior to this date are not available but were negligible, since the design and content were produced in-house and not charged separately.

  Information on the number of hits is as follows:

  Number of hits

  March 2002–03

  Unique visitors

  232,805

  Page impressions

  827,998

  Since relaunch there has been a fourfold increase in the number of unique visitors and a twofold one in the number of page impressions.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Household Incomes
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average household income is in each constituency. [100405]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information requested is not available.

  Zoo-keepers
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many zoo-keepers have been(a) injured and (b) killed by elephants in (i) zoos and (ii) safari parks in each year since 1973. [102731]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information requested is not available. The Health and Safety Executive's computer systems do not record information from statutory injury notifications at this level of detail.

  Adult Disadvantage
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) pursuant to the answer of 4 December 2002,Official Report, column 918W, on adult disadvantage, if he will re-calculate the figures to include retirement on 31 December 2002; [97848]

  (2) if he will update the three tables to include figures for retirement on 31 December 2002. [99334]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information requested is in the following tables.

  In the answer I gave to the hon. Member on 4 December, Official Report, column 918W, data in the final column was in 2000 earnings terms, but was mis-labelled as being in 2001 earnings terms. The column heading has now been corrected. Also, the table headings have been revised so as to, in each case, correctly describe the contents in the tables.

  Table 1, includes the data underlying the graph on page 19 of "Modernising Annuities" published by Inland Revenue and the Department for Work and Pensions in February, 2001. Although a stylised model, it is the data in this table that we believe best characterises the investment strategy of many pension funds.

  Table 1: Pension entitlement assuming the fund switches from equities to gilts over the last 10 years of growth—an extra 10 per cent. is invested in gilts in each successive year

  Year started contributing

  Retire at end of year

  Years of contribution

  Lump sum built up ( cash terms) (£)

  Lump sum in 2000 earnings terms (£)

  Annuity rate in last year of contribution (Percentage)

  Pension at retirement (nominal terms, weekly) (£)

  Pension at retirement (2000 earnings terms, weekly) (£)

  1956

  1986

  31

  17,683

  38,722

  14.1

  48

  105

  1957

  1987

  31

  21,067

  42,817

  14.0

  57

  115

  1958

  1988

  31

  23,846

  44,535

  13.7

  63

  117

  1959

  1989

  31

  25,579

  43,824

  14.0

  69

  118

  1960

  1990

  31

  27,868

  43,492

  15.2

  82

  128

  1961

  1991

  31

  34,245

  49,645

  14.6

  96

  140

  1962

  1992

  31

  41,172

  56,338

  13.2

  105

  143

  1963

  1993

  31

  53,669

  71,320

  11.7

  121

  161

  1964

  1994

  31

  47,500

  60,909

  11.6

  106

  135

  1965

  1995

  31

  57,037

  70,945

  11.3

  124

  155

  912W
  Given recent falls in the stock markets, table 3 (funds invested 100 per cent. in equities in all years) shows the largest fall in pension income when comparing the results for 2001 with 2002. However, it is highly unlikely that an individual fund will actually follow this particular investment strategy.

  Investors will also be interested in expected pension income throughout their retirement and not just the income in the first year. The information does not give an indication of how this first figure may have increased for successive cohorts of pensioners due to increased life expectancy.

  Some of the results for 2001 are marginally different to those presented in my previous answer. This is because the FTSE 30 and gilts indices for 2001 have since been revised.

  The assumptions involved in the current model are the same as those in my previous answer, and re-stated as follows:
  A person contributes to a pension fund for 31 years;
  Contributions are made at 10 per cent. of gross earnings;
  Earnings in each year are £20,000 in 2000 earnings terms. The earnings growth index was supplied by the Office for National Statistics:
  50 per cent. of each year's contributions are made at the start of each year and 50 per cent. at the end of each year;

  The return on equities is in line with the FTSE 30. The same figures were used in the answer I gave to the hon. Member on 27 June 2002, Official Report, column 387, to enable consistency with that answer. The use of the FTSE 30 price index, however, may underestimate the returns on investing in equities, as this index takes account of capital gains/losses but excludes dividend payments.

  The return on gilts is in line with the Barclays Capital Total Return Index. The same figures were used in the answer I gave to the hon. Member on 27 June 2002, Official Report, column 387, to enable consistency with that answer.

  A 1 per cent. fee is deducted at the end of each year

  Upon retirement on 31 December of the given year, an annuity is purchased at the prevailing rate in that year, and as indicated in the tables. The source of this is Annuity Direct.
  913W

  Table 1: Pension entitlement assuming the fund switches from equities to gilts over the last 10 years of growth—an extra 10 per cent. is invested in gilts in each successive year

  Year started contributing

  Retire at end of year

  Years of contribution

  Lump sum built up (cash terms) (£)

  Lump sum in 2000 earnings terms (£)

  Annuity rate in last year of contribution (Percentage)

  Pension at retirement (nominal terms, weekly) (£)

  Pension at retirement ( 2000 earnings terms, weekly) ( £)

  1966

  1996

  31

  60,722

  72,903

  11.0

  129

  155

  1967

  1997

  31

  71,045

  81,816

  10.4

  141

  163

  1968

  1998

  31

  85,603

  93,818

  9.4

  155

  169

  1969

  1999

  31

  80,173

  83,817

  8.9

  138

  144

  1970

  2000

  31

  85,445

  85,445

  9.1

  149

  149

  1971

  2001

  31

  83,563

  80,050

  8.9

  142

  136

  1972

  2002

  31

  87,400

  80,836

  7.5

  126

  117

  Table 2: Pension entitlement assuming that 50 per cent. of the fund is invested in gilts in each of the last five years of growth

  Year started contributing

  Retire at end of year

  Years of contribution

  Lump sum built up (cash terms) (£)

  Lump sum in 2000 earnings terms (£)

  Annuity rate in last year of contribution ( Percentage)

  Pension at retirement (nominal terms, weekly) (£)

  Pension at retirement ( 2000 earnings terms, weekly) (£)

  1956

  1986

  31

  19,211

  42,068

  14.1

  52

  114

  1957

  1987

  31

  20,988

  42,656

  14.0

  56

  115

  1958

  1988

  31

  21,805

  40,723

  13.7

  57

  107

  1959

  1989

  31

  26,912

  46,107

  14.0

  72

  124

  1960

  1990

  31

  28,668

  44,740

  15.2

  84

  131

  1961

  1991

  31

  35,407

  51,329

  14.6

  99

  144

  1962

  1992

  31

  40,732

  55,736

  13.2

  104

  142

  1963

  1993

  31

  46,843

  62,248

  11.7

  106

  140

  1964

  1994

  31

  49,105

  62,967

  11.6

  109

  140

  1965

  1995

  31

  53,293

  66,287

  11.3

  116

  144

  1966

  1996

  31

  56,814

  68,211

  11.0

  120

  145

  1967

  1997

  31

  61,249

  70,535

  10.4

  122

  140

  1968

  1998

  31

  71,334

  78,179

  9.4

  129

  141

  1969

  1999

  31

  79,662

  83,284

  8.9

  137

  143

  1970

  2000

  31

  75,952

  75,952

  9.1

  133

  133

  1971

  2001

  31

  71,305

  68,308

  8.9

  122

  116

  1972

  2002

  31

  62,786

  58,071

  7.5

  91

  84

  Table 3: Pension entitlement assuming the fund remains in equities in all years

  Year started contributing

  Retire at end of year

  Years of contribution

  Lump sum built up ( cash terms) (£)

  Lump sum in 2000 earnings terms (£)

  Annuity rate in last year of contribution ( Percentage)

  Pension at retirement (nominal terms, weekly) (£)

  Pension at retirement ( 2000 earnings terms, weekly) (£)

  1956

  1986

  31

  20,111

  44,039

  14.1

  54

  119

  1957

  1987

  31

  25,477

  51,779

  14.0

  68

  139

  1958

  1988

  31

  23,489

  43,868

  13.7

  62

  116

  1959

  1989

  31

  29,434

  50,428

  14.0

  79

  136

  1960

  1990

  31

  29,462

  45,980

  15.2

  86

  135

  1961

  1991

  31

  33,097

  47,981

  14.6

  93

  135

  1962

  1992

  31

  34,377

  47,039

  13.2

  87

  120

  1963

  1993

  31

  41,058

  54,562

  11.7

  92

  123

  1964

  1994

  31

  44,526

  57,095

  11.6

  99

  127

  1965

  1995

  31

  46,353

  57,656

  11.3

  101

  126

  1966

  1996

  31

  52,049

  62,490

  11.0

  110

  132

  1967

  1997

  31

  57,522

  66,242

  10.4

  114

  132

  1968

  1998

  31

  67,342

  73,804

  9.4

  122

  133

  1969

  1999

  31

  74,254

  77,629

  8.9

  128

  133

  1970

  2000

  31

  69,934

  69,934

  9.1

  122

  122

  1971

  2001

  31

  58,700

  56,232

  8.9

  100

  96

  1972

  2002

  31

  43,036

  39,804

  7.5

  62

  58

  914W

  Benefit Payment
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what plans he has to publish the Office of Government Commerce gateway review into the transfer of benefit payments to automated credit transfer; [91290]

  (2) when the Office of Government Commerce follow-up gateway review into the transfer of benefit payments to automated credit transfer will be completed; and what plans he has to publish the results. [91291]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Office of Government Commerce issued the results of the April 2002 review into the transfer of benefit payments to payment direct into bank and building society accounts to the Department in May 2002.

  The follow-up gateway review is provisionally scheduled for April 2003, one year after the original review, the results of which will again be issued to the Department.

  Further dissemination of the review is subject to the Code of Practice on Access to Official Information.

  Benefit

  15 June to 13 July 2002

  14 July to 10 August 2002

  11 August to 7 September 2002

  8 September to 5 October 2002

  6 October to 2 November 2002

  Jobseekers Allowance

  3,144

  3,220

  3,343

  3,246

  3,549

  Income Support

  6,918

  6,772

  5,938

  6,611

  6,801

  Incapacity Benefit

  —

  2,851

  2,032

  —

  3,514

  Severe Disablement

  —

  415

  302

  —

  459

  Allowance Industrial Injuries

  —

  47

  471

  541

  531

  Widows Benefit

  —

  273

  195

  —

  321

  Bereavement Benefit

  (—

  47

  30

  —

  54

  Disability Living Allowance

  7,870

  2,740

  3,343

  3,704

  4,136

  Attendance Allowance

  —

  770

  442

  479

  541

  Invalid Care Allowance

  1,108

  —

  —

  —

  1,080

  Retirement Pension

  —

  12,799

  10,032

  —

  16,253

  Minimum Income Guarantee

  3,236

  3,089

  2,783

  2,760

  3,014

  Child Benefit

  7,659

  9,296

  7,146

  7,357

  9,373

  War Pensions

  1,427

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total GB Benefit Accounts

  31,362

  42,319

  36,057

  24,698

  49,626

  Benefit

  3 November to 30 November 2002

  1 December to 28 December 2002

  29 December 2002 to 25 January 2003

  26 January to 22 February 2003

  Jobseekers Allowance

  3,804

  4,149

  3,705

  5,083

  Income Support

  7,715

  5,087

  6,215

  9,186

  Incapacity Benefit

  —

  3,665

  —

  3,920

  Severe Disablement

  —

  602

  —

  591

  Allowance Industrial Injuries

  511

  462

  412

  675

  Widows Benefit

  —

  309

  —

  292

  Bereavement Benefit

  —

  45

  —

  60

  Disability Living Allowance

  3,964

  2,720

  3,047

  5,064

  Attendance Allowance

  495

  419

  408

  612

  Invalid Care Allowance

  —

  —

  —

  1,173

  Retirement Pension

  —

  18,754

  —

  20,934

  Minimum Income Guarantee

  3,455

  2,513

  2,929

  4,403

  Child Benefit

  7,906

  9,572

  4,725

  8,081

  War Pensions

  —

  2,154

  —

  929

  Total GB Benefit Accounts

  27,850

  50,451

  21,441

  61,003

  The figures compare information available at one date to the next, and are only available from 15 June 2002.

  Some benefit data are received less frequently than four weekly.

  Where there are no figures, these will be included in the next period for which figures are shown, as the calculation cannot be done until the data is received.

  People in receipt of more than one benefit may have those benefits combined to a single benefit account. Figures are in terms of these accounts.
  916W
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he is taking to ensure that financial advice is available to those persuaded to open bank accounts for the first time by the changes in benefit and pension distribution through the Post Office. [101438]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Government Departments and the Post Office will provide customers with full factual information about their banking options but are not qualified to and must not advise customers on which account is most suitable. It is for customers to choose which account best meets their needs and circumstances. Customers who are having difficulty deciding which account is best for them can seek advice from independent organisations.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many benefit claimants have migrated from direct payment to automated credit transfer in each month since January 2002, broken down into recipients of each major benefit. [102985]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available in the format requested.

  Such information, as is available on the number of accounts that have migrated from paper based methods of payment to direct payment into a bank or building society account in each month since January 2002, is shown in the following table.
  917W
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions under what circumstances follow-up phone calls are made by his Department to benefit recipients who opt not to receive payment by automated credit transfer into a bank account; how many such calls have so far been made; how many individuals have opted for ACT in response to such calls; how many staff are employed making calls, and at what cost to his Department; and if he will make a statement. [104001]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We are not currently re-contacting customers who have received letters inviting them to move to direct payment and have responded to opt not to be paid this way. We are, however, following up the invitation letters where customers have not responded. In some cases this is by a follow-up telephone call as part of the work undertaken by the Direct Payment Centre. This centre currently employs around 190 staff. Up until 17 March, 122,704 follow up calls have been made.

  The Department set up the Direct Payment Centre to handle the conversion to direct payment. This is a managed service that deals with telephone calls, the distribution of invitation letters and the collation of information when customers details are received. We can therefore not differentiate between these functions to provide costings.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 28 February 2003,Official Report, columns 761–62W, if he will place in the Library copies of information sent from his Department to benefit recipients. [101289]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on 6 November 2003,Official Report, column 406W. The latest version of the information will be issued from 1 April and will be placed in the Library thereafter.

  Benefit Payment
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people collect benefits from post offices in(a) Jarrow constituency, (b) South Tyneside, (c) the North East and (d) the UK. [103559]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information available on the number of people that receive benefits by a method of payment collectable from post offices as at 25 January 2003 is in the table. Included in these figures are customers paid by Girocheque. Girocheques are encashable either at a post office or they can be paid into a bank or building society account.

  Some customers who are paid direct into an account can also collect their benefit in cash at post offices through network banking arrangements at the post office. There are no data available on the number of benefit claims collected in this way.

  Total benefit recipients

  Payable at post offices

  Jarrow constituency

  35,911

  26,511

  South Tyneside

  68,886

  51,931

  North East

  1,073,900

  747,964

  Great Britain

  21,641,051

  12,456,733

  918W

  1. People in receipt of more than one benefit may have those benefits combined to a single benefit account. Figures are in terms of these accounts.

  2. Figures for Great Britain are for England, Scotland and Wales. Information for Northern Ireland is a matter for the Northern Ireland Office.

  3. The 'Payable at post offices' column represents customers who have their benefit paid either entirely by paper method, or at least one of their benefits is by paper if they are receiving a combination of benefits and some are being paid direct.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what steps he has taken to inform benefit claimants to be affected by the change in payment method about the steps needed to register for a post office card account; [103510]

  (2) what arrangements are in place to cater for benefit or pension recipients who do not specify their preferred payment method at the end of the changeover to the new payment system. [103511]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Department is mailing customers affected individually to inform them of the move to Direct Payment. This activity began in October 2002 with mailings to Child Benefit and War Pension customers. In addition to this we are planning to run national and regional press advertising this month and plan further advertising from May onwards. This aims to educate our customers about what is changing, the options they have and the action they should take. It will be up to the individual to decide what the best option for their circumstances will be.

  It has always been recognised that there will be a small number of people who will not be able to be paid directly into an account. We are currently exploring alternative ways in which these customers could receive their money.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many benefit claimants in(a) each region and (b) each local authority have opted to collect their benefit payments using (i) post office card accounts, (ii) basic bank accounts and (c) current bank accounts. [103512]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available in the format requested.

  Information that is available shows that as at 28 February 2003, over 447,226 customers have responded to our letters and opted for payment into a bank or building society account. This is made up of 393,847 child benefit customers, 51,806 veterans agency customers and 1,573 pensions customers.

  As at 28 February 2003, 1,218,916 customer invitation letters have been issued. From the invitation letters issued 90,711 customers have responded with a request for a Post Office card account.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners in(a) Essex and (b) the West Chelmsford constituency collect benefits from Post Offices. [103124]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information available on pensioners as at 25 January 2003 in(a) Essex and (b) West Chelmsford constituency receiving their benefits by a method of payment collectable at Post Office is shown in the following table. Included in these figures are

  919W
  customers paid by Girocheque. Girocheques are encashable either at a post office or they can be paid into a bank or building society account.

  Number

  Essex

  122,192

  West Chelmsford

  7,621

  Some customers who are paid direct into an account can also collect their benefit in cash at Post Offices through the network banking arrangements at the Post Office. There is no data available on the number of benefit claims collected this way.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners in(a) Essex and (b) the West Chelmsford constituency have migrated from over the counter benefit payments to direct bank transfers in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [103125]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available in the format requested.

  Such information as is available on pensioners as at 25 January 2003 in (a) Essex and (b) West Chelmsford constituency, that have migrated to receiving at least one type of benefit, from payments collectable at post offices to payment into a bank or building society account, is shown in the table. The figures are a comparison between those of 25 January and the same records approximately 12 weeks earlier. Included in these figures are customers paid by Girocheque. Girocheques are encashable either at a post office, or they can be paid into a bank or building society account.

  Number of pensioners

  Essex

  1,317

  West Chelmsford

  76

  Some customers who are paid direct into an account can also collect their benefit in cash at post offices through network banking arrangements at the Post Office. There is no data available on the number of benefit claims collected this way.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps have been taken to promote the use of(a) a Post Office card account, (b) a current account and (c) a basic account for receiving benefit payments following the introduction of ACT; and if he will make a statement. [103801]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on 27 January 2003,Official Report, column 662W.

  Benefits Agency
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of claims made to the Benefits Agency were delayed because of papers lost or mislaid by the Agency in the last year for which figures are available. [88534]
  920W
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information requested is not available.

  In April 2002, we launched Jobcentre Plus and the Pensions Service, replacing the Benefits Agency. The Department and its Agencies are committed to providing a high level of customer service and have published customer charters setting out the level of service that customers can expect to receive.

  Both Agencies treat all post and claim forms as confidential items taking all necessary action resulting from that post, both promptly and accurately. If a customer reports that an item of post has not been actioned, Agency staff will check to ensure that it has not been misplaced within the office. If a claim to benefit is delayed because the Agencies have lost forms or papers they will make every effort to ensure that the customer does not suffer unduly by rectifying the situation as quickly as possible. In a case of maladministration where a customer suffers financial loss, stress or is put to additional inconvenience, the Agencies can, in addition, make financial redress through our special payments schemes.

  Business Bureaucracy
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the forms that his Department requires private sector businesses to complete and return. [98090]

  Malcolm Wicks
  A list of forms that the Department for Work and Pensions, including the Health and Safety Executive requires private sector business to complete has been placed in the Library. This list excludes forms used with contracted providers, and those providing professional services, such as general practitioners, building societies and banks.

  The Government's aim is to eliminate unnecessary regulation, and to minimise the burdens imposed by regulation. It is committed to reducing, wherever possible, existing regulatory burdens, and to minimising the impact on business of any new legislation.

  Pensions Consultation
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when and where the West Midland Regional DWP consultation meeting scheduled for 3 April will take place; who may attend; and if he will make a statement. [104058]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Government are conducting the largest consultation ever mounted on pensions issues. To ensure the widest possible range of views are sought they have established a partnership with Age Concern and the Co-operative Insurance Society to consult on the proposals in the Pensions Green Paper, "Simplicity, security and choice: Working and saving for retirement", Cm 5677. The aim of this tier of consultation is to reach individuals, groups and organisations that may not ordinarily have the opportunity to air their views direct to Ministers. A series of consultation events will take place, one in each of the Government Office Regions in England, one in Wales and one in Scotland.
  921W
  Arrangements for the whole series of meetings have yet to be finalised. However the event for the West Midlands GOR will be held on 3 April at the Copthorne Merry Hotel in Dudley. Attendance is by invitation only.

  Age Concern and CIS will identify and issue invitations to people in the following groups. Some invitations for the West Midlands event have already been issued.

  Local business interests and representative groups

  Local trade union representatives

  Representatives of local ethnic minority groups

  Representatives of LA and voluntary welfare rights and advice organisations

  Local CAB

  Local Help the Aged

  Representatives of local older peoples' representative organisations

  Share of expenditure on type of benefit shown, Great Britain, financial years

  Percentage of total

  Pensions

  Disability benefits

  Unemployment benefits

  Child benefits Excluding IRB* child elements

  Including IRB* child elements

  Housing benefits

  1982–83

  47

  2

  13

  12

  n/a

  l0

  1983–84

  45

  2

  14

  12

  n/a

  11

  1984–85

  44

  3

  14

  12

  n/a

  11

  1985–86

  44

  3

  14

  11

  n/a

  11

  1986–87

  43

  3

  14

  11

  n/a

  11

  1987–88

  44

  4

  12

  10

  n/a

  11

  1988–89

  45

  4

  9

  10

  n/a

  11

  1989–90

  46

  4

  7

  10

  n/a

  12

  1990–91

  45

  4

  7

  9

  n/a

  13

  1991–92

  43

  5

  9

  8

  12

  12

  1992–93

  41

  5

  10

  8

  12

  13

  1993–94

  40

  6

  9

  8

  12

  14

  1994–95

  39

  7

  8

  8

  12

  15

  1995–96

  39

  8

  7

  8

  12

  15

  1996–97

  39

  9

  5

  8

  12

  15

  1997–98

  41

  9

  4

  8

  12

  15

  1998–99

  42

  9

  3

  8

  12

  14

  1999–2000

  43

  10

  3

  8

  12

  14

  2000–01

  45

  10

  3

  9

  12

  14

  2001–02

  46

  10

  2

  8

  12

  13

  2002–03

  46

  10

  2

  8

  12

  14

  * IRBs: Income-related benefits—income support, income based jobseeker's allowance family credit and disability working allowance. Notes and definitions:

  (a) "Pensions" includes retirement pension, minimum income guarantee and its predecessors, winter fuel payments and over 75 TV licences. Expenditure on over 75 TV licences includes Northern Ireland.

  (b) Disability-related benefits include disability living allowance, attendance allowance, mobility allowance, invalid care allowance, independent living funds and vaccine damage payments.

  (c) Unemployment benefits include jobseeker's allowance, unemployment benefit, and income support/supplementary benefit for the unemployed.

  (d) Child benefits include child benefit (including lone parent addition), one parent benefit, guardian's allowance and child's special allowance, plus child-related elements of income support, jobseeker's allowance, family credit and disability working allowance in the second of the two columns.

  (e) Housing-related benefits include housing benefit, council tax benefit, community charge benefit and rate rebate, including those elements of expenditure financed within local authorities' housing revenue accounts and general funds.

  Figures are rounded to the nearest whole per cent.

  Source:

  Departmental accounts and estimated out-turn underlying the pre-Budget 2002 forecasts.
  922W

  Local financial advisers

  Mothers' Union

  Representation from local government Credit unions

  One parent families

  Gay/lesbian rights groups

  Monetary Advice Trust—Scotland

  Regional representatives from the National Association of Pension Funds (NAPF)

  Regional Co-op Societies

  Regional CBI offices

  Other organisations with the Departments prior agreement

  A small number of people/organisations will be invited by the local Pension Service.

  Departmental Budget
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his estimate is of the percentage share of his Department's total spending accounted for by(a) pensions, (b) disability related benefits, (c) unemployment benefits, (d) child benefits and e ) housing benefits in each year from 1982–83 to 2002–03, estimated. [96815]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is in the following table:

  Domestic Violence
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what financial support is available for spouses and their dependants who are seeking exceptional leave to remain on the basis of the domestic violence concession. [96889]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Provided that the Home Office is satisfied that a marriage has broken down due to domestic violence, it can apply a concession to the immigration rules (during the probationary one-year period), giving the victim indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom. This provision allows victims of domestic violence to claim social security benefits.

  Employers Liability Insurance
  Mr. Bailey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of responses to the consultation on employers liability insurance; and if he will make a statement. [102897]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written ministerial statement I gave on 12 December 2002,Official Report, columns 23–24WS. The Department is in the process of assessing the responses to the consultation undertaken as part of the review of Employers' Liability Compulsory Insurance which is due to report in the spring.

  Incomes (Blackpool, North and Fleetwood)
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average income is in the constituency of Blackpool, North and Fleetwood. [98677]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information is not available. Information on average income is available at a national level from the Department's Family Resources Survey but sample sizes and other limitations mean that the information cannot be regarded as robust at regional and sub-regional level.

  IT Contracts
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list IT contracts in his Department and its predecessors above £50 million in each of the last 10 years; what the inception date for each system was; when it became fully functional; when it became fully debugged; and what the cost of over-runs has been. [99003]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is as follows:1. Contract: Modernising Employment Service. Employment Services outsourcing its IT work in a partnership agreement with Electronic Data Systems (EDS). This agreement was revised to reflect major new investment in IT and telephony to improve services for jobless people and employers in the Modernising Employment Service (MES) Project.

  Inception Dates: August 1998—original outsourcing: October 2000—MES.

  Dates fully functional: August 1998

  Cost over-runs: None.

  2. Contract: ACCORD Strategic Outsourcing Business Allocation (SOBA). The Department of Social Security awarded a contract to outsource all its IT provision. This contract also encompasses business outsourced previously in 1995 under Focus
  924W
  95 arrangements, and is concerned with the maintenance, development and operation of the Department's existing IT systems.

  Inception Date: 8 August 2000.

  Date Fully Functional: 1 September 2000

  Cost over-runs: None.

  3. Contract: Child Support Reforms (CSR). The Department of Social Security awarded the contract, to provide new IT systems in support of the Child Support Agency. From 27 January 2003, new child support claims have been processed on existing rules. Processing claims on new rules is scheduled to begin on 3 March 2003, consequently the system is not yet fully operational.

  Inception Date: 8 August 2000.

  Date Fully Functional: 27 January 2003

  Cost over-runs: The amount the Department will pay has risen by around 7 per cent. over the term of the contract.

  4. Contract: Early Office Infrastructure (EOI). These are a series of contracts to replace the desktops and associated equipment for the Departments employees and eventually the support arrangements for that kit. Two contracts of over £50 million have been awarded to date.

  i) Mobilisation contract to build the infrastructure for the support.

  Inception Date: January 2001.

  Date Fully Functional: This is an IT service contract, not an IT development contract. There have been a number of contact changes to build volumes and functionality

  Cost over-runs: Unable to identify any true cost over-runs at this stage as project not complete.

  ii) Rollout contract to manage the implementation of the kit and associated equipment.

  Inception Date: July 2001.

  Date fully functional: This is an IT service contract, not an IT development contract. The original contract has been subject to extension.

  Cost over-runs: Unable to identify any true cost over-runs at this stage as project not complete.

  5. Contract: New Tax Credits (NTC). The contract is for the delivery of new and amended DWP IT to enable joint working with the Inland Revenue on NTC and to reflect the changes in benefit rules resulting from the introduction of NTC.

  Inception Date: 13 December 2002.

  Date Fully Functional: Expected to be fully functional on 7 April 2003.

  Cost over-runs: None

  6. Contract: Lots B, C and D. These outsourcing contracts let for support and implementation of Office Services to SEMA Group UK Ltd. (Lots B and C) and International Computers Ltd.

  Inception Date: 14 June 1995. Contracts transferred to BT Arcway on 24 August 2000 under the ACCORD framework.

  Date fully functional: 14 June 1995. These are IT service contracts, not IT development therefore no formal date for acceptance testing.

  Cost over-runs: None.

  7. Contract: NOSP WAN. The Wide Area Network business allocation via BT provides network access to the former DSS estate.

  Inception Date: 23 November 2000

  Date fully functional: Ongoing

  Cost over-runs: None.

  The information relates to contractual arrangements made by the Department for Work and Pensions, the former Employment Services and the former Department for Social Security.
  925W
  On the question of "debugging", the view is that no IT system is completely free from "bugs". However, the Department deals with these according to priority, working in partnership with private sector providers to eradicate on an ongoing basis.

  A list of IT contracts current at the time of Focus 95 outsourcing is available in the Library. Information prior to 1995 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of expenditure on the minimum income guarantee if there is(a) 100 per cent., (b) 95 per cent., (c) 90 per cent. and (d) 85 per cent. take-up of the scheme. [102590]

  Mr. McCartney
  Expenditure on the minimum income guarantee for 2002–03 is expected to be around £4.5 billion. This reflects the current number of MIG recipients recorded in administrative data and any fluctuations expected throughout the financial year.

  The Department does not produce forecasts of expenditure on the basis of different levels of take-up. An indication of the likely expenditure under different levels of take-up can be estimated using the Department's publication "Income-Related Benefits Estimates of Take-up in 1999– 2000". This shows expenditure take-up of the MIG for 1999–2000 to be in the range of 74 per cent. to 86 per cent.

  Based on the midpoint of this range, and on the strong assumption that recent levels of expenditure take-up continue into the future, the table below provides an estimate of likely MIG expenditure under different

  Allegations of fraud committed by contractors engaged through the New Deal, April 1998 to November 2002

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  April-November 2002

  Totals

  Number of allegations

  165

  283

  570

  390

  461

  1,869

  Number that went to full investigation

  Not available

  Not available

  62

  99

  117

  278

  Estimated loss (£)

  Not available

  Not available

  520,206.25

  1,030,894.17

  233,471.09

  1,784,571.51

  Notes:

  1. Information on the number of allegations that went to full investigation and on the estimated loss for 1998–99 and 1999–2000 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  2. The information concerning recovery of this money is not available.

  Source:

  Jobcentre Plus Contractor and Programme Investigation Unit.

  Occupational Pension Schemes
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if her Department will make contingency plans in the case of a shortfall in an occupational pension scheme to prevent a UK subsidiary of an overseas group abandoning the scheme and not meeting any funding shortfall. [103393]

  Mr. McCartney
  Provisions already exist to prevent companies from abandoning and not meeting any funding shortfall in occupational pension schemes. If a salary-related pension scheme is operating with tax approval, and is subject to the Minimum Funding Requirement (MFR), then a wide range of requirements
  926W
  levels of take-up. There is likely to be a wide margin of error around these estimates and they should only be used to provide an indication of the likely effect.

  Estimated MIG expenditure under different levels of take-up

  Expenditure take-up level

  Estimated MIG expenditure (£ billion)

  100 per cent.

  5.6

  95 per cent.

  5.3

  90 per cent.

  5.1

  85 per cent.

  4.8

  Notes:

  1. The assumption has been made that the take-up levels requested relate to expenditure levels and not the case load level.

  2. All figures are rounded to the nearest £100 million.

  3. Expenditure for 2002–03 is based on PBR 2002 forecasts.

  New Deal (Fraud)
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what has been the(a) average annual and (b) total level of (i) erroneous payments and (ii) fraud connected with the New Deal to date; how much of this money has been recovered; and if he will make a statement. [88053]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 19 December 2002]Since the inception of the New Deals, all allegations of fraud have been followed up and fully investigated if the circumstances warranted it. Information on the level of erroneous payments is recorded by benefit, not by programme. Similarly, the level of fraud committed by participants in the New Deal is recorded by benefit, not by programme. However, in 1998 we established the Jobcentre Plus Contractor and Programme Investigation Unit, as part of the Counter Fraud Investigation Division. The unit's work includes the investigation of all allegations of fraud committed by contractors under the New Deal. The available information is in the table.

  under the Pensions Act 1995 apply to that scheme. This includes the funding of the scheme as determined by the MFR, and the requirement to maintain a schedule of contributions. The Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority (Opra) has the power to sanction scheme managers or trustees who fail to take reasonable steps to comply with these requirements.

  Also, legislation provides that when a salary-related scheme winds up, or a sponsoring employer becomes insolvent, any deficiency in the pension fund becomes a debt on the employer. This provides a mechanism for the trustees to be able to take action to pursue the debt.
  927W
  The pensions Green Paper, Simplicity, Security and Choice: Working and Saving for Retirement', Cm 5677, published on 17 December, discusses two options (the full buy-out option and the partial buy-out option) for changes to the debt on the employer provisions that might result in more funds being put into a scheme when a solvent employer chooses to wind it up. This would strengthen protection for scheme members, however this needs to be balanced against the costs on employers.

  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what guidance he gives on protection for members of occupational pension schemes operated by companies whose parent company is listed overseas. [103396]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority (Opra) produces guides to help pension scheme trustees understand some of the legal and technical issues involving pensions law. It also provides fact sheets for members of occupational pension schemes.

  If a salary-related pension scheme is operating with tax approval, and is subject to the Minimum Funding Requirement (MFR), then a wide range of requirements under the Pensions Act 1995 apply to that scheme. This includes the funding of the scheme as determined by the MFR, the requirement to maintain a schedule of contributions and, when a salary-related scheme winds up, or a sponsoring employer becomes insolvent, any deficiency in the pension fund becomes a debt on the employer. That fact that the parent company of the principal employer sponsoring the pension scheme may be listed overseas is therefore not directly relevant.

  The protection that people receive if their pension scheme is wound up is important, and we need to do more to protect the rights of scheme members. That is why we are consulting on proposals within the pensions Green Paper 'Simplicity, Security and Choice: Working and Saving for Retirement', published on 17 December, aimed at improving protection for scheme members on wind up. This includes proposals to share out scheme assets more fairly, introduce some form of insurance and strengthen protection for members whose solvent employer chooses to wind up its scheme.

  We are consulting on our Green Paper, 'Simplicity, Security and Choice: Working and Saving for Retirement', Cm 5677 at the moment, and the consultation period runs until 28 March 2003.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will answer written questions(a) 97909 and (b) 97910 of 12 February tabled by the hon. Member for Perth. [104020]

  Mr. McCartney
  Answers were given to the hon. Member on 19 March.

  Passive Smoking
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent assessment he has made of the effects on workers of passive smoking in the workplace. [99358]
  928W
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans the Government have to assess the number of workers exposed to second hand smoke in the workplace. [99982]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Research by the Department of Health's Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health (SCOTH) into the general effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke is continuing.

  The results of a survey on smoking behaviour and attitudes, undertaken by the Office for National Statistics in 2002, are due to be published on behalf of the Department of Health this summer.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of total public expenditure has been spent on(a) retirement pensions, (b) winter fuel payments, (c) means-tested benefits for pensioners, (d) other benefits for pensioners and (e) free television licences in each year since 1992–93. [102988]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information required is given in the table.

  Percentage of Total Managed

  Expenditure Retirement pensions1

  Winter fuel payments

  Income related benefits2

  Other benefIts3

  Over 75 TV licence

  1992–93

  10.31

  2.05

  0.05

  1993–94

  10.42

  2.21

  0.05

  1994–95

  10.16

  2.19

  0.05

  1995–96

  10.09

  2.14

  0.04

  1996–97

  10.45

  2.11

  0.05

  1997–98

  10.67

  0.06

  2.08

  0.04

  1998–99

  10.90

  0.06

  2.00

  0.04

  1999–2000

  11.13

  0.22

  2.02

  0.04

  2000–01

  10.64

  0.48

  2.02

  0.04

  0.08

  2001–02

  10.78

  0.43

  2.05

  0.03

  0.09

  2002–034

  10.64

  0.41

  1.98

  0.03

  0.09

  1 Includes pension age expenditure on widows/bereavement benefits; Severe disablement allowance; and invalidity/incapacity benefit (prior to 2001–02).

  2 Income related benefits include the minimum income guarantee and housing benefit and council tax benefit paid to people aged 60 or over.

  3 Other benefits comprise Christmas bonus (contributory and non-contributory).

  4 Based on forecast expenditure.

  Notes:

  Percentages have been calculated using total managed expenditure, which includes Government departmental expenditure limits and annually managed expenditure, based on pre-Budget report 2002 figures. Apart from benefits mentioned in note1 contains no data relating to expenditure on disability benefits.

  Pensions Commission
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many times the pensions commission had met by the latest date for which he has information. [102556]

  Mr. McCartney
  As of 11 March, the pensions commission has met twice.

  Scotland
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans Ministers in the Department
  929W
  have to (a) visit Scotland on official business, (b) announce public appointments and (c) make ministerial announcements in April. [103664]

  Mr. McCartney
  Departmental business during the campaign period preceding elections to the Scottish Parliament will be conducted in accordance with the Guidance on Conduct for Civil Servants in UK Departments in respect of elections to the Scottish Parliament and National Assembly for Wales, published by the Cabinet Office on 10 March.

  Sign Language
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if his Department will make it its policy to ensure that its contract with SchlumbergerSema requires that only registered qualified sign language interpreters are used at medical examinations when making an assessment of sign language users. [103105]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  SchlumbergerSema Medical Services' current procedures adhere to the principle that the provision of interpreters is a customer led one.

  Therefore customers are given the option of either requesting a sign language interpreter or arranging for a friend or family member to interpret or sign for them.

  In the event that a customer elects for Medical Services to provide a Sign Language Interpreter, Medical Services' policy is to arrange for provision of a Qualified Signer to be obtained through the RNID helpline.

  The Department has no current plans to review this requirement.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what contractual(a) obligations and (b) targets his Department has placed on SchlumbergerSema medical services for providing sign language interpreters for medical examinations; and if he will make a statement. [102901]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 14 March 2003]The contract between the Department and SchlumbergerSema Medical Services defines deafness as a "Special Need" and specifies the following:SchlumbergerSema Medical Services shall comply with any reasonable request to accommodate claimants who have special needs
  When a special need is identified on the day of the examination appointment and the special need cannot be reasonably accommodated, SchlumbergerSema Medical Services shall use reasonable endeavours to ensure that an alternative appointment is arranged within 24 hours of the special need being identified and shall ensure that the claimant's special needs will be accommodated at the new appointment.
  The target that the Department has set for SchlumbergerSema Medical Services in relation to special needs is that 95 per cent. of claimant's requirements will be met.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether he intends to(a) increase the Social Fund budget and ( b) make other changes to the
  930W
  Social Fund, to cover potential cashflow problems for benefit claimants as they move to automated credit transfer. [100794]

  Malcolm Wicks
  On 27 November we announced that from April 2003, £90 million will be added to the discretionary Social Fund over the three years to 2005–06. This extra investment will enhance the Fund's ability to help those on low incomes manage their finances.

  The size of the gross national Social Fund budget, set at 1 April each year, is dependent on forecasts of the level of Social Fund loan recovery in the coming year. We will announce the 2003/04 budget once we are able to finalise details based on this forecast.

  The move to Direct Payment will be phased in over a two year period from April 2003. No changes are being made to benefit payment frequencies so that anyone currently receiving their benefit weekly can continue to do so when they move to Direct Payment. We do not anticipate any increase in Social Fund crisis loan applications because of Direct Payment and therefore have no plans to make any changes to the Social Fund.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a) special advisers and (b) press officers have been employed by his Department in each year from 1994–95 to 2002–03; and at what cost in each year. [92476]

  Mr. McCartney
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on 23 July 2002,Official Report, column 1038.

  The Department for Work and Pensions was formed on 8 June 2001 from parts of the former Department of Social Security, parts of the former Department for Education and Employment and the Employment service. Information on costs for 1994 to 2001 is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The Department currently employs 16 (£1,065,233) press officers. A further 13 (£671,702) press officers work in the regions (England, Scotland and Wales) providing specific advice on local services that are now being rolled out.

  Last year the Department employed 21 press officers at a cost of £816,725. The cost for 2002–03 is a forecast spend for the whole year and includes the total staff costs in press office and regional network, including admin, staff.

  Targeting Fraud Campaign
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much the targeting fraud campaign has cost, broken down into expenditure on(a) the television and radio campaign, (b) advertising in the press, (c) evaluation of the campaign, (d) the website and (e) other costs. [102987]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The most recent Targeting Fraud advertising campaign took place between September 2001 and March 2002. The costs break down as follows:
  931W

  £

  TV advertising

  5,061,680

  Press advertising

  1,119,651

  Radio advertising

  852,516

  Poster advertising

  1,006,781

  Production

  517,379

  Research (Evaluation)

  257,150

  Total

  8,833,157

  These costs are exclusive of VAT. They include fees for placing the advertisements on the Targeting Fraud website. All design work for the website was undertaken by the in-house team and it is not possible to identify the cost separately.

  Violence at Work
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what measures have been introduced to reduce violence at work. [103560]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Health and Safety Commission (HSC) is committed to tackling the problem of work-related violence. In March 2000, HSC agreed a three-year programme to help reduce the number of incidents of violence at work. So far the programme has resulted in the publication of new guidance specifically aimed at small businesses; the development of new National Occupational Standards on work-related violence; a programme of inspections in the health care sector; new research to establish good practice for lone workers; and a major conference run jointly by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and the TUC to help raise awareness of violence in the workplace.

  HSE has published general guidance for employers to help them tackle work-related violence, in accordance with their duties under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. HSE has also published sector-specific guidance covering health services, education, retail, banks and building societies.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Accountancy Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the total cost to his Department was for accountancy services in 2002. [101565]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was created on 29 May 2002. Between that date and the end of 2002 the amount spent on accountancy services was £359,000.

  Departmental Costs
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) how many people are employed in(a) the devolution and English regions division and (h) the international and policy division of the central policy group; what the cost of each was in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement; [99887]
  932W
  (2) if he will make a statement on the purposes of the Deputy Prime Minister's Central Policy Group; how many people there are in the Group; and where it is based. [99886]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Devolution and Constitution Division and the International and Central Policy Divisions form part of the Central Strategy and Resources Directorate in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. A total of 24 people are employed and are based in 26 Whitehall. From July 2001 to June 2002 they formed the Deputy Prime Minister's Central Policy Group in the Cabinet Office. The Devolution and Constitution Division oversees the relationship between the UK Government and the Devolved Administrations; the International and Central Policy Division works across the Department on a range of international, regional and domestic policies, and a number of corporate issues, and provides advice to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and other Ministers and officials.

  In their current form the divisions have only been in operation since the creation of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in May 2002. Therefore there are no comparative figures yet available which cover a full financial year.

  Firefighters' Dispute
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the Fire Brigades Union on the effects of fire strikes on the training and readiness of HM Armed Forces for military operations. [103999]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has met the Fire Brigades Union on a number occasions to discuss a variety of topics since the dispute began. He has made it clear that, while the Armed Forces have been, and continue to be, able to provide emergency cover, this has had an impact on their usual duties.

  Government Initiatives
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which central government schemes and initiatives since 1997 have required the formation of partnerships with local government to implement them. [103730]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Government are committed to working in partnership with local government in the development and implementation of policy, a principle enshrined in the Framework for Partnership agreed with the Local Government Association. Accordingly, partnerships with authorities of many different kinds have been involved in the implementation of a wide range of Government policies. The specific information requested could, however, be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Industrial Action
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many working days were lost owing to industrial action by staff in(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies in 2002. [101507]
  933W
  Mr. Leslie
  There have been no working days lost by staff in 2002 as a result of industrial action in either the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, its agencies or non-departmental public bodies

  Local Government Grant Settlement
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 6 March 2003,Official Report, column 1202W, on the local government grant settlement, if he will list the specific and special grants to which he refers; which of them are ringfenced; what amount in cash terms is available for distribution to (a) local authorities and (b) other organisations for each; when he plans for bids to be submitted to him for a share of each grant; and if he will make a statement. [103323]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The following table gives up-to-date details of specific and special grants announced for 2003–04. Some grants are bid for and successful bids

  Details of Specific and Special Grant

  Specific/Special Grant

  Department

  Ring-fenced?

  Bids?

  Amount available to local authorities in 2003–04 unless otherwise stated (millions)

  Education

  Standards Fund

  DIES

  Yes

  No

  1,339

  Excellence in Cities

  DfES

  No

  No

  219

  School Standards

  DfES

  No

  No

  800

  Teachers' Pay Reform

  DfES

  Yes

  No

  745

  Childcare

  DfES

  Yes

  No

  230

  Leadership Incentive

  DfES

  Yes

  No

  175

  Intervention in Failing LEAs

  DIES

  Yes

  No

  5

  London Budget Support Grant

  DIES

  Yes

  No

  11.29

  Personal Social Services

  Carers

  DH

  Yes

  No

  100

  Training Support Programme

  DH

  Yes

  Biddable Element—£13 million (deadline 25 April)

  57

  National Training Strategy

  DH

  Yes

  No

  25

  Preserved Rights

  DH

  No

  No

  509

  Performance Fund

  DH

  Yes

  No

  100

  Children's Services

  DH

  Yes

  No

  557

  Human Resources Development Strategy

  DH

  Yes

  No

  10

  Access & Systems Capacity

  DH

  Yes

  No

  170

  Care Direct

  DH

  Yes

  No

  5

  Children and Adolescent Mental Health Services

  DH

  Yes

  No

  51

  Young People's Substance Misuse Planning

  DH

  Yes

  No

  5

  Teenage Pregnancy Local Implementation

  DH

  Yes

  No

  24

  Deferred Payments

  DH

  Yes

  No

  40

  Mental Health

  DH

  Yes

  No

  134

  AIDS Support

  DH

  Yes

  No

  17

  Police

  Crime Fighting Fund

  HO

  Yes

  No

  238

  Outer London Pay Lead

  HO

  Yes

  No

  10

  Rural Policing Fund

  HO

  Yes

  No

  28

  Police Negotiating Board

  HO

  Yes

  Yes

  36

  DNA Grant

  HO

  Yes

  Yes

  9

  Basic Command Units

  HO

  Yes

  No

  47

  London & South East Allowance

  HO

  Yes

  No

  20

  London Travel

  HO

  Yes

  No

  3

  Community Support Officers

  HO

  Yes

  Yes

  39

  Officer Retention Over 30 Years

  HO

  Yes

  Yes

  1

  Special Constables

  HO

  Yes

  Part

  8

  Occupational Health

  HO

  Yes

  No

  5

  Street Crime Initiative

  HO

  Yes

  Part

  25

  Reform Deal

  HO

  Yes

  Yes

  8

  Non Emergency Number

  HO

  Yes

  No

  3

  National Intelligence Model

  HO

  Yes

  Yes

  2

  Counter Terrorism

  HO

  Yes

  Yes

  58

  Airwaves Communication Project

  HO

  Yes

  No

  58

  934W
  receive allocations. The majority are allocated to all qualifying authorities by a formula or on an agreed basis. The definition of ring-fencing was updated last year to reflect the types of grant which now exist. Some grants previously classified as ring-fenced are not now classified in this way. The key distinction made remains that ring-fenced grants are those which restrict local authority spending. For completeness the following list includes all special grants inside Aggregate External Finance. Further details of classifications are in an annex to the freedoms and flexibilities announcement of 26 November. Under the terms of the freedoms and flexibilities announcement, from 2003–04, the majority of the grants in the following table are unfenced for excellent performers. Exceptions include those grants which must be passed to schools, and the supporting people grant, where in view of the legislative requirements, different arrangements are in place for removing ring-fencing for excellent performers.
  935W

  Details of Specific, and Special Grant

  Specific/Special Grant

  Department

  Ring-fenced?

  Bids?

  Amount available to local authorities in 2003–04 unless otherwise stated (millions)

  Environment Protective and Cultural Services

  Council Tax Benefit and Housing Benefit Administration

  DWP

  No

  No

  321

  Supporting People

  ODPM

  Yes

  No

  1,400

  Civil Defence

  CO

  Yes

  No

  19

  Waste Re-Cycling Challenge

  DEFRA

  Yes

  No

  40

  Personalised Travel Pilots

  DfT

  Yes

  Local Traffic Authorities, Passenger Transport Executives, Transport for London, BAA Heathrow invited to bid for funding in July 2002

  0.586

  Roadside Vehicle Testing

  DfT

  Yes

  Yes, bids accepted at any time

  4

  Travel Plan Bursaries

  DfT

  Yes

  No

  3

  Probation Loan Charges

  DfT

  Yes

  No

  3

  Neighbourhood Wardens

  ODPM

  Yes

  Yes, every 21 years, although annual review/performance management takes place

  21 (20 per cent. to other organisations—housing associations, charitable groups, police)

  Planning Delivery Grant

  ODPM

  No

  No

  50 (46.9 to local authorities, 3.1 to regional planning bodies)

  Magistrates Courts

  LCD

  Yes

  No

  330

  Rural Bus Subsidy

  DfT

  Yes

  No

  50

  Rural Bus Challenge

  DfT

  Yes

  Yes, most bids for funding in 2003–04 have been accepted in January 2003 and in earlier years of the competition, the future of this scheme has yet to be decided.

  20

  Urban Bus Challenge

  DfT

  Yes

  Yes, most bids for funding in 2003–04 have been accepted in November 2002 and in earlier years of the competition, the future of this scheme has yet to be decided

  20

  National Parks and Broads

  DEFRA

  Yes

  No

  25

  Capital

  PFI

  ODPM

  No

  No

  340

  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund

  ODPM

  No

  No

  400

  Unallocated

  GLA General Grant

  ODPM

  No

  No

  35

  LPSA Reward

  ODPM

  No

  No

  21

  Departmental Travel
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many times since 2001 he has taken flights within his departmental duties in the UK; how many of these were(a) charter flights, (b) first or club class and (c) by helicopter; and who accompanied him on each trip. [95382]

  Mr. Leslie
  Since 2001 my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has taken three scheduled business class UK flights, one accompanied by one person, another accompanied by two people and the third accompanied by three people. During this period he has taken one chartered helicopter flight accompanied by five people.

  All travel was undertaken in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code and Travel by Ministers, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) how many overseas trips were undertaken by him 936W
  and other Ministers since May 2001 itinerary, which officials and dignitaries they met; and what the itinerary was of each visit; [83421]

  (2) how many regional visits within the United Kingdom were undertaken by him and other ministers since May 2001; and how many times he has visited (a) Wales and (b) Scotland since May 2001. [83422]

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the overseas trips made by himself and other members of his ministerial team in 2002; and what the(a) purpose and (b) cost was in each case. [101489]

  Mr. Leslie
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Alexander) to the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on 22 January 2003,Official Report, column 334W.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on progress in his international work; and what overseas visits he made in the last 12 months. [99888]
  937W
  Mr. Leslie
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister chaired the cabinet committee which prepared the UK's position for the world summit on sustainable development in South Africa and held a number of important bilateral meetings in connection with the summit. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister also continues to undertake international work on behalf of the Prime Minister, and has held a number of meetings with visiting Ministers in London.

  In addition to his attendance at the summit in South Africa, right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has also visited Canada, Brazil, China, India, Denmark and Japan.

  Social Housing Grant
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister for what reason his Department did not communicate directly with local authorities likely to be affected by the decision to abolish local authority social housing grant from 1 April, prior to the publication of the ministerial statement on 5 March. [102754]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister consulted local authorities on the principle of abolishing local authority social housing grant last autumn. In the light of work on the communities plan, we decided to make this reform quickly—provided transitional arrangements were in place to ensure that well-advanced, good quality schemes were able to go ahead.

  In addition to two letters circulated to all local authorities in England outlining our decision, officials of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister held three face-to-face meetings with local authority representatives in February to discuss transitional funding.

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the number of social housing schemes which will not proceed as a result of the abolition of the local authority social housing grant. [103263]

  Mr. McNulty
  In my statement of 5 March I announced increased provision for transitional arrangements for local authority social housing grant (LASHG). Transitional funding will now support investment in social housing of up to £550 million—£50 million more than we provided in 2002–03 from LASHG, and higher than in any previous year. The number of affordable homes to be built in 2003–04 using this funding will not be known until after 30 June 2003, which is the deadline for both with-debt and debt-free authorities to submit new schemes for 2003–04 to the Housing Corporation.

  Standards Board for England
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the annual budget is of the Standards Board for England. [101221]

  Mr. Leslie
  The annual budget of the Standards Board for 2002–03 is £7.9 million.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration Offences
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals have been detained by the Police Service of Northern Ireland on immigration offences at(a) Belfast port and (b) Lame port. [103269]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Immigration Service does not routinely collect the information requested. A check of information which is held by Immigration Service would be time consuming and disproportionately expensive and would not, in any event, represent the full total of police arrests since a proportion of these may have originated, and have been recorded, as matters not related to immigration offences.

  Ashfield Young Offenders Institution
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what estimate he has made of the cost of raising the standards of Ashfield YOI to meet the requirements of PSO4950; and if he will make a statement; [103155]

  (2) what offending behaviour programmes are available to prisoners at Ashfield YOI; and if he will make a statement; [103163]

  (3) what the capacity of Ashfield Young Offenders Institution is; and how many (a) young offenders and (b) juveniles are held there; [103156]

  (4) what the timetable is for removing juveniles from Ashfield YOI; [103161]

  (5) what plans he has to ensure that a resettlement strategy based upon the needs of juveniles and young offenders is put in place at (a) Ashfield Young Offenders Institution and (b) other YOIs, as recommended in the recent inspection report into Ashfield YOI; [103162]

  (6) what special arrangements are in place to accommodate juveniles who have been or will be transferred out of Ashfield YOI following the recent inspection report; [103154]

  (7) how many juveniles have been transferred out of Ashfield YOI following the recent inspection report; and to which institutions they were transferred; [103153]

  (8) what action he is taking to ensure that the levels of purposeful activity at Ashfield YOI meet the minimum levels specified by the Youth Justice Board and Prison Service Order 4950; [103158]

  (9) whether a time-tabled action plan has been put in place to fulfil the recommendations of the recent inspectorate report into Ashfield YOI; and if he will make a statement; [103160]

  (10) what plans he has to ensure that (a) a written drug strategy and (b) a drug strategy group are put in place at (i) Ashfield Young Offenders Institution and (b) other YOIs which do not have them; [103164]

  (11) what action he has taken following the inspection report into Ashfield YOI to ensure that (a) there are adequate staffing levels, (b) reception staff are trained

  939W
  in suicide prevention measures, (c) cells are allocated on the basis of risk assessments and (d) an anti-bullying strategy is in place. [103165]

  Hilary Benn
  The authorised operational capacity of Ashfield young offender institution is 400 (303 juveniles (15 to 17 years' of age) and 97 over 18-year-olds). It is currently operating within a reduced capacity of 212 places. On the night of 16–17 March 2003, there were 192 juveniles. There are no prisoners over 18-years-old at the institution. The Youth Justice Board (YJB) has not yet specifically transferred any prisoner out of Ashfield and is seeking alternative accommodation within the Prison Service with the view to fully withdrawing from Ashfield during 2003–04.

  An agreed timetabled action plan has been put in place in response to the recommendations of the recent report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons on Ashfield. Some points from this action plan come into effect in April 2003 and monitoring of the plan will then start.

  Offending behaviour programmes available to young people at Ashfield include: anger management; prevention of car crime; and Motivating Offenders to Rethink Everything (MORE). A new programme, Strength and Survival (SAS), is due to start in April. This programme focuses on confidence building and assertiveness for offenders.

  Staffing levels at Ashfield are now up to complement and are adequate. Stringent monitoring arrangements are in place to ensure the contractor maintains these levels. Additional new staff are being recruited and trained, and experienced staff from other establishments are offering support. Reception staff are trained in suicide prevention measures and this is a core part of the initial training for all new custody officers.

  Cells are allocated on the basis of risk assessments. Once allocated, the status of young people in both shared and single cells is reviewed regularly. There is an anti-bullying strategy in place at Ashfield. The strategy was audited by a team from the Area Office for juveniles in February 2003 and was judged to be compliant with national standards.

  Purposeful activity levels are carefully monitored and will continue to be monitored. The delivery of purposeful activity has improved significantly in recent months, resulting in an average of 34 hours per week delivery since January 2003. The YJB specifies 30 hours per week. The appropriate contractual action will be taken should levels fall below 30 hours per week.

  Ashfield has a written drug strategy in place which is monitored by the establishment's drug strategy group. Ashfield has also received a substantial amount of funding to enable them to increase their delivery of drug/substance misuse intervention programmes through an enhanced Counselling, Assessment, Referral, Advice and Throughcare (CARAT) service. All juvenile establishments have a written drug policy. The juvenile drug strategy is being reviewed by the Prison Service and the YJB and will result in the implementation of a new substance misuse strategy for young people. No cost has been incurred by the Prison Service in raising standards at Ashfield to meet the requirements of PS04950.
  940W
  Ashfield has a resettlement strategy in place, and is carrying out a needs analysis of the resettlement needs of the young people in order to better support resettlement. However, securing appropriate accommodation on release is proving difficult. The Detention and Training Order is served both in custody and the community. Multi-agency Youth Offending Teams have been established and work with young people in custody and on release.

  The YJB is supporting a number of resettlement pilot programmes in the juvenile estate in order to evaluate the most effective way of ensuring young people's resettlement needs are met.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 5 March,Official Report, column 1076W, on asylum seekers, what methods of identification and judging the age of unaccompanied child asylum seekers without documentation are used, apart from appearance; and if he will make a statement. [103402]

  Beverley Hughes
  In the absence of documentary evidence establishing age the judgment as to whether an applicant is under or over 18 is based solely on appearance. If the applicant wishes to obtain a medical assessment of age she or he may do so independently and any such assessment will be taken into consideration. Any age assessment provided by Social Services, based on behavioural and cultural factors, is taken into account.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 5 March,Official Report, column 1076W on asylum seekers, what system the Department has in place to locate relatives of unaccompanied child asylum seekers other than use of the Red Cross and other charities. [103403]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Immigration and Nationality Directorate refers all unaccompanied asylum seeking children to Local Authority Social Services Departments, and they then make use of the Red Cross and other organisations to trace parents. The process of accessing these tracing services rests with the Local Authority.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures the Government has in place(a) to stop child trafficking for the sex trade and (b) to protect child asylum seekers from organised criminal groups when they arrive in the UK. [103404]

  Beverley Hughes
  The United Kingdom is committed to tackling the trafficking of children for sexual exploitation. Our strategy on trafficking is set out in the White Paper "Secure Border Safe Haven" and focuses on strengthening the law through new offences covering trafficking; providing appropriate support to victims of trafficking in the UK; tackling the criminals through intelligence and enforcement operations through the Reflex taskforce; European Union co-operation and prevention in source and transit countries in partnership with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development.
  941W
  The new Sexual Offences Bill sets out new wide-ranging offences covering trafficking for sexual exploitation to replace the stop-gap offence of trafficking for the purpose of prostitution, introduced in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. The offence of trafficking for sexual exploitation carries a tough maximum penalty of 14 years. In addition to this, the Bill also introduces a new offence of Commercial Sexual Exploitation of a child, which will protect children up to 18. It covers a range of offences, including buying the sexual services of a child, (for which the penalty ranges from seven years to life depending on the age of the child); and causing, facilitating or controlling the commercial sexual exploitation of a child in prostitution or pornography, for which the maximum penalty will be 14 years' imprisonment.

  Child victims of trafficking are referred to social services to receive advice and support based on their particular needs. Under the Children Act 1989, local authorities have a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children who are in need by providing a range and level of services appropriate to those children's needs or, where appropriate, by arranging for the provision of services from other agencies. We are working with Department of Health on examples of good practice on how this commitment is delivered.

  Joint work is also underway between key agencies at principal entry points to identify children at risk. A Child Protection Pilot Project was launched on 10 March at Heathrow, this is a joint operation between the Metropolitan Police and the Immigration Service.

  Correspondence
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for Broxbourne will receive a reply to her letters of(a) 10 October 2002, (b) 7 November 2002, (c) 5 December 2002, (d) 2 January, (e) 6 February and (f) 5 March relating to her constituent Mr. Bilal Mumtaz Bhatti of Turnford. [101933]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 10 March 2003]I wrote to the hon. Member on 19 March.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his Department intends to reply to the letters from the hon. Member for Manchester, Central, of(a) 23 October 2002, re Ms LB, ref PO 22392/2, (b) 29 October 2002, re Ms MS, ref PO 23397/2, (c) 1 November 2002, re Mrs. SBA, ref PO 22970/2, (d) 4 November 2002, re Mr. ADS, ref PO 23121/2, (e) 5 November 2002, re Mr. OOA, ref PO 23039/2, (f) 8 November 2002, re Mr. DC, ref PO 23410/2, (g) 14 November 2002, re Ms BK, ref PO 24950/2, (h) 20 November 2002, re Mr.UA, ref PO 134/3, (i) 21 November 2002, re Mr. JM, ref PO 3277/3, (j) 22 November 2002, re Mr. HS, ref PO 23397/2, (k) 25 November 2002, re Mr.AHS, ref PO 24698/2, (l) 26 November 2002, re Home Office Policy, ref 24848/2, (m) 11 December 2002, re Mr.TE, ref PO 25612/2, (n) 6 January 2003, re Mr. MB, ref PO 512/3, (o) 6 January 2003, re Mr.SA, ref PO 508/3 and (p) 9 January 2003, re Mr. MOA, ref PO 2050/3. [103484]
  942W
  Beverley Hughes
  I have instituted measures to deal with outstanding correspondence and reach a steady state of replying to letters within target. In keeping with letters from other right hon. and hon. Members I will reply to my hon. Friend's letters as soon as possible.

  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Members for West Worcestershire dated 20 September 2002 for which an acknowledgement card (ref. 19910/2) was sent on 25 November 2002. [103542]

  Beverley Hughes
  My noble Friend Lord Filkin replied to the hon. Member on 17 March.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the level of service provided by the Criminal Records Bureau; and how many applications are waiting to be processed and what the average time taken is, broken down by employment sectors. [103310]

  Hilary Benn
  Since 11 March 2002 the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) has received 1,537,968 Disclosure applications and has issued 1,341,679 Disclosures. There are less than 44,000 applications currently outside our three week service standard. This figure has reduced from its peak of 109,000 during the summer of 2002 as a direct consequence of the targeted work that is being done to clear the oldest applications from the system. The current average time taken to process a Disclosure application stands at five weeks.

  For the last four months the CRB has issued on average more Disclosures each week than it has received applications for, thereby reducing the number of outstanding cases. The CRB is issuing around 42,000 Disclosures per week, which is over double the weekly output issued by the police under the previous arrangements. There are no IT Procedures at present to extract information from the CRB database by employment sector. It is expected that this functionality will become available in subsequent system releases. No distinction is made in relation to the profession of an applicant as all applications are subject to the same level of service.

  London Bombings
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what progress has been made in securing convictions against those responsible for the bomb at the King's Arms public house in Woolwich, London on 7 November 1974; [103442]

  (2) what progress has been made in securing convictions against those responsible for the bomb at the Tower of London on 17 July 1974; [103441]

  (3) what progress has been made in securing convictions against those responsible for the bomb at Green Park Underground Station in London on 9 October 1975; [103444]

  (4) what progress has been made in securing convictions against those responsible for the bomb at the Hilton Hotel in London on 3 September 1975; [103440]
  943W
  (5) what progress has been made in securing convictions against those responsible for the bomb at Walton's Restaurant, Walton Street, London on 18 November 1975; [103445]

  (6) what progress has been made in securing convictions against those responsible for the bomb attack on a coach travelling along the M62 on 4 February 1974. [103443]

  Mr. Blunkett
  These cases remain open. Should any new evidence or intelligence come to the attention of the police service, in these or other similar cases, it will, of course, be investigated fully.

  Ministerial Secretariat and Communication Directorate
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total(a) cost and (b) staffing of the (i) Ministerial Secretariat and (ii) Communication Directorate was in each year since 1990–91; what the purpose of each is; and if he will make a statement. [99808]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The purpose of the Ministerial Secretariat is both to support Ministers and the permanent secretary in their parliamentary and departmental work and the Department in working effectively with Ministers and private office to achieve the Home Office aims. Figures for the Secretariat are:

  Year

  Staff numbers

  Costs

  1996–97

  72

  3,279,782

  1997–98

  62

  3,340,790

  1998–99

  79

  3,833,174

  1999–2000

  79

  3,754,063

  2000–01

  79

  14,116,973

  2001–02

  91

  4,877,233

  2002–03

  101

  25,089,014

  1 Costs have increased following the addition of two new Ministers and their private offices together with other re-organisation of staff between private office and the rest of the Department.

  2 Estimated figures for year end.

  The purpose of the Communication Directorate is to take a strategic overview of Home Office communication activity. This involves setting and facilitating delivery of strategic objectives through effective long-term planning, co-ordination and evaluation. Figures for the Communication Directorate are:

  Year

  Staff numbers

  Communication Directorate costs

  Publicity costs

  1996–97

  100

  3,713,192

  8,386,880

  1997–98

  88

  4,102,943

  1,291,676

  1998–99

  101

  3,960,185

  288,174

  1999–2000

  90

  5,580,806

  11,451,496

  2000–01

  117

  7,699,620

  36,185,911

  2001–02

  153

  9,242,712

  22,928,899

  2002–03

  226.5

  9,086,614

  '17,000,000

  1 Estimated figures for year end.

  The publicity costs comprise major campaigns on police recruitment, crime reduction and until June 2001 electoral registration and fire safety.

  These staffing figures include press office where numbers have risen following an externally led review of the structure and operation of the press office in 1999. One
  944W
  of the benefits has been that media calls to the press office are being answered within four rings 90 per cent. of the time. Previously there were occasions when up to 40 per cent. of media calls were lost.

  Details of costs prior to 1996 are not held centrally and could be collated only at disproportionate cost.

  Ministerial Transport
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost of(a) ministerial cars and drivers and (b) taxis for his Department was in 2002. [101535]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Responsibility for the provision of ministerial cars and drivers has been delegated under the terms of the Framework Document to the Government Car and Despatch Agency. Part(a) of this question will be addressed in a letter from Mr. Nick Matheson, Chief Executive of the Government Car and Despatch Agency to the hon. Member.

  The cost of taxi fares incurred by the Home Office is not recorded centrally and the information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Miscarriage of Justice
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria he takes into account when assessing ex gratia payments for persons whose convictions have been quashed as a result of a miscarriage of justice; and if he will make a statement. [103961]

  Hilary Benn
  While the Home Secretary decides whether an applicant qualifies for compensation, the assessment of the amount of compensation is undertaken by an Assessor appointed by the Home Secretary under the Criminal Justice Act 1988, currently the Lord Brennan QC. In statutory cases the amount of an award is wholly a matter for the Assessor and the Home Secretary has no power to influence or vary his determination. In ex gratia cases the Assessor's role is to advise the Home Secretary but successive Home Secretaries have agreed to be bound by the Assessor's advice.

  In calculating the amount of compensation to be awarded to victims of miscarriages of justice, the Assessor applies principles analogous to those governing the assessment of damages for civil wrongs. The level of compensation is calculated in the same way whether the applicant qualified for compensation under the statutory scheme or the ex gratia scheme. The basis on which compensation is assessed is given in statute (section 133(4A) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988), in the Home Office "Compensation for Miscarriages of Justice—Note for Successful Applicants" (copies of which have already been placed in the Library) and in individual assessments.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many named day written questions were tabled to the Department between 15 October 2002 and 24 February 2003; how many that
  945W
  received a holding answer were given a substantive answer (a) within three days, (b) within seven days, (c) within 14 days, (d) within 28 days and (e) over 28 days later; and what procedures the Department has in place to monitor performance on answering (i) parliamentary questions and (ii) ministerial letters. [99431]

  Mr. Blunkett
  541 named day written questions were tabled to the Home Office between 15 October 2002 and 24 February 2003. 426 received a holding answer. Of these:

  163 were answered within three days;

  104 were answered within seven days;

  96 were answered within 14 days;

  40 were answered within 28 days;

  and 23 took over 28 days to be answered.

  The Home Office recognises that its performance in answering PQs is not as good as it should be and is working closely with directorates and its business change and IT partners to improve the situation. We hope to implement a new electronic PQ system by the summer. This should provide us with enhanced methods for monitoring performance and help us to become more efficient in answering the ever-increasing volume of PQs that we receive.

  The target for responding to letters from MPs is 15 working days. To monitor performance, management information is produced internally on a weekly and monthly basis to show details of unanswered letters, and plot overall performance against the target. This month, the Home Office is beginning the roll out of a new computer based correspondence tracking system which, as well as enabling the efficient handling of correspondence, will also provide more detailed management information to help monitor performance.

  Sex Trade Workers
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions the Government have had with the Government and agencies of the Republic of Ireland about preventing the movement of sex trade workers over the UK border with the Republic. [102433]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 12 March 2003]I am not aware that any discussions have taken place specifically focusing on preventing the movement of sex trade workers between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

  Number of females received into prison

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  For defaulting on the payment of a fine for using a television without a licence

  61

  41

  24

  12

  9

  For defaulting on the payment of a fine for other offences

  311

  285

  191

  137

  64

  For non-payment of community charge/council tax

  30

  11

  7

  5

  5

  For non-payment of other debts

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Yarl's Wood
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the date for the reopening of the undamaged section of the Yarl's Wood Removal
  946W
  The issue of the trafficking of those working in the sex trade is one which the Government take very seriously indeed. We have introduced a number of measures to address this.

  The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, introduced a new offence that commenced on 10 February 2003 which criminalised the trafficking of a person for the purpose of controlling them in prostitution.

  The Sexual Offences Bill, introduced into the House of Lords on 28 January 2003 proposes new comprehensive offences of trafficking for sexual exploitation to replace the stop-gap offence introduced by the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 of trafficking in prostitution. These new offences tackle the movement of people into, within and out of the UK for the purposes of sexual exploitation, and will carry maximum penalties of 14 years imprisonment. The offence relating to trafficking within the UK applies equally to UK nationals trafficked from place to place in the UK, and to foreign nationals brought here and then moved around from place to place within the UK. This is the first time that the trafficking of UK nationals within the UK has been tackled in legislation.

  Visas
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many visas permitting entry without restrictions on work have been issued in each of the last seven years. [102821]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 13 March 2003]There are a range of ways of entering the United Kingdom, legally, from outside the European Union for employment purposes. The main route of entry into the UK for economic purposes is the work permit scheme, which has recently been modernised, and which requires employees to submit applications on behalf of employees. There are a number of other labour-related entry routes such as the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme and Innovator categories. Other routes such as visitors, students, working holidaymakers and those that exist for family reunion and humanitarian protection, all place restrictions on the applicants ability to work in the UK.

  Women Prisoners
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women received prison sentences in each of the last five years for(a) failing to have a television licence and (b) other debt. [103092]

  Hilary Benn
  The information is given in the table.

  Centre for women detainees and their families has been changed; and if he will make a statement. [103954]

  Beverley Hughes
  We want Yarl's Wood to re-open as soon as possible. However, we are continuing to negotiate
  947W
  with Group 4 Amey International and the insurers about the future of the remaining centre at Yarl's Wood and the claim for losses following the fire. Until these negotiations are concluded, no firm date can be given in respect of when Yarl's Wood will re-open.

HEALTH

  Acute Care
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the areas where waiting lists for treatment in acute hospitals have lengthened since 2000–01. [88756]

  Mr. Hutton
  From 1 April 2002, the maximum waiting time for inpatient treatment has been cut from 18 months to 15 months. The National Health Service are working to reduce waiting times further, so that by the end of March 2003, the maximum waiting time foran inpatient appointment will be cut to 12 months.

  Maximum waiting times will continue to fall year on year, so that, by the end of 2005, the maximum waiting time for inpatient treatment will be cut to six months.Information on the number of acute NHS trusts by Department of Health and Social Care in England, which have increased their inpatient waiting list size from end of December 2000 to end of December 2002 has been placed in the Library. The information also shows the number of patients waiting over 12 months for an inpatient admission for these trusts at the end of December 2000 and December 2002, the increase/decrease of over 1 2-month waiters from the end of December to December 2002 has also been provided. Whilst recognising that list size in these trusts has increased the government is committed to ensuring the maximum waiting times are reduced in these and all other NHS trusts.

  Civil Defence
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what training and equipment for response to a

  General medical practitioners 1 and partnerships in England and London DHSC as at 1 October 1997 and 31 March 2002

  Numbers (headcount)

  October 1997

  March 2002

  All practitioners (excluding GP retainers)

  of which: unrestricted principals (UPEs)2

  Partnerships of UPEs

  All practitioners (excluding GP retainers)

  of which: unrestricted principals( UPEs)2

  Partnerships of UPEs

  England Total

  29,389

  27,099

  9,102

  30,858

  27,956

  8,825

  of which:

  London DHSC Total

  4,532

  3,849

  1,758

  4,549

  3,970

  1,691

  Note:-

  1 All practitioners (excluding GP retainers) include UPEs, restricted principals, assistants, GP registrars, salaried doctors (para. 52 SFA) and PMS 0 GP retainers were first collected in the 1999 census, for reasons of comparability they have been excluded from the table.

  2 UPEs include CMS unrestricted principals, PMS contracted GPs and PMS salaried GPs.

  Source:

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics.
  948W
  chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear attack is provided for paramedics and other first-response medical personnel; and if he will make a statement; [103435]

  (2) what funding, training and expertise have been made available to ensure acute primary care units are fully prepared to handle (a) casualties of a chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear incident and (b) mass casualties; and if he will make a statement. [103434]

  Mr. Hutton
  Since 11 September 2001, national health service preparations have been stepped up to ensure we are as prepared as we can be in responding to a range of possible new threats, such as the deliberate release of chemical or biological agents or incidents associated with radiological or nuclear hazards.

  The NHS has increased its preparedness by stockpiling medical equipment, antidotes, antibiotics and vaccines. The Department of Health has issued specific guidance to the NHS on the public health response to the deliberate release of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) incidents, mass decontamination and mass casualties. New protective suits and associated mobile decontamination units have been for use by ambulance and accident and emergency staff working on the decontamination of patients alongside appropriate training for their use.

  The Department of Health has made available through the emergency planning section of its website www.doh.gov.uk/epcu a comprehensive package of guidance for clinicians on dealing with the consequences of deliberate release. This information is regularly updated. The website contains a link to the Public Health Laboratory Service website www.phls.org.uk which provides additional clinical and other information.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) GPs and (b) GP practices there are in Greater London; and how many there were in May 1997. [101249]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 6 March 2003]Greater London is not recognised as an area for which figures are collected. The area covering the Directorate of Health and Social Care—London is given as the nearest alternative and figures are shown in the following table.
  949W
  We recognise that London has both short and longer term special needs with regard to the recruitment and retention of its general practice (GP) workforce. The NHS Plan target is 255 additional GPs in London by 2004. We are committed to expanding the primary care workforce both through national and local initiatives.

  Provisional figures for September 2002 from the Modernisation Board Annual Report show that in England since 1999 there has been an increase 700 GPs.

  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department will review guidelines surrounding the charging for certificates signed by general practitioners; and if he will make a statement. [101912]

  Mr. Hutton
  General practitioners are required to issue specified medical certificates, free of charge. However, GPs also provide a variety of other services, which successive governments have regarded as private matters between an organisation and the doctor providing the service and the doctor is free to make a charge for these non National Health Service services if he or she wishes.

  Health Visitors
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to allow direct entry into health visiting rather than through nursing or midwifery. [103515]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Nursing and Midwifery Council has only the powers to regulate the professions of nursing and midwifery.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had with representatives of health visitors. [103551]

  Mr. Hutton
  Department of Health Ministers and officials hold regular discussions with health visitor representatives. In recent months these have included discussions on health visitor regulation, child protection and the Laming report, the children and maternity services national service framework, the framework for nursing in primary care, recruitment and retention issues and "Agenda for Change".

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to set up different registers for nurses, midwives and health visitors. [103514]

  Mr. Hutton
  None. The Nursing and Midwifery Council is the body responsible for making proposals in respect of the parts of the register.

  Home Care Charges
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which local authorities in England received no income from home care charges in the latest available year for which figures are available. [100129]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 28 February 2003]In 2001–02, Cumbria, Isles of Scilly, Southwark, Stockton-on-Tees, Swindon and Wokingham councils did not report any income arising from sales, fees and charges from their home care services.

  In 2000–01, Cumbria, Slough, Stockton-on-Tees and Tower Hamlets did not report any income arising from home care.
  950W
  In 1999–2000, Coventry, Cumbria, Hammersmith and Fulham, Stockton-on-Tees and Tower Hamlets did not report any income arising from home care.

  Needlestick Injuries
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many needlestick injuries there were in the NHS involving the risk of transmission of a blood borne virus in(a) England, (b) each NHS region and (c) each strategic health authority in each of the last six years. [102852]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not collect these data centrally but relies on data that are already reportable under current legislation and departmental guidance. Data collected on a voluntary basis from national health service trusts between July 1997 and June 2002 identified 1,550 incidents that involved the risk of transmission of blood borne viruses.

  Ministers have agreed that new guidance to be published in autumn 2003 will advise NHS employers that they should collect comprehensive and validated data on the incidence of needlestick injuries, via a standardised surveillance programme.

  NHS (International Recruitment)
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) financial and (h) other support is available to overseas nurses in finding suitable accommodation; and if he will make a statement. [103074]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 17 March 2003]The guidance on international nursing recruitment sets out national health service trust responsibilities when recruiting nurses internationally. Employers should pay for recruits' air fares and either provide trust accommodation or take steps to seek appropriate accommodation.

  The NHS housing initiative, organised through NHS Estates, will provide assistance with key worker accommodation.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total income was from private charges in each NHS acute trust in the last year for which figures are available. [103998]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information has been placed in the Library.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) chief executives and (b) other non-medical staff of NHS trusts are paid in excess of 1 00,000. [101077]

  Mr. Hutton
  The audited summarisation schedules of National Health Service trusts in 2001–02 showed 13 non-medical staff with remuneration over 100,000. This figure excludes directors and chief executives for whom information is not available nationally. Some information on chief executives' and directors' salaries is included in the accounts for individual trusts which are published locally.

  Nurses
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost of agency and bank nurses in(a) Sutton and (b) London in the last 12 months; and what assessment he has made of the impact of these costs on the respective primary care trusts. [102249]

  Mr. Hutton
  Expenditure on bank nurses is included within national health service nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff. Expenditure on agency nurses is included within non-NHS nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff.

  The following table contains data outlining the expenditure on non-NHS nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff within the boundary of the London Department of Health and Social Care.

  Expenditure on non-NHS nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff, within the London DHSC boundary-2001–02

  £

  Organisation name

  Expenditure on non-NHS nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff

  Epsom and St. Helier NHS Trust

  9,304,846

  Nelson and West Merton PCT

  0

  Merton Sutton and Wandsworth HA

  0

  Total

  9,304,846

  London DHSC total

  229,288,793

  Source:

  1. Annual financial returns of health authorities.

  2. Annual financial returns of NHS trusts.

  3. Annual financial returns of primary care trusts.

  In December an agreement was awarded to 72 agencies for the supply of agency nurses, midwives, health visitors and health care assistants to the acute and primary care sectors of the NHS across London.

  This agreement will introduce new quality standards both in terms of the agency workers and also the services to be offered by the agencies. Furthermore it is anticipated that the cost of these agency workers will be reduced by between £9 million and £18 million across London during 2003–04.

  Oldchurch Hospital
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made on meeting targets for Oldchurch Hospital in the London borough of Havering. [101982]

  Mr. Hutton
  Oldchurch Hospital is part of Barking, Havering and Redbridge National Health Service Trust. It is not possible to differentiate between the two sites as data are aggregated.

  The trust met both the 15-month inpatient and 26-week outpatient waiting times targets last year and is working towards achieving a maximum wait of 12 months for inpatients and 21 weeks for outpatients by the end of March 2003.
  952W
  The trust has also made significant progress on reducing the numbers of beds used by delayed transfers of care over the year.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had with the management of Oldchurch Hospital in the London borough of Havering; and what plans he has to visit the hospital. [101983]

  Mr. Hutton
  I have had no recent discussions with the management of Oldchurch Hospital. However, the North East London Strategic Health Authority directors, who, since Shifting the Balance of Power, now performance manage Barking, Havering and Redbridge National Health Service Trust, regularly meet with trust management.

  I last visited Barking, Havering and Redbridge NHS Trust on 6 September 2001. I have no current plans to visit the hospital.

  Passive Smoking
  Mrs. Ann Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effects of passive smoking in the workplace. [98501]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  I have been asked to reply.

  Research by the Department of Health's Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health (SCOTH) into the general effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke is continuing.

  The results of a survey on smoking behaviour and attitudes, undertaken by the Office for National Statistics in 2002, are due to be published on behalf of the Department of Health this summer.

  Smallpox
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library a copy of the World Health Organisation's advice on smallpox strategy referred to by the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety,Official Report, column 204WH, in his reply to the debate on civil defence on 4 March 2003. [102501]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 12 March 2003]A copy of the advice issued by the World Health Organisation in October 2001 has been placed in the Library. This advice followed a review of the WHO guidelines of 1998, and a copy of these guidelines will be placed in the Library.

  Teenage Pregnancies
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many pregnancies in girls under the age of 16 there have been in each year since 1995 in(a) Doncaster and (b) the UK. [103509]
  953W
  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Caroline Flint, dated 20 March 2003:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking how many pregnancies in girls under 16 there have been in each year since 1995 in (a) Doncaster and (b) the UK. (103509)
  The figures requested are given in the table below for 1995 to 2001, the latest year for which figures are available, for Doncaster and Great Britain. Figures for the United Kingdom are not available, as the 1967 Abortion Act does not apply in Northern Ireland.
  954W

  Conceptions1 to girls aged under 16, Doncaster and Great Britain, 1995–2001

  Numbers

  Year

  Doncaster2

  Great Britain

  1995

  69

  8,819

  1996

  79

  9,697

  1997

  85

  9,077

  1998

  89

  9,235

  1999

  78

  8,648

  20003

  76

  8,816

  20013,4

  67

  8,586

  1 Includes pregnancies that result in one or more live or still births, or a legal abortion under the 1967 Abortion Act. Figures shown in this table do not include miscarriages.

  2 Metropolitan county district

  3 Information for 2000 includes estimated figures for Glasgow Royal Maternity and Western Isles to allow for a shortfall in data. This also applies to Western Isles for 2001.

  4 Provisional data.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefit Fraud Inspectorate
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks)
  On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI) has today announced its programme of activity for 2003–04 (Phase 8).

  The BFI is an independent unit within the Department for Work and Pensions that inspects and reports directly to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, on the standard of benefit administration and counter-fraud activity in local authorities and Departmental agencies.

  As part of the Phase 8 activity, the BFI will be inspecting 8 of the poorest performing councils identified through the comprehensive performance assessment process: Barking and Dagenham, Bury, Isle of Wight, Knowsley, Milton Keynes, Portsmouth, Swindon, and Wokingham. These local authorities are collectively responsible for paying out nearly £200 million per year in housing benefits.

  BFI is also offering specialist advice as part of its Performance Improvement Action Team programme to a further 9 poor performing councils identified through the comprehensive performance assessment process.

  The BFI will undertake a first inspection of Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council, which performed well during the 2002 comprehensive performance assessment of its benefit service, but has consistently failed to provide quarterly management information to the Department for Work and Pensions.

  Follow-up inspections on other local authorities will also be undertaken. These authorities have been identified from post-inspection monitoring of performance.

  In addition to first and follow-up inspections, the BFI will also undertake comprehensive performance assessments in England on the benefits service for 183 district local authorities, and updates on the 115 single tier local authorities assessed in 2002.

  In Scotland, BFI will undertake 10 best value inspections in partnership with Audit Scotland. BFI will also undertake assessments of the benefits service for the 22 Welsh local authorities as part of the Wales Programme for Improvement.

TREASURY

  Provisional Debt Management Report 2003–04
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly)
  In compliance with the Code for Fiscal Stability, the Provisional Debt Management Report 2003–04 is being published today. Copies are available in the House Library.

  Invest to Save Budget: Round 5
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng)
  I am pleased to announce that 48 bids from across the public and voluntary sectors have been successful in Round 5 of the Invest to Save Budget at a cost of £32 million including consequential funding for the devolved Administrations, and £28 million in total over the 3 years to 2005–06. The attached table describes the winners of this round.

  The Invest to Save Budget (ISB) is a joint Treasury/ Cabinet Office initiative. It provides support for projects which increase the extent of joint working between different parts of government, identify innovative ways of delivering public services and reduce the cost of delivering the services and/or improve the quality and effectiveness of services delivered to the public. This is the fifth round of the ISB which started in 1999.

  It is expected that a total of £354 million will be spent on ISB projects over the period from 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2004. Round One was restricted to central government departments and their agencies. In the second and third rounds local authorities, police and fire authorities, health authorities, non-departmental public bodies and public corporations could also apply. In the fourth round, voluntary sector bodies were able to apply for the first time. The fifth round continues the partnership and innovation themes and is encouraging effective project and risk management.

  Winning projects have to agree an implementation plan with the sponsor departments. Each project has to provide six-monthly progress reports and carry out an evaluation of its success once it has been completed. Wider dissemination of the good practice from completed projects is then fed back into the whole spectrum of public service providers.

  Lead Partner

  Title

  Central Government

  Cabinet Office

  Development of generic electronic forms to drive forward delivery of citizen focused Cabinet Office transactional services.

  Cabinet Office

  CV Bank and Job-Matching systems for civil DCMS service recruitment

  DCMS

  Modernise the British Library's document supply service

  DEFRA

  Emergency sub-sea hazard location facility

  DEFRA

  Electronic Public Register to enable public participation in environmental decision making processes

  DOH

  Rapid diagnosis of patients with Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus (MRSA) and to develop electronic tools for the surveillance of MRSA in hospitals.

  49WS

  Lead Partner

  Title

  DOH

  Integrated Care Records project will implement, in electronic form across specialist mental health care, education, primary care, and social services: multi-agency assessment/ referral templates that communicate clinical information.

  DTI

  CHAMELEON—to develop a comprehensive e-service on employment related regulations

  DTI

  Web based bankruptcy applications.

  DFT

  e-Business Management Information and service delivery System for the Forum for Mobility Centres (MAVIS)

  FCO

  e-administration for Chevening scholarship applications

  HM Customs & Excise

  Development of a web-driven 'alert' system to push multi-department messages relevant to importers and exporters, directly to the target audience, improving Government-wide customer service.

  Home Office

  RESTART Project—resettlement project designed to break the cycle of re-offending and custody of adult offenders.

  Home Office

  The Hope Project—targets prison inmates who have committed serial crime. The aim is to release offenders back into the community under close supervision, thereby, breaking the cycle of further drug abuse, and the commission of further crime

  Home Office

  Joint National Asylum Service/UK Immigration Service to detect and deter illegal working by removing offenders and reducing fraud.

  Home Office

  Project Vanguard—provision of e-communications on policing services that allows the public to transact e-business with the Kent Police Force

  Home Office

  Lost and Stolen Passport Database

  Home Office

  Project PLX—pilot electronic link from the Criminal Records Bureau to police forces to enable enhanced disclosure checks.

  Home Office

  Increasing customer focus of the police service

  Home Office

  South West Integration (SWING)—project to establish a pioneering dual prison/probation regional resettlement unit to help reduce prisoner re-offending

  HM Treasury

  Banking across the Chancellor's Departments

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  Access to registered users to information held at the DVLA

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  Reducing Offending Through Advice (ROTA)-providing social welfare and legal advice services to prisoners via intranet and video conferencing services to link prisoners with advice providers.

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  Pilot for Child Contact Centre—to test arrangements designed to ensure that children and their families (where the parents relationship has ended) are referred to child contact centres.

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  Electronic Forms—improve access to civil and family justice for the citizen by providing an internet-based transaction channel to court forms.

  50WS

  Lead Partner

  Title

  MOD

  Critical rainfall thresholds for pluvial flooding.

  MOD

  To demonstrate a non-invasive drug detection capability to improve drug detection in the UK.

  ODPM

  To modernise the system for revaluing business rates by using the Internet.

  ODPM

  Website to provide businesses, individuals, local authorities and others with a path through ERDF information and application process and guidance on and State aid legislation.

  Local Authorities

  Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council

  Portable Intuitive Verbal Assessment tool (PIVAT)—to develop a portable assessment tool that will reduce duplication and delay and replace 'paper based' health and social care assessments.

  Hampshire County Council

  Improving facilities for the public for notifying highway problems though the creation of a web based form and creation of an Interchange facility between Local authorities and Hampshire County Council.

  London Connects

  Development of a comprehensive and modular `e-democracy' tool kit. To enable London boroughs to consult citizens on-line on policy development and service planning.

  Stockport Borough Council

  On-line transactional counselling service

  Southampton City Council

  Electronic co-ordination of inter-agency referral systems and some centralised aspects of service delivery for social care in Southampton

  South Yorkshire Partnership Transport Authority

  RESPOND—pilot of a demand responsive transport service in an area of multiple deprivations in Rotherham

  City of Sunderland Council

  Amalgamation of citizen's personal details held by various local public services, then providing capacity for individuals to access their own information on- line using digital signatures to ensure accuracy of information.

  Westminster City Council

  Project to establish a database containing immigration and local authority information on unaccompanied asylum seeking children

  Voluntary and Community Sector

  Advice Sendee Alliance

  A pilot to test the use of on-line services to support a self-help approach to dealing with legal problems.

  Bridgewater College

  Skills for Life—a project to pilot a life skills initiative focused on first time offenders.

  Charity Commission for E & W

  Guidestar UK-project to build a shared and accessible website reporting the activities, finances and performance of voluntary sector organisations

  Construction Industry Training Board

  Electronic testing and certification process for Gas Engineers.

  Derby College

  More than on-line Registration (MOTOR)—to provide on-line attendance and achievement system accessible and responsive to learners. Registration data will be updated in the classroom enabling early warning of non-attendance.

  Hampshire coalition of Disabled People

  Equipment Direct-project to provide informed advice to disabled people about independence enabling equipment

  51WS

  Lead Partner

  Title

  London Quadrant Housing Trust

  Neighbournet Housing Benefit Module—to establish the viability of automating the payment of housing benefit from local authority to registered social landlord.

  Manchester Metropolitan University

  Arts in Health—to provide arts based products for the NHS to enhance patient care. Using art to promote public health.

  National Children's Bureau

  Children's Centre project -brings together a consortium of children's charities in order to improve the quality of their current services, develop new joint services and prepare a common building.

  NEL Workforce Development Confederation

  Refugee Health Professionals—pilot project to develop a website to support health professionals who wish to re-qualify to work in the UK.

  South East London Shared Services Partnership

  London-Wide Child Protection on Line (CPoL)—to provide electronic access to social services child protection registers to NHS Hospitals across London.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Threat of Terrorism
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett)
  When I last spoke to the House of Commons about terrorism on 3 March 2003, I made clear that this country continues to face a significant threat from international terrorism.

  In agreeing to renew Part Four of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, Parliament accepted that we need to continue to protect ourselves from those who recognise no legal procedures, no boundaries and no parameters in terms of the action they are prepared to take.

  The terrorist threat remains real, and is serious. In the context of the present situation and concern that terrorists may seek to exploit the commencement of hostilities with Iraq by attempting attacks.

  I should assure the House and the public that we have taken and are taking every feasible precautionary measure to protect British citizens both here and abroad.

  I must re-emphasise that if a warning is necessary to protect safety, we issue it—and will issue it—without hesitation. And we will give any further information that helps people respond effectively.

  As I promised the House of Commons on 3 March, we have set up a dedicated website, http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/terrorism, which went live on 18 March. That website provides a central point to publish advice and information from the security and intelligence services, on civil resilience, and other material that departments publish. It gives advice to the public on what measures they can take to protect themselves and their families at home, at work and when preparing to go abroad. And it provides information on the measures the Government is taking to protect British citizens and British interests, including
  52WS
  information on departments and agencies, legislation, protecting our infrastructure, and resilience and contingency planning.

  I further made it clear in a written statement on civil contingencies (available on the "reports and publications" section of the new website) laid before the House on the same day that we have taken important steps to improve our resilience and contingency planning to deal with terrorist attacks should they occur.

  The emergency services now have more equipment and trained officers to enable them to respond to a release of CBRN material and this has been accompanied by the publication of specific protocols for dealing with this kind of attack. For example, under a £5 million programme, the Department of Health has provided 360 mobile decontamination units; the CBRN Police Training Centre has been established at Winterbourne Gunner and the police now have 2,350 officers trained and equipped in CBRN response. Since 11 September 2001, £96 million has been spent on CBRN medical countermeasures, including spending on extra vaccines and antibiotics.

  We have also looked hard at local resilience and London resilience and taken steps at both these levels to review and improve capability through funding and personnel training. But we must continue to strengthen and improve our resilience as part of a long-term strategy to work with our partners and allies to remove the terrorist threat and the threat of fear from the United Kingdom and the international arena.

  Many people will be aware that action taken in 1991 to detain large numbers of Iraqi citizens proved to be ineffective. I do not consider the action taken in 1991 to have been the most appropriate means to deal with the situation then and I do not intend to repeat it now. Now in 2003, we are aware of only a very small number of people in this country who may be sympathetic to the Iraqi regime. These individuals are being interviewed and we will continue to keep under close review any threats posed by them or others to our security. However, we have no current reason to intern or otherwise detain citizens of Iraq who are resident in this country, but I remain in close touch with the Security Service and the police over this and will I take whatever action is necessary to protect the public based on constant threat assessments.

  Military action in Iraq should not—and will not—detract from our commitment to a multi-racial and diverse Britain—one which values the contribution made by each of our many diverse ethnic, cultural and faith communities. We want a truly dynamic society, in which people from different backgrounds can live and work together—while retaining their distinctive identities—in an atmosphere of mutual respect and understanding. But we understand that military action in Iraq will have an impact on how some members of our society feel—not least in increasing insecurity.

  We are therefore working with the police and other local agencies to ensure that tension levels within our communities are monitored on a daily basis. Within local areas agencies are working together—and with local communities—to provide reassurance and to

  53WS
  ensure that there are arrangements in place to deal with any potentially difficult situations that might emerge. At this stage the assessments provided give us no reason to believe that there is a serious risk of a disturbance—but we are not complacent about this.

  I state unequivocally that we have taken precautionary measures to deal with the events that we can anticipate. We cannot guarantee 100 per cent. security but we are preparing for a range of eventualities. We are in a situation that can develop at speed and change at speed. We will keep all aspects of our planning under review and I undertake to keep Parliament and the British public informed of any significant developments.

  Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes)
  Section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which came into force on 8 January 2003, prevents the provision of support to asylum seekers unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that their asylum claim was made as soon as reasonably practicable after arrival in the United Kingdom. Exceptions include families with children and those who can show they would suffer treatment contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Those with care needs continue to be supported by local authorities under the National Assistance Act 1948.

  On 19 February, Mr Justice Collins gave judgment in six test cases. He found that the section 55 decision-making process was flawed, largely on the grounds that there had initially been insufficient investigation of the circumstances in which entry to the United Kingdom was achieved, to give the claimant the opportunity to rebut a suggestion of incredibility and to set out fully the reasons for decisions. He also decided that there will normally be a real risk that to leave someone destitute will violate Articles 3 and 8.1 of the ECHR, and that inquiries should be made to try to establish whether any support is likely to exist. This effectively shifted the burden of proof to the Secretary of State, rather than the asylum applicant, as section 55 had originally intended.

  The Home Secretary appealed against the decision of Mr Justice Collins and the Court of Appeal gave judgment on 18 March 2003. The Attorney-General made it clear that the appeal was being made on the basis of the key legal principles, not on the basis of the six individual cases.

  At the Court of Appeal, the appeal was dismissed, as expected, in relation to the six cases, the judgment found in favour of the Government on several key issues of legal principle.

  The Court's decision makes it clear that the burden of showing an asylum claim was made as soon as reasonably practicable is on the asylum seeker, the ECHR does not require State support to be given automatically to all destitute asylum seekers who have failed to make their asylum claims when required to do so, and section 55 is not incompatible with the ECHR in any respect.
  54WS
  The Court found against the Government on procedural fairness and drew attention to a number of areas where they considered improvements could be made.

  The Home Office has already changed the procedures for making section 55 decisions to meet the Court's main concerns.

  The Government will not appeal to the House of Lords against the Court of Appeal decision.

  The Court of Appeal judgment means that the Government can continue to operate section 55 as Parliament intended. It gives renewed legal backing for the Government's policy to tackle abuse of the asylum system and send a clear message to those who are abusing the system that they will not be supported at public expense.

  The key legal issues have been settled by the Court of Appeal and the Government can, therefore, uphold the robust and fair asylum support system for which Parliament legislated.

DEFENCE

  Armed Forces Pension Scheme
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie)
  The Government is aware of the concerns of Service personnel whose unmarried partners are currently ineligible for pension benefits. While this is being considered as part of the reviews of pension and compensation arrangements for the Armed Forces, we have concluded that it would be appropriate to address now the particular risks associated with conflict. We have therefore decided that, as of today, where a Service person dies as a result of service related to conflict, ex-gratia payments equivalent to benefits paid to a surviving spouse under the Armed Forces Pension Scheme may be awarded to their unmarried partner, where there is a substantial relationship. Eligibility for such benefits will be assessed against a set of criteria which would include financial dependence or interdependence, children, shared commitments such as mortgage, prime beneficiary of a will, shared accommodation, the length of the relationship and no legal spouse. The decision on eligibility would be based on a broad assessment of the substance of the relationship and not all of these criteria would need to be met for entitlement to exist.

PRIME MINISTER

  Council of Europe and Western European Union
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair)
  The Baroness Knight of Collingtree has been appointed a full member of the United Kingdom Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Assembly of Western European Union while the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) has been appointed a substitute member.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Scottish Land Fund
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell)
  The Scottish Land Fund, operating under the New Opportunities Fund's Green Spaces and Sustainable Communities Programme, has made a significant impact on sustainable development in rural Scotland. Since its launch in February 2001, it has assisted 88 projects, worth a total of £8.2 million.

  In response to representations from the Scottish Executive and the New Opportunities Fund, I propose to allocate an additional £5 million to the Scottish Land Fund, by increasing the budget allocated to the Green Spaces and Sustainable Communities Initiative from £125 million to £130 million. In accordance with the provisions of the National Lottery etc Act 1993 (as amended by the National Lottery Act 1998), I intend to issue an amendment to the New Opportunities Fund's Directions, subject to consultation with the Fund and the Scottish Executive, to bring into effect the increase in funding for the Scottish Land Fund, through the Green Spaces and Sustainable Communities Initiative.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Broadband Stakeholder Group
  The Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness (Mr. Stephen Timms): The Government is today publishing its response to the Broadband Stakeholder Group Second Annual Report and Strategic Recommendations at http://www.dti.gov.uk/. I have also placed copies of the response in the Libraries of the House. The Broadband Stakeholder Group made fifteen recommendations to the Government for the development of its broadband strategy; the Government broadly accepted all of them.
  The Government response sets out its broadband strategy and features information on many of the projects and initiatives underway throughout the English regions and Devolved Administrations.
  In particular, the response highlights the importance of aggregation of public sector demand for broadband in the Government's strategy for broadband roll-out. The pace of aggregation is growing. The recently established UK Broadband Task Force, which is taking forward our work on aggregation, is tasked to create regional structures, which will carry out the aggregation of public sector demand. The Government will ask the Regional Development Agencies to play a major role in the creation and implementation of these regional structures as part of their responsibility for regional economic development and infrastructure.
  The UK Broadband Task Force is now discussing with central Government departments the inclusion of their connectivity requirements in its new remit. Through this work we will ensure that the new investment in broadband infrastructure necessary to meet specific public sector needs also results in wider broadband availability for businesses and households in rural and remote areas.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Census 2001
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ian Pearson)
  Copies of the third report of the Northern Ireland Census 2001—"Northern Ireland Census 2001 Standard Tables" have today been laid in the Northern Ireland Assembly as required by statute. Copies have also been lodged in the House of Commons Library and the House of Lords Library.

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

Royal Assent
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Consolidated Fund Act 2003,
Northern Ireland Assembly Elections Act 2003.

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 again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Rooker.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Referendums]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 2, line 1, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
"( ) The Secretary of State may make the order at any time during the period of two years starting with the date on which he gives a direction under section 12 in relation to the region so long as before he makes the order he has no cause to think that that level of interest has changed materially."
The noble Baroness said: The amendment would simplify the texture of the Bill which, as it stands, does not appear to make much sense. Clause 1(4) states:
"The first condition is that the Secretary of State has considered the level of interest in the region in the holding of such a referendum".
However, when one turns to subsection (6), the clause states:
"The first condition is taken to be satisfied if … for the purpose of giving the direction he considered the level of interest in the region in the holding of such a referendum".
My understanding is that the provision in subsection (6) should be a test of how subsection (4) is achieved, but no light is thrown on that whatever. We do not know how it will be done or the criteria on which it will be determined. We do not know how the level of interest will be measured. The preamble to that paragraph says:
"The first condition is taken to be satisfied if—".
340
I emphasise the word "if". One would expect there to be a test, and some indication of how that would happen.
Will the Minister clarify the point and explain what seems to us a pointless complication? Either the clause should stop at subsection (4), so that the Secretary of State needs to accept the first condition that he must consider,
"the level of interest in the region",
and get on with it and not tell Parliament how he comes to his view, or my amendment should be accepted and we should set out in the Bill how that will be achieved.
We regard the issue as important because the Bill, skeletal as it is, gives birth to a large amount of executive action that does not need parliamentary approval. For that reason, we think it important that the Minister should help Parliament to understand how the action will be tested. Ahead of the passage of the Bill and without any approval from Parliament, a soundings committee has been established and has completed its work, but we are finding little evidence of what happened out in the regions. However, on the basis of those soundings, according to subsection (4), the Secretary of State—Mr John Prescott—is able to say that, in his opinion, the level of interest in a region has been established, without telling us how that has been achieved. I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees: I should inform the Committee that, if this amendment is agreed to. I cannot call Amendments Nos. 19 to 21.
Baroness Hamwee: The soundings exercise has been discreet, to use an uncontentious term. One would not want it to be as discredited as it may be in danger of becoming. However, the amendment does not make it clear how the Secretary of State can judge if there is a substantial decrease in interest in the holding of a referendum. In other words, how is the Secretary of State to assess whether apathy is breaking out?
Lord Waddington: Let us suppose that a referendum takes place in one part of the country that shows that there is minimal interest in regional government there, and that referendum takes place a year after the machinery has been set in motion to hold a referendum in another region. Surely, it would be ridiculous for the Secretary of State to waste everyone's time and money on having a referendum in a second region, when the referendum in the region, where the Secretary of State presumably believed there would be the most enthusiasm for regional government, had resulted in a resounding "No". At that stage, the Secretary of State should pause and ask himself whether the game is worth the candle.
Lord Rooker: I shall do my best to answer those questions. The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, is making a purely hypothetical point. I suppose that Committee stage is designed to test out the hypotheticals, but it is somewhat mischievous of him to raise that point.

341
Amendment No. 18 relates to Clause 1(6). I shall explain how this part of the Bill is designed to work.
Clause 1 sets out the conditions to be followed in order to cause a referendum to be held in any English region on establishing an elected assembly. The first precondition is in subsection (4), which provides that the Secretary of State must be satisfied of,
"the level of interest in the region in the holding of such a referendum".
Subsection (6) provides that the pre-condition is deemed to be satisfied if three requirements are met, including that the level of interest in holding a referendum has been considered before giving the direction under Clause 12. If any of the requirements were not met, subsection (8) would require him to consider the views expressed, the information and evidence provided to him and any published material that he thought appropriate in order to satisfy the first precondition. In effect, a new soundings exercise might have to be conducted.
Amendment No. 18 would remove subsection (6) of Clause 1 but would then replace it with almost identical wording. We believe it important that the Secretary of State is able to consider the level of interest in a referendum before directing a local government review which involves enormous resources. As we discussed last week, depending on the size of the region and the number of unitary and two-tier authorities, the boundary review could take six to 12 or so months and cost a considerable sum. Clause 12 enables the interest level to be considered before a local government review is directed. In regions where there is very little interest, a referendum would not be justified. A review would therefore not be held and that expense saved.
So it makes sense for Clause 1(6) to make explicit reference back to that consideration. That is what Clause 1(6)(b) actually does. Otherwise, against what is the Secretary of State supposed to measure the "material change"? There would be nothing against which to check it. As I think I said at the end of our deliberations last Thursday, when the Secretary of State has made a judgment on the soundings—which will, of course, be after Royal Assent to this Bill—he will announce that judgment to Parliament and provide the evidence on which it is based. As I said, the soundings exercise has been formally completed. However, as I also said, we will take on board any reasonable points made during the Bill's passage. Nevertheless the assessment, which involves considerable work, has started.
We shall publish a summary of the responses to the soundings exercise. I do not know whether the assertion that the soundings were "discreet" means that they were done with so much discretion that no one knew about them or whether they were a discrete operation within government. I shall take the more positive view that they were a discrete operation within government and were not done so discreetly that no one knew about them. People knew about them. That will be made clear when we publish a summary of people's views.
342
I hope that I have sufficiently explained the position to enable the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, to withdraw Amendment No. 18. If so, we can proceed to the meat of the Bill.
11.15 a.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I was interested to hear what the Minister was going to say about Amendment No. 18, and I listened with great interest to what he said. It is true, I think, that some of the soundings have been carried out very discreetly indeed. Many people did not know that soundings were taking place. Indeed, as I pointed out at col. 1542 of the Official Report for 13th March, people who wished to take part in those soundings were actually excluded from them. Since our last sitting, I have had a number of reactions to what I said and to the very helpful response of the Minister. I shall be sending him the evidence which is now reaching me about those who were excluded or discouraged from attending some of the soundings meetings.
My question is this. If it is shown that the soundings so far have not been held in conformity with what is just, fair, reasonable and necessary to produce a proper result, will the Minister agree that soundings should take place again in those areas so that those who are opposed to holding a referendum at all or opposed to regional assemblies will truly have an opportunity to put their point of view?
Lord Rooker: First, as I have repeatedly said, the soundings are not about whether to have a regional assembly but about whether to have a referendum with a view to examining boundary changes for regional assemblies. As I said last week, if my noble friend can provide evidence about how the soundings were conducted, that would be fine. However, if people have been unable to express their views, it would be even better if he could send in those views. Although 3rd March was the formal closing date, Parliament is still considering the Bill and debating these issues. As we have said that we will not announce our judgment until after Royal Assent, it would be wrong to say that further views will not be taken into account.
First, those who feel aggrieved because they were prevented attending meetings have the right to complain. That is one issue and can be addressed in the appropriate way. Secondly, they can also send in their views. People should not wait until the process is finished and then say that they want more soundings. As that would be unreasonable and could be considered a delaying tactic I could not agree to it. All I am saying is that if you have a view, send it in.
Baroness Hanham: I know that we debated the subject of the soundings earlier and I do not want to prolong the debate, but I do not believe that we ever tested out how the general electorate were to know about the whole matter of the soundings. "Discreet" can also mean "silent", as well as all the other words that the Minister used to describe it. If there is any evidence at all of the soundings exercise taking place, it is very limited, but it seems to confine itself to the

343
regional assemblies sending out the odd newsletter. It is not the regional assemblies who will vote on the matter but the electorate. I believe that we need to test out a little more how the soundings exercise is encompassing the electorate.
Moving on to the amendment, it is possible that, as a result of these rather dubious soundings exercises, the Deputy Prime Minister will decide at some stage that there is sufficient interest. For one or two reasons, he may not make an order for a fairly long time. By then, all the evidence may have changed and people may have completely different views. Indeed, if the electorate were tested, a different view might result from that.
Therefore, here we are not talking about the immediate soundings, which have now concluded, hut whether the Secretary of State would take another round of soundings if there were a fairly long gap between these soundings and an order being made.
Lord Waddington: I want to pick up a point made by my noble friend about the soundings exercise which worries me greatly. I shall refer later, during debate on other amendments, to a most extraordinary letter written by the chief executive of the North West Regional Assembly to Lancashire County Council. One passage in that letter reads:
"The Lancashire County Council will be aware of the high level of public interest in the North West region with regard to a referendum on elected regional government".
That statement is entirely unsupported by the evidence. I know of not a single well-attended meeting; I know of no reputable letters to the press; and I know of no campaigns or anything at all which suggest that there is a high level of interest.
I also have in my possession a letter written by the CBI to people who are interested in this issue. The CBI points out that it recently withdrew from the North West Regional Assembly because it was obvious that the assembly had not the faintest knowledge of development issues and was wasting its and everyone else's time.
I want to know whether the Secretary of State will place any reliance on such obviously self-serving statements emanating from so-called "assemblies". I should have thought that common sense dictates that one can listen to representations from all kinds of people but the last representations to which one should pay attention are those emanating from bodies which have a vested interest in seeing that there are elected regional assemblies and which campaign to bring them about, even though they know perfectly well that in an area such as the North West there is no interest in the matter whatever.
Lord Dixon: Before my noble friend rises to reply, I want to say that there is much interest in the North East. In fact, I read in one local newspaper that the Deputy Prime Minister had received responses from the North East assembly members, local authorities, MPs and MEPs, public, private and voluntary sector bodies, political parties, the arts, universities, colleges, black minority ethnic communities, faiths, charities
344
and trade unions, the health sector and transport bodies. Probably the only thing not to have been consulted is the ship's cat at Swan Hunter.
I can understand the exchanges that took place on the previous occasion that we were in Committee, when my noble friend Lord Stoddart and, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, said that Peers had not been consulted. But I was consulted—through the political party. I can understand my noble friend Lord Stoddart not being consulted through his political party because he belongs to none, but. I cannot understand why the noble Lord. Lord Waddington, did not attend the Conservative Party's meetings. I can understand that Cross-Benchers say that they have not been consulted because they are not affiliated to a political party. However, I cannot understand the Liberal Democrat Members of this House saying that they have not been consulted because I assume that they can attend their political party meetings. Therefore, it is a nonsense to suggest that there has not been proper consultation. Everyone in the North East has been consulted.
It is said that there is a great movement in the North East for an elected regional assembly. There is also a movement against such an assembly in the North East. I believe that the chairman or chief executive of one body—someone called Herron—was one of the metric martyrs. I believe that has more to do with the European boundaries than it has to do with the regional assembly. Therefore, I can assure my noble friend that there is a great deal of interest, and many people and organisations in the North East have been consulted.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: The noble Lord, Lord Dixon, and many other people have suggested that there is a great deal of interest in having a regional assembly in the North East of England. But, two weeks ago, the principal regional newspaper in that area—The Journal—conducted a poll on the state of the region. The straight question put to those who took part was: "Are you in favour of regional government?" Forty-five per cent of respondents were against, 35 per cent for and 20 per cent did not know. That appears to be the up-to-date position in the North East of England.
Lord Rooker: I want to stick to the amendments, if I can, otherwise I shall make the same speech about 10 times. I know that Parliament is no longer reported in the media as it used to be, but the Bill has not turned up here out of nowhere; it has come from the House of Commons, where it was debated at length freely and not behind closed doors. Those who have an interest in these matters will clearly be aware that that was happening, and people cannot claim that they did not know what was going on in Parliament. That is my first point.
Secondly, the distribution list for the soundings document was extensive, although it could probably have been more so. I have not seen, and to the best of my knowledge nor have other Ministers, any of the responses to the soundings because at present they are

345
being analysed by officials. A judgment will not be made until after the Bill has received Royal Assent. Therefore, there will be no issues relating to what the Secretary of State may think or do. Those who send in their views are obviously at liberty to publish them. That is right and it will be known if people do that.
The issue concerns soundings about whether or not to hold a referendum on an elected regional assembly; they are not soundings about a regional assembly. The two things are different. If, as a result of the soundings, and following Royal Assent of the Bill, the Deputy Prime Minister makes a judgment that there should be a referendum in at least one region—that is, the boundary review is triggered in advance of the referendum—that will cause another Bill to go through Parliament in order to set up the regional assembly.
Therefore, I cannot give an answer to the noble Baroness's question about the gap between the initial soundings that we are carrying out now, leading to a judgment after Royal Assent perhaps later this summer, and what might happen the second time round if there is a referendum—I do not know how many referendums there will be. We are talking about a period which extends well beyond this Parliament and across the next general election.
There may be a case for saying that we cannot rely on soundings taken three or more years ago as the situation has changed. We shall introduce legislation to set up a regional assembly on the assumption that a referendum produces a "yes" vote and we shall see how that goes. It could be held to be unreasonable to use soundings that were taken in advance of any regional assembly being set up. One may be set up, but soundings may change and therefore another exercise might be carried out. That is a purely hypothetical question for us to consider this morning.
Lord Waddington: The noble Lord would start the day happily for us and get us all in a good temper if he would at least give the undertaking that he will advise his Secretary of State to put in the waste paper basket the ridiculous self-serving statements from assemblies which are campaigning for regional assemblies. Surely it is ridiculous that any attention should be paid to them at all.
Lord Rooker: I give my colleagues in the department lots of advice as a result of the deliberations in this House. I have to spell out the facts of life we must deal with. It is good education for them to listen to things that are said. It is true that the soundings are about whether or not to have a referendum and not about being for or against regional assemblies. If people write in on that basis clearly it is outwith the soundings.
The soundings exercise is quite specific regarding whether there is a desire to have a referendum. It is an entirely different matter if people are already out there campaigning on the assembly issue. That cannot feature in a judgment of the soundings when the Secretary of State makes a Statement to Parliament,
346
which presumably I would repeat in this House. The judgment must be based on the specific issues raised in the soundings about having a referendum, not about having a regional assembly.
11.30 a.m.
Baroness Blatch: I know the noble Lord understands this point because we have made it previously. He has always respected other arguments in debates. We thank him for that. The Bill gives us no detail. Therefore, we can deal only with hypothetical situations that may arise. We have absolutely nothing else to go on. We have a White Paper, much of it jargon and difficult to understand. We have asked in earlier debates about what this or that means; we have been told to wait and see. So we simply do not know.
It is not true to say that the soundings are not about a referendum. They are about a referendum. They are not for a referendum, which is the noble Lord's argument. This is not about whether this is a vote for or against a referendum, but, "Do you want a regional assembly?" We know that the question will be, "Is there any interest in this area for a regional assembly?" We also know that we shall not have some scientific understanding of what those soundings mean.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon, talked eloquently about the North East, an area for which I have enormous affection. I was sponsor Minister for the North East for a long time. I know many people there. I must say with some sadness that there is enormous pressure on this House to complete the Bill by 8th May.
We all know that the North East is the only area on which the Government are concentrating at the moment. We know that there is a preponderance of Ministers from the North East. Further, when the noble Lord, Lord Dixon, explained who responded to the soundings, we noted that Joe Public did not feature in any example he gave. A good number of organisations mentioned by the noble Lord were government-sponsored, and chief among them, actively campaigning and I believe illicitly spending taxpayers' money, is the North East Assembly.
I am sorry, but Joe Public does not know about this matter. Personally, as a Member of this House, if we did not happen to have a Bill before us that tells me these things I would not know about the soundings either. Of course the political parties in the North East know all about them, but the political parties in many other parts of the country have not been formally approached. It is simply not true to say that there has been proper public consultation consistent with the conventions on how one should consult. As my noble friend Lady Hanham said, this is about the electors—the people in the streets up and down our country who will be exercising their votes.
The most important constitutional point I want to make is that we know nothing about this part of the Bill or that an exercise has taken place. I must say to the noble Lord that I would not have used the word "discreet" because this has been a nonentity for large parts of the country. People are unaware of the

347
soundings; they do not know of meetings being held; they know very little; their opinions are not sought. I would not have known. The noble Lord has given a fulsome apology that Peers in this House were not part of the consultation. That was absolutely extraordinary. Until the situation changes by diktat, we are Members of Parliament. We should have been informed and our opinions sought.
I return to the constitutional point. This part of the Bill triggers some serious, expensive, extremely painstaking and lengthy reorganisation on paper of local government as to the level of interest in an area determined by the Secretary of State on the basis of his own opinion. Therefore, the level of interest, as set out in the Bill, is absolutely crucial. We want a more scientific measurement of that interest; we want to know whether—as stated on the face of the Bill—Section 12 can be triggered up to two years later. Up to two years later there may well he a different opinion.
The noble Lord says there is nothing to measure the interest against. That is a give-away. The soundings have taken place: there must be something to measure against. That becomes the basis against which either interest has flagged or interest has increased. Therefore, there must be something to measure against. It would be very helpful if we, as parliamentarians, had some understanding of what that level of interest was; how it was measured; and whether large tranches of the country were left out of the consultation.
I cannot over-emphasise the importance of this matter. We know that there is pressure on this House and on those who are working hard to finish the Committee stage by Monday so that the Bill can be on the statute book by 8th May. There is also a rumour that Mr Prescott is ready to go. Guess in which part of the country? The North East, where all his friends are and where there have been conversations with activists who are pro-regional assemblies and where the man in the street is not being given a chance. The only time Joe Public was asked for his opinion—my noble friend Lord Elliott of Morpeth, who lives in and knows the North East very well, gave this away—occurred when a respected local newspaper ascertained that more people were against a regional assembly than for one.
The noble Lord will say, "That's all right. They will be able to express that view in a referendum". But what the referendum triggers is absolutely crucial. We want to know more about it. The amendment cannot be taken in isolation. It is part of a package of amendments. We want to know what the criteria are; we want to know how interest is measured; and we want to have before Parliament a scientific understanding of what those soundings told the Deputy Prime Minister and on what basis he will determine which part of the country, to start with, shall be given an opportunity to vote, not for a regional assembly but to vote about a regional assembly. This is so important that I seek the opinion of the Committee.
11.38 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 18) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 110; Not-Contents, 86.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Ackner, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Addington, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Liverpool, E.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Luke, L.

Astor, V.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L

Blatch, B.

McNally, L.

Bowness, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Marsh, L.

Bridges, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Buscombe, B.

Molyneaux of Killead, L

Byford, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Caithness, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Noakes, B.

Chorley, L.

Northover, B.

Cobbold, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Coe, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Palmer, L.

Cox, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Crathorne, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Peel, E.

Denham, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Dholakia, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rawlings, B.

Dundee, E.

Redesdale, L.

Elles, B.

Rennard, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Elton, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Emerton, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Falkland, V.

Roper, L.

Ferrers, E.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Flather, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Fowler, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Freeman, L.

Selsdon, L.

Geddes, L.

Sharples, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Gloucester, Bp.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Greaves, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Greenway, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hamwee, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Hanham, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Tope, L.

Higgins, L.

Tordoff, L.

Howe, E.

Trumpington, B.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Waddington, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Wakeham, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Warnock, B.

Jopling, L.

Wilcox, B.

Kimball, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Ahmed, L.

Brookman, L.

Andrews, B.

Burlison, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Carter, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Christopher, L.

Berkeley, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Blackstone, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Bragg, L.

Crawley, B.

349

David, B.

Lockwood, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Dixon, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Dubs, L.

[Teller]

Elder, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Filkin, L.

Pendry, L.

Gale, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Golding, B.

Richard, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Rooker, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Sewel, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Sheldon, L.

Harrison, L.

Simon, V.

Haskel, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Turnberg, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Weatherill, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.(Lord

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Chancellor)

Whitaker, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Whitty, L.

Judd, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord

Lea of Crondall, L.

Privy Seal)

Lipsey, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
11.47 a.m.
[Amendments Nos. 19 to 23 not moved.]
The Chairman of Committees: I call Amendment No. 24.
Baroness Blatch: Did the noble Lord call Amendment No. 20?
The Chairman of Committees: I announced earlier that it was pre-empted.
Baroness Blatch: I apologise; I missed the fact that it had been pre-empted. I thought that I was jumping the gun on the Liberal Democrat amendment.
Amendment No. 24 would ensure that the Secretary of State could call a referendum in a region only if he had first issued a certificate stating that there had been no activity by the regional chamber or development agency during the course of the previous year intended to influence the result of the referendum.
We know that such activity takes place. I know that the Minister must be circumspect because, if there is to be any judicial review of that activity, it would be entirely wrong of him to say anything now. However, I am not asking him to judge whether I am right or wrong about the existence of such activity. The amendment simply states that a certificate should be issued. If it turns out that I am right—that such activity has been taking place, that it is illicit and
350
precedes Parliament's authority, and that it has involved public funding—that is serious. That creates a prejudice in favour of regional assemblies that does not favour those waiting and acting lawfully until there is authority by Parliament to engage in the debate about whether there should be a referendum to determine whether a regional assembly is set up.
It is common sense that taxpayers' money should not be used to fund a "Yes" campaign. It should not fund such a campaign once it is lawful, because, unless there is a level playing field for opponents and supporters of a regional assembly, the referendum would be considered one-sided, as happens in European campaigns. That would be unjust and unfair to the electorate as a whole.
Even if a majority favoured regional assemblies, it would be better to spend money on public services rather than on costly campaigns, certainly at this stage. As the noble Lord said at many of our meetings, we are well ahead of an actual regional assembly being set up. If a "Yes" campaign gathered momentum at this stage, it would trigger spending of large sums of money until the electorate vote on whether they want a regional assembly. A failsafe way to prevent such behaviour would be to disallow a referendum if any illicit campaigning had taken place. It would render the referendum abortive; therefore, another one would have to be held. I beg to move.
Lord Waddington: I support the amendment. It would provide a useful safeguard against malpractice. I am bound to say that some things have happened recently concerning the North West Regional Assembly that incline one to believe that safeguards may be necessary. I referred a short time ago to a remarkable letter addressed by the chief executive of the North West Regional Assembly to the chief executive of Lancashire County Council. In paragraph 3 of the letter, the writer seeks to rebut the charge that the North West Regional Assembly has been using public money to campaign for elected regional government, but he seems to make a poor fist of doing so.
The chief executive quotes a resolution passed by the North West Regional Assembly on 11th January 2002,
"we, the North West Regional Assembly declare our intention to become an elected Regional Government".
He then quotes from a press release apparently issued immediately after the resolution. It referred to the fact that the resolution was a decision,
"to campaign for a referendum in the Region at the earliest opportunity to give people in the North West their say on whether they want directly elected Regional Government".
Extraordinarily, he then says:
"The press release was no part of a campaign".
Well, he could have fooled me.
I was shocked to discover that Lancashire County Council gave £47,470 to the North West Regional Assembly, which it now refuses to return. It even has the effrontery to assert that Lancashire County Council cannot withhold its payments for 2003–04. I hope that the extraordinary behaviour of the North

351
West Regional Assembly will be widely publicised and that every council taxpayer in Lancashire knows of the assembly's use of their money.
I wish to ask the Minister this: I am at a loss to understand what right regional assemblies set up under the 1998 Act have to call themselves assemblies. I see nothing in the Act to suggest that they can. I am afraid to say that the behaviour of the North West Regional Assembly shows that it is all too easy for such a body to use a change of name to fool the public into believing that it represents them, when it represents nobody but itself. That nonsense must be stopped. I would like a straight answer to that question.
The Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 provides for the setting up of chambers but there is nothing whatever in that Act to suggest that those chambers can masquerade as assemblies. Yet that is what they are doing, and it is obvious why. They are masquerading as assemblies because, as such, they look like the heirs apparent to elected assemblies. They are lying to the public.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Buried in the labyrinthine corridors of the huge empire now improperly known as the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister—no office was ever so elephantine in its dimensions—are the Government Offices for the Regions. What do they do? What is their relationship to this? Are they promotion agents for regional government? From some points of view, regional government would be satisfactory. It would take government much further away from the people and make it even more difficult to understand.
I understand that governments live in an atmosphere of muddle. But my noble friends have persuaded me that, in this case, it is not muddle, it is deliberate camouflage. By masterpieces of conjuring, they are going to impose regional government on us all without explaining it, and without any knowledge on the part of the vast majority of the electorate.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: It is important from the Government's own point of view that they get this right. Referendums will not be seen as binding or fair if, before they take place, a great accumulation of money has been spent on one side of the argument. That happened in Wales. Much money was spent to promote an assembly for Wales, and only a minute fraction of it was spent on the opposite campaign. Much of the money spent on the "Yes" campaign came from public sources. So taxpayers and ratepayers who opposed a Welsh assembly were forced to pay for propaganda against their own point of view. That simply cannot be fair; it cannot be allowed to happen. That is why the amendment is so important.
I know that the Minister is aware of the problem and has tried to deal with it. The Minister responsible for local government has already made a statement that public funds may not be used to campaign at this or any other stage on one side of the argument. Mr Herron, who was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Dixon, and others have taken out actions
352
against local authorities that have engaged in one-sided propaganda using ratepayers' money. I know that the Minister is concerned about it, and I hope that he will give assurances that he will stamp on any authority or person using public money on one side of the argument.
It is legitimate for people to engage in an argument at this stage, if they use their own money or money that they have collected. That is legitimate, and I would support it. However, I am certainly against the use of public money on one side of the argument. It happens far too much. It happened in Malta, for example, where they have just had a referendum. The European Commission and the Maltese Government spent 20 times as much public money, including some of our taxpayers' money, on one side of the argument and still did not get a majority of the electorate to vote for their point of view.
Noon
Baroness Hanham: We debated this briefly on the previous day in Committee. I have struggled to find it in Hansard, but I am fairly certain that I recall the Minister saying—he will correct me, if I am wrong—that investigations of the regional assemblies by the Minister for Housing had indicated that public money had not been used to campaign. However, I know of no money spent by regional assemblies that does not come from the taxpayer.
Can the Minister say where any additional money comes from'? I am sure that he said that they were satisfied that it was not taxpayers' money. I meant to challenge him at the time, and I wonder how he could be so sure, when my inquiries have shown that regional assemblies are basically funded by government and local government.
Lord Greaves: The debate has raised two questions. The first is whether there is a problem, and the second is whether the amendment is an appropriate way to deal with any such problem.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, I have followed with interest the arguments between Lancashire County Council and the North West Regional Assembly over publicity and campaigning and whether the regional assembly has transgressed the line between the two. It is a matter of distinguishing between legitimate publicity and impermissible campaigning, to use the words in the letter from the North West Regional Assembly to Mr Trinick, the chief executive of Lancashire County Council, to which the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, referred. Local authorities—the North West Regional Assembly is not composed only of local authorities, but it is basically an assembly of local authorities in the region—have always to ask themselves that question, when they take a view on a matter of public controversy and wish to promote that view. It is not an unknown problem, and local authorities throughout the country deal with it week by week. It is not a difficult problem; it is simply distinguishing between legitimate publicity and impermissible campaigning.

353
In Lancashire, it is not just a question of whether and in what way the North West Regional Assembly has transgressed the line; it is also a question of whether Lancashire County Council and other local authorities in the region have also transgressed. I am not sure that Cheshire has taken a clear position in the way in which Lancashire has; perhaps it has. My district authority, Pendle Borough Council, has decided that, given the information to hand about what is in the Bill and the White Paper, it does not wish the North West to go ahead in the first tranche of referendums. In effect it is the same position as Lancashire County Council has taken up
So, what can the borough council do? There are motions on which it can vote, and it can issue press statements giving its view. Is that illegitimate? If so, it calls into question a large amount of the publicity activity carried out by local authorities throughout the country week by week. The leader of Lancashire County Council has written articles condemning the Bill, saying that Lancashire wants no part of it and disagreeing with the position taken up by the North West Regional Assembly.
Lord Waddington: Will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Greaves: I shall not, as I may be answering the question that the noble Lord is about to ask. If not, I shall give way in a moment.
Lord Waddington: Will the noble Lord give way later?
Lord Greaves: Certainly. The point that I was about to make—I suspect that it is the point that the noble Lord was about to make—is that there is a distinction between activities undertaken by individuals who happen to hold a position in an authority and the activities of the authority itself. A great deal of the promotional activity of the North West Regional Assembly has been undertaken not by the assembly but by, for example, Derek Boden, the leader of the North West Regional Assembly. He has the right to campaign in the region as an individual, even if, at the meetings at which he speaks, he describes himself as the chairman of the North West Regional Assembly.
Lord Waddington: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Surely, one can assume that a statement in a press release that the assembly is campaigning for a referendum in the region is correct.
Lord Greaves: The noble Lord is a lawyer, and I am not.
Lord Waddington: They are plain words.
Lord Greaves: They may be.
Baroness Blatch: If the press release came from the assembly, that would be the assembly speaking, albeit supported by the leader of the assembly.
Lord Greaves: That is the point that I was making. Local authorities throughout the country issue press releases.
Baroness Blatch: There is an important distinction. The assembly does not have the authority, whereas the
354
local authorities have authority in their own right. They are elected authorities, and that gives them the authority to concern themselves with their own institutions. The assembly represents lots of other bodies, including some of the local authorities in the region. I understand that Lancashire County Council has withdrawn, but the assembly speaks in the name of all the other bodies. It does not have the authority to spend campaigning money in that way.
Lord Greaves: As I understand it, the laws restricting overt campaigning by the regional assembly are the same laws as restrict overt campaigning by local authorities. I think that that responds to both interventions, but, if I am wrong about that, I will be pleased to be corrected.
I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, who asked what right the North West Regional Assembly had to give itself that name. A long time ago, when it was originally formed, I was a member of the North West Regional Assembly, representing one of the local authorities. It was called a regional assembly long before the concept of regional chambers was put into the law of the land, and it merely continued with the same name. I am not sure that there is a huge issue of principle there.
I do not know whether the North West Regional Assembly has stepped over the line. Equally, I do not know whether Lancashire County Council has stepped over the line or whether Essex County Council has stepped over the line in opposing what is proposed. If local authorities step over the line, there are remedies and ways they can be stopped. That is what should happen.
My second question is: is Amendment No. 24 the way to deal with a problem? I think not. It is clumsy; it is over the top. To conduct an investigation to determine whether two particular bodies in the region—not all the other bodies in the region might be involved in campaigning, including local authorities—have carried out activities which they do not have the power to carry out seems clumsy and over the top. The amendment is a way of raising the issue in Committee, but it is not sensible to include it in the Bill.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I have an implicit trust in the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, the Minister in charge of the Bill in this House. I would believe almost anything he told me under any circumstances. However, I have past experience with some of his colleagues and I am conscious that some of them are associated with legislation introduced by this Government. I incline my head towards the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley. I recall that during discussions on the National Lottery etc. Bill, which the then opposition welcomed, it was said that if we had a desire to redistribute lottery funds in different directions, there would be a debate in the House of Commons and the Government would take note of that.
When the present Government were elected in 1997, they immediately consulted on whether there were other uses to which lottery funds might be put. Not

355
surprisingly, of 600 responses to the consultation, 540, I believe, were from producer-interests not then in receipt of lottery funds who said it would be an extremely good idea if lottery funds were distributed to them. In a sense it was a question answering itself.
I have some sympathy with the scepticism my noble friend Lady Blatch shows towards the process we are going through. Some Members of the Committee were present at the exhibition of Dürer at the British Museum today where I learnt for the first time that although the elephant was to he found in Europe in the 15th and 16th centuries, the rhinoceros has not been seen in Europe since the third century. Yet Dürer, on the basis of information given to him by travellers from distant lands, was able to produce a fairly accurate picture of a rhinoceros.
If it is true that while debating a Bill entitled Regional Assemblies (Preparations) regional assemblies are already in existence—as my noble friend Lord Waddington implied and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, did not seem to deny—the mythology that they are associated with Dürer's rhinoceros is in some danger of being repeated. I am happy to support my noble friend.
Lord Rooker: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, for his first few sentences. This is an important issue and one which I hoped I had laid to rest, both at Question Time and in previous debates. But I failed; I shall therefore try again. There is an important distinction to be made on Amendment No. 24, which refers to the period of 12 months before the referendum. It states:
"neither the Regional Chamber nor the Regional Development Agency … have carried out any activities which they do not have power to carry out".
That is important.
The Government genuinely believe that the provisions are unnecessary. The two organisations mentioned—I shall deal with them separately—are quite different in their responsibilities and their origins. The regional development agencies are non-departmental public bodies of the Department of Trade and Industry. They act within the constraints of legislation under which they were established—namely, the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998. Because of their status they are audited by the National Audit Office and they are subject to the scrutiny of the Public Accounts Committee. As a former member of the Public Accounts Committee—indeed, the only Select Committee on which I served—I am a big supporter of the National Audit Office and the kind of scrutiny it carries out. It is an excellent committee. Its members hunt as a pack. There are no party divisions in the PAC. As no Minister appears as a witness, they coalesce to give the civil servants a bashing. That is basically the theory.
My point is that the regional development agencies are not in a position to carry out activities outside their powers. To ask the Secretary of State to issue a certificate when the PAC and the National Audit Office are their watchdogs is way beyond what we should be doing.
356
The regional chambers are a different kettle of fish. They are not statutory bodies; they are voluntary bodies. They have been designated for the purposes of the 1990 Act, but they are not statutory bodies. Each has its own constitution. They receive grants—
12.15 p.m.
Lord Waddington: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. The Minister is right. Section 8 of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 states:
"If the Secretary of State is of the opinion … that there is a body which is representative of those in a regional development agency's area with an interest in its work, and … that the body is suitable to be given the role of regional chamber for the agency, he may by directions to the agency designate the body as the regional chamber for the agency".
Therefore, by designating the body, it is actually a statutory body.
Lord Rooker: I shall take advice, but I disagree with that. The matter of the designation does not alter the voluntary nature of the body. They are as different as chalk and cheese from the regional development agencies in the legal framework in which they are set up.
The money aspect obviously concerns Members of the Committee. The voluntary bodies—namely, the chambers—receive grants from central government and have the powers to act as the regional planning bodies under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill currently being discussed in another place. In addition, they receive funds from local government. I do not know from where else they might receive funds. I believe it will be just central and local government.
What they do with the local government money is entirely up to them. I repeat that if it is misspent and misused, the complaint ought to be to the district auditor. What they do with the grant from my department is different altogether. After the allegations were made, Nick Raynsford, the Minster in charge of the Bill in another place, made it clear and put it on record that,
"The accountable body [the chamber] may not use any grant paid under this funding agreement"—
from the department—
"for expenditure falling within any of the following categories—
(a) expenditure on activities of a political or exclusively religious nature e.g. campaigning for, publicising and promoting the case for an elected regional assembly".
I know that it is almost Orwellian that they are chambers which are converting themselves into assemblies. They are voluntary bodies; in effect, they could probably call themselves whatever they want. All the concentration seems to be on "our friends in the North". But the regional chamber in the South East is in no way "our friends in the South"; it is "your friends in the South", if I may put it in that colloquial way. It is a Conservative-led regional assembly in the south-east of England.
It is the chamber but has decided to call itself the regional assembly for whatever reason. The reasons may be those given by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I do not know. I have had no contact with it and I have

357
not seen any of its correspondence. So far as I know it is not in favour of elected regional assemblies. It is calling itself the regional assembly, but it is the chamber. It is entitled to do that. What it cannot do is spend the money from the taxpayers—by which I mean my department—on such campaigning. What it does with the money from the council tax payers that comes from local government is another matter. If that is considered to be wrong, as I have previously said from this Dispatch Box, a complaint should be made to the district auditor and the necessary inquiries will be made.
I do not know whether any complaints have been made. As regards my department, I know of no chamber going outside it. They have been informed of what Nick Raynsford said and we expect them to follow that.
Essentially, the chambers are voluntary bodies and can call themselves what they want. While it might be thought Orwellian or slipping through under the door to call themselves regional assemblies in advance of being set up, that is their choice. However, despite all the correspondence from and debates with Members on the Benches opposite, it is clear that open warfare is going on in those regions. That both underlines and undermines our previous debate; namely, that no one knows anything about this Bill. We see county councils having a go at each other and exchanging letters in the press. How can it be said that no one knows about this legislation?
I think that the amendment is unnecessary. While I understand why it has been tabled, I say again that the two bodies are quite different. Furthermore, as regards the regional development agencies, the Committee should rely on the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee to ensure that the rules are followed. Once more, I emphasise the fact that the district auditor should look at any complaints concerning the alleged misuse of local government money.
The Earl of Caithness: The Minister has been extremely helpful in clarifying the amendment. I am no longer as concerned as I was about the RDAs. However, I am still concerned about the regional chambers or assemblies—whatever they like to call themselves.
First, I do not share the relaxed attitude adopted by the Minister that it is possible to separate completely the grant given by his department to these bodies and the council tax moneys given to them by local authorities. How can regional chambers be condemned for spending the grant given to them by the Minister when he is not prepared to condemn them for spending council tax money on an illicit purpose? Will the Minister condemn any regional chamber or assembly for spending money in the way set out in the amendment that derives either from his department or from the local council tax?
358
Secondly, can the Minister go into a little more detail about the role of the district auditor? If a situation arises where money has been used wrongfully in lobbying either for or against an elected regional assembly, the matter is referred to the district auditor. What happens then? Has provision been made to provide a brake on the proposed referendum? Perhaps I may take the Minister with me on this point. Let us take a situation where money has been used wrongly and the matter sent to the district auditor, whereupon the auditor rules against the regional chamber. What happens then? Surely at that point one ought to say, "Right, let us stop whatever we have been doing. Let us take a break so that everyone can get back onto an even keel".
Lord Rooker: I am being invited to condemn the illicit spending of public money and I do so quite freely. By separating the two organisations and making that separation clear, I do not, by implication, support the misuse of money coming from local authorities. In no way do I seek to do that.
There are two avenues of complaint; namely, if the allegation that the money has been misspent is firm, then there is an avenue for complaint. I suggest that the district auditor should be used because that is the correct avenue. However, I am unaware of anyone having made a formal complaint. Again, I do not say that because we have issued a directive as regards my department's money, it is therefore good to misspend moneys from council tax payers; far from it.
Looking at the big picture, it would be unreasonable for organisations to be out of the starting blocks campaigning for something that has not yet even been approved by Parliament and using either taxpayers' or council tax payers' money. People rightly would be suspicious and complain about that, in particular if the body concerned was to change its name and give a false impression. However, if that is what has happened, then I do not know about it. No one has contacted me in that regard.
If someone makes a complaint to a district auditor—I know about this because in the past I have done so myself as a Member of another place—the matter is looked at. If a prima facie case is made for an investigation, it will be done. Believe me when I say that an investigation by the district auditor is very onerous on those who are the subject of such an inquiry. It is taken extremely seriously by chief executives of local authorities and, it is hoped, would be taken equally seriously by a regional assembly. An adverse report from a district auditor is quite a serious matter and certainly would be made known to the public. It could damage the reputation of the individuals concerned; it could damage the organisation and it could even damage what the organisation was seeking to campaign about.
However, so far as I know, no one has made any allegations. We have invited such allegations on more than one occasion and I do so again today.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to the Minister for his first answer. Perhaps I may press him a little

359
further on his second response. Let us assume that after a thorough investigation the district auditor finds evidence of misdeeds. Does the Minister agree that, because of the misspent money, that would be the time to halt the process of the referendum?
Lord Rooker: I cannot answer the noble Earl because, to be honest, the response must come from my learned friends. I simply do not know; there are too many hypotheticals in the question.
The central issue is that the amendment talks about a period of 12 months before the order is laid. The period for the referendum itself—that is, the contest for the "Yes" vote or the "No" vote, if I may put it that way—is very short. I think the Referendum Act 1975 stipulates something in the order of 10 weeks. So to lay the order 12 months beforehand presents a problem as regards interference with the timing.
As I have said, I do not know the answer to the question put by the noble Earl. We are still in Committee. I shall seek to obtain better advice on it so that, if not at this stage then on Report, I will be able to respond to him more fully. The noble Earl is entitled to as good and detailed an answer as we can give, but I am not in a position to do that off the top of my head.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I have a brief question which has not been raised in this debate. Indeed, it goes slightly further than the amendment. I do not wish to impute any dishonour to the bishops in this matter, but one does hear that a number of these assemblies, or however they are known, are chaired by bishops of the Church of England. In those circumstances I think it regrettable that so far no right reverend Prelate has helped us in our deliberations on the amendments.
Does the Minister have anything to say to the Committee about the involvement of bishops in this matter? It could be that their presence would influence the outcome of a referendum. For some of us, the duties that they have been undertaking appear to go beyond what is normally regarded as the divine.
Lord Rooker: So far as I know, as citizens, bishops have the right to vote. They do not hang up their democratic rights when they take on the role of a bishop. As I recall, the Constitutional Convention that operated in Scotland, where the level of political debate was so much more mature than in England on issues of voting systems, was chaired by a member of the clergy, although I cannot remember his precise role. The bishops are here to speak for themselves.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I think that there is an issue on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. Some of the meetings have been chaired by bishops. At those meetings, only one side of the argument has been put. Anyone suspected, if I may put it that way, of wanting to put the other side of the argument has been excluded. That is the problem here. Bishops are held in high regard and are
360
respected. One would expect them to see to it that both sides of the argument are put. However, that has not been the case.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Perhaps I may help the Minister on a point of detail. One of the chairmen of the Constitutional Convention in Scotland was a canon of the Episcopal Church of Scotland, a non-established church. He was not a bishop and it was a non-established church. I hope that that is helpful to the noble Lord.
Lord Rooker: So far as I am concerned, he is a member of the clergy. That was the point I sought to make; I was not going to detail the circumstances in Scotland.
I cannot answer the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. I do not know who chaired those meetings or whether anyone was prevented from speaking. I cannot answer for the Government on these issues because we are not responsible for them. There are avenues for dealing with complaints about the process.
I do not know whether the allegations have been made against right reverend Prelates who are Members of the House or against other bishops. When they are in their places in clue course, one assumes that they will speak for themselves. There is a Starred Question on this issue on the Order Paper today. Perhaps one of them will turn up to speak to it.
12.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I do not intend to enter the discussion about the role of the bishops except in so far as it is interesting to note that a number of them have spoken in this House in favour of regional assemblies. It is depressing not to see at least some of them taking part in our debates because they have been involved in this issue.
The only further point I would add, without getting into the nuts and bolts of the point made by my noble friend Lord Pearson, is that it is not bishops as individuals that we are talking about but bishops in their role of leading the conventions. There is no law against that; under the law they are free to take the chair. But we have heard—again it is rumour and I cannot confirm it—that, in order to attend convention meetings chaired by bishops, one has to express an interest in having regional government. That also smacks of being one-sided.
My amendment relates to one-sided campaigning. The Minister said that it relates to process and that we are not here to talk about process, but most of the amendments on the Marshalled List relate to process and to ensuring that it is as fair as it can be in enabling people to make up their minds, quite freely, whether or not they want local government upheaval and the introduction of regional assemblies.

361
My noble friend Lord Waddington has given an enormous amount of evidence that campaigning is taking place. We know that it is taking place in the North East. We also know that the "Yes" lobby has access to public funds. There is a question mark as to whether it is using public funds to—
Lord Dixon: Does the noble Baroness accept that campaigning is taking place on both sides? There is a campaign against a regional assembly in the North East and there is a campaign for one. There are two sides.
Baroness Blatch: I know that. Such has been the intensity of the "Yes" campaign in the North East that it has driven-up "No" campaign activity. But the "No" campaign has no recourse to, and no authority to use, public funding. It has to campaign privately and it must raise its own funding. A number of noble Lords have equated it to European elections where, if you want to oppose something, you have to find your own funding; if you want to support it, you have recourse to public funds. That is the point I am making about the one-sided nature of the system. My next point would have been that the "No" campaigns do net have access to public funds.
As to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, I do not know whether bodies are overstepping the line in terms of legality. My amendment seeks to address that issue. It seeks to ensure that, before making an order, the Secretary of State should satisfy himself that there has been no illicit activity.
The Minister quite rightly pointed out that there are remedies for deciding whether or not moneys have been spent properly—that is, legally—through the district auditor and through the Public Accounts Committee. I am not arguing against that. But if the Public Accounts Committee or the district auditor were to find that there had been wrong-doing, there still would be no obligation on the Secretary of State to take that into account when determining whether or not an order should be made. But, if wrongdoing has been established by the district auditor—and I know that the district auditor is being asked to look into expenditure in the North East—that should indicate to the Secretary of State that the procedure has been unfair and has created an unlevel playing field.
The Minister pointed out, again quite rightly, the distinction between the regional development agencies and the chambers. It is true that they are different and that the regional development agencies gain their authority directly from primary legislation, but it is not true to say that the chambers are not statutory bodies. They are established under, and derive their powers from, the Regional Development Agencies Act, as my noble friend Lord Waddington pointed out. They receive public moneys, are accountable to the Public Accounts Committee and to Parliament, and have direct formal and informal links to the regional development agencies. So that is not an argument against the amendment.
362
The Minister referred to bodies in the South East and the South West being in Conservative hands. I hope that I will never be accused of talking about this Bill from a party political point of view. I regard it as being so constitutionally important that it overrides and subordinates totally the issue of party politics. I do not care whether the Conservative Party, the Labour Party or whoever controls these bodies; my concern is the constitutional arrangements of this country. If members of the public are to be invited to express a view on whether or not they want a regional assembly in their area, public money should not be spent by bodies with a vested interest on campaigning for a "Yes" vote while those without all the information necessary to make a decision are left to their own devices to create an opposition body.
The amendment seeks to ensure that, if there has been one-sided activity by bodies with a vested interest in a "Yes" vote—and if that activity has created a distortion—the Secretary of State should be obliged to make a judgment on that issue before making an order under Clause 12. I commend the amendment and wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: The Minister is quite right to say that the bishops can speak for themselves. For the record, just over a year ago the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham raised the subject of regional government in a debate. I took part in that debate. I disagreed with the right reverend Prelate, but he did speak for himself.
12.38 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 24) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 86; Not-Contents, 114.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Ferrers, E.

Ackner, L.

Flather, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Fowler, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Freeman, L.

Astor, V.

Geddes, L.

Blatch, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Bowness, L.

Glentoran, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Hanham, B.

Bridges, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Higgins, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Burnham, L.

Hooper, B.

Buscombe, B.

Howe, E.

Byford, B.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Caithness, E.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Jopling, L.

Cox, B.

Kimball, L.

Crathorne, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Denham, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Laming, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Elton, L.

Luke, L.

363

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Rawlings, B.

Macfarlane of Bearsden, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Marsh, L.

Saatchi, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Sharples, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Naseby, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Noakes, B.

Stewartby, L.

Northbourne, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Palmer, L.

Trumpington, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Waddington, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Peel, E

Wakeham, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Weatherill, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Wilcox, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Addington, L.

Hoyle, L.

Ahmed, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Andrews, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Jeger, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Judd, L.

Bach, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Billingham, B.

Lipsey, L.

Blackstone, B.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Boothroyd, B.

Lockwood, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Bragg, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

[Teller]

Brookman, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Burlison, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

McNally, L.

Carter, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Christopher, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mitchell, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Morgan, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Crawley, B.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Pendry, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

David, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Dholakia, L.

Redesdale, L.

Dixon, L.

Rennard, L.

Dubs, L.

Richard, L.

Elder, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Rooker, L.

Falkland, V.

Roper, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Sandberg, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Fitt, L.

Sewel, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Sheldon, L.

Gale, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Simon, V.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Greaves, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hamwee, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Tordoff, L.

Harrison, L.

Turnberg, L.

Haskel, L

Turner of Camden, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

364

Whitaker, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Whitty, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.(Lord

Williams of Crosby, B.

Privy Seal)

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
12.47p.m
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 25A:
Page 2, line 15, at end insert—
"( ) No order shall be made under subsection (1) until the Secretary of State has published the results of an independent inquiry into the constitutional and practical effects of regional government on the United Kingdom parliament."
The noble Baroness said: I repeat my point about the haste with which we are being pressured to complete the Bill. In a sense it underlies what I consider to be the very serious constitutional point addressed by my amendment.
We know that the Government would like nothing better than to have a regional assembly up and running in the shortest possible time: that means the Bill completing its passage by 8th May; an announcement then being made—as we all believe will happen—that the North East has expressed an interest in having a regional assembly; the Boundary Committee then getting on with its work; and a regional assembly being up and running within a year to 18 months.
Lord Rooker: Will the noble Baroness please accept that that is simply not so? I have made it abundantly clear that a regional assembly cannot be set up until after the next general election. The time required for the boundary review, for the referendum and for progress on the main Bill mean that there is no prospect whatever of a regional assembly being up and running this side of the next general election.
Baroness Blatch: First, we do not know when the next general election will take place. I do not doubt the noble Lord's word; I accept it, as I always do. I believe that he made that statement in good faith.
Will he go one step further and say that there will not be a Clause 12 order within the next 12 months? I do not think that he is able to go that far. Nor do I believe that he is able to say that there will not be a clause 12 order in indecent haste this side of the Summer Recess. I hope, therefore, that I can be forgiven for repeating that, given the dearth of information in the Bill and our constant search for detailed information in the White Paper, we have to make assumptions. One is that there is a great deal of pressure for the Bill to complete its passage quickly. If what the Minister says is true, what is the hurry? Why is there such haste? There can be only one reason; namely, to determine one or more areas of the country as having expressed an interest in having regional government.

365
The amendment requires the Secretary of State to publish an independent report considering the constitutional and practical effects that regional assemblies will have on the functioning of Parliament. That is to be done before a referendum is held.
As we on these Benches have said so many times, it is clear that the Bill has the greatest constitutional significance. It would be foolhardy to embark on such a project without fully weighing up the implications of regional assemblies for our historic Mother of Parliaments.
It does not need pointing out to those present that the authority and powers of the Westminster Parliament have taken a pretty severe bashing over the past decade. We can no longer, in this House or in another place, ask questions about Scotland—that is an issue for the Scottish Parliament. We can no longer, as Members in this place and another place, ask questions about Wales—that is a matter for the Welsh Assembly. We now cannot ask questions, in this House or in another place, about London—that is a matter for the Mayor of London.
Wales has its own Assembly, Scotland its own Parliament, and England is to be carved up into nine regions. London has already gone, and the rest of the country is to be carved up into another eight regions. In the worst of all possible worlds, we will get a patchwork, with not all regions having regional assemblies. The emasculation of this place as a parliament will be serious.
At least we should make sure that any decision that is taken is conscious—an intentional decision made on the basis of knowing all the information. The process in which the people of England are to exercise their power to vote should be open. From what is known of devolution so far, we know that the emasculation effect will be very real.
The task would also serve to focus the minds of those in local and, more especially, national government on what powers would fall into the remit of regional assemblies and what would remain the responsibility of Westminster. We are still not sure. We have still had no definitive answer as to what specific powers will pass from the Westminster Parliament to the regional assemblies. Most of us on this side are sceptical about what the Minister has said; we know that he is answering for the department, so this is not a personal criticism. We know that powers will be ceded upwards from local authorities to the regions.
Let us take the Government at their word. They say that real powers will be ceded from the Westminster Parliament to the regional assemblies. Indeed, that is the kind of regional government that the Liberals support, although they will not achieve it through this Bill. If powers will be ceded from the Westminster Parliament, it is fundamental, basic and seriously constitutionally important that we should know what that means for the nature, the character, the powers and the functions of a United Kingdom Parliament.
366
We can see already that the clout of the United Kingdom is seriously at risk. We belong to the European Union as an entity, as the United Kingdom, but when a viewpoint is being put in Europe on behalf of the United Kingdom, the Scottish Parliament could say that it does not agree with that line. As my wonderful late noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish predicted in this House, it is only a matter of time before Scotland wants its own voice around the European table. But as we split up into regions, we know that some regions of this country, such as the North-East and the South-East, are more pro-Europe than others. Because of their geographic proximity and the way in which the grant system has worked in their favour, there is an empathy. We should not sleepwalk into what I regard as a constitutional situation; we should have thought it out in advance.
Since 1997, we have passed a good deal of constitutionally important legislation. We tend, as a parliament—and this is a fault—to take each proposition in isolation. We have not really thought through the ramifications of many of these constitutional changes as they will impact on the integrity of the United Kingdom as a whole. I cannot tell your Lordships just how seriously I regard that issue. Before the people of this country are asked to choose whether they want a regional assembly without understanding the ramifications, there should at least be some definitive explanation from the Government as to how they see Parliament serving this country as a United Kingdom parliament when one area, or more, has a regional assembly. So far, we have a vague idea at best. I am stunned that so little is known about the precise nature of what we are embarking upon with the Bill and the constitutional consequences.
The Minister said that one would think that the Bill had not been through the House of Commons. As a Front-Bench Member in opposition, and even when I was a Minister, I never learned a great deal from Bills that came to this House from the House of Commons, where the guillotine and the pernicious system called the knife are used and large tracts of a Bill are not discussed at all, even cursorily. With regard to the Scottish and Welsh devolution Bills, I am very proud to say that I belong to a part of the Parliament and a part of the parliamentary process that discussed each Bill from the first letter of the first word of the Bill to the last letter of the last word of the Bill, and at every stage of the parliamentary process, without filibustering and without wasting parliamentary time. That cannot be said for another place. Those Bills were barely discussed in another place and the people were asked to vote in a referendum without knowing the detail of how devolution would work in practice.
I cannot overstate the importance of this issue. I regard this as a key amendment to the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Waddington: I recall that on Second Reading the Deputy Prime Minister said:
"The Bill offers, for the first time in our history. opportunities to the English regions similar to those offered to Scotland, Wales and London".

367
Of course, that was absolute nonsense, but at least it shows that the Government are putting forward the Bill as some sort of answer to Scottish devolution. It is a pretty messy and unsatisfactory answer when, at the end of the day, some parts of the country may have elected regional government and some may not.
What is certain is that if the Deputy Prime Minister was anything like right and if, in time, real powers are devolved to the regions from our Parliament at Westminster at the same time as powers are seized from Parliament and given to Brussels, the role and standing of our Parliament at Westminster will change out of all recognition and will be greatly diminished. Some may wish this to happen but I doubt if there are many. The trouble is that we are, as my noble friend Lady Blatch said, sleepwalking into these changes. It is absolutely shocking that these changes should take place without any sort of realisation or any attempt to explain to the public what the end result may well be. It is high time there was a full inquiry on the implications of these changes.
1 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Blatch for tabling the amendment, which gives me an opportunity to repeat my question about how the Bill takes forward the European Union's plan for a "Europe of the regions", to the detriment of our national Parliament. How much of our remaining sovereignty will the Bill cede to the corrupt octopus in Brussels? The Government would like to pretend that it will not cede any sovereignty.
I asked those questions on Second Reading on 20th February at cols. 1302–06 and again in Committee on 13th March at cols. 1455–56, 1471 and 1505–06. In the absence of any real reply from the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, who had joined me in this line of questioning, was good enough to press the Minister at cols. 1508–09. He asked the Minister whether he was unable or unwilling to answer our questions. The Minister replied:
"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"—
I think he may have meant the Committee 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".—[Official Report, 13/3/ 03; col. 1509]
I can but hope that the Government have thought about this vital question and are now in a position to let us know the truth of the matter.
By way of background, we should recall how the Minister attempted to head off our line of questioning on Second Reading. He said:
"There is no requirement from Brussels, the European Union or anywhere else for England to have a structure of regional government. We are not implementing some plan or plot hatched up by Johnny Foreigner to seek to bring in EMU by the back door or in some way channel funds into different regions. There is no
368
EU requirement that member states should have elected regional government. This is a United Kingdom policy to meet United Kingdom needs".—[Official Report, 20/2/03; col. 1251]
I think the Committee will agree that that is a firm assurance, but it clearly does not square with the Government's policy as set out in paragraphs 8.19 and 4.31 of the White Paper, which I placed on the record on 13th March. To achieve absolute clarity and to help the Minister with his reply, I fear it is worth placing the salient part of paragraph 4.31 on the record again. It says that the assemblies,
"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 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 should like to pin the Minister down. Do the Government intend to implement that part of the White Paper? Will the proposed regional assemblies take over responsibility from central government— from this Parliament—for extracting and spending funds from Brussels? That is my first simple question. I trust that the Minister can answer it with his customary clarity.
Assuming that the Government intend to follow their White Paper, my second question is also simple. Will this Parliament or the Government of the day enjoy any control over the amount of money that the corrupt octopus in Brussels—or the European Union, as the Minister may prefer to call it—sends to the proposed regions? Will the United Kingdom be able to limit the amount of EU aid that is given to our regions? As I have said before, EU aid is a fraud in any case, because only half of what we send to the crooked filter in Brussels comes back to us as EU aid, and always on projects designed to enhance its own image.
Be that as it may—and it is—my third question is one that I have asked before without getting a reply, but hope springs eternal, so I shall try once more. Will the new regions come to have their own tax-raising powers? If so, how will those powers relate to Brussels? I hope that the Minister will regard that question as esoteric and fanciful, in which case he will be able to confirm that the proposed regions will not have such powers.
I repeat my three questions. Do the Government stand by paragraph 4.31 of their White Paper? Will the UK have the power to limit the amount of money thus sent by Brussels to the proposed regions? Will the proposed regions have their own tax-raising powers, and, if so, how will they interface with Brussels? Those three questions seem pretty important to me, because the answers will show how much of our remaining sovereignty the Government are prepared to cede to Brussels under the Bill. It is also information that should clearly be put before the voters in any referendum.
Lord Greaves: I sometimes think it would be helpful if we adopted a new acronym to save time and referred to the corrupt octopus in Brussels as the COB.

369
We keep being told that we cannot ask questions in this Parliament about Scotland and Wales. That is partly true. We cannot ask questions about those matters that are devolved, as opposed to those matters that are reserved to this Parliament. There is an important difference, which is clearly relevant to the Bill if any matters are going to be resolved. We are also told that we cannot ask questions about London. At Question Time I sometimes think I am in a meeting of the Westminster parish council rather than a chamber of the United Kingdom Parliament. We have lots of questions about holes in the roads outside this building, the closure of streets in London, congestion charging and all the rest of it, not to mention the Tube.
Baroness Blatch: Does the noble Lord accept that London is the capital city of this country and the flow of traffic and the ease with which people can get through it and around it are important not simply to Londoners but to the rest of the country? It is a traffic hub for railways and roads. Interest in London is not confined to people in London. Substantially, our questions on these matters are answered with, "This is a matter for the Mayor of London".
Lord Greaves: As an adopted Londoner for part of the week nowadays, I think the noble Baroness makes my point for me. We are allowed to ask questions about London and to discuss them at great length. I sometimes think that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, is a London commissioner in this House. I am not objecting to the capital city of this country being discussed here, just as I do not object to anybody from any other part of the country wishing to raise matters. I am merely saying that the repeated mantra that we cannot ask questions or discuss these matters is not true.
There is an important truth at the heart of the amendment, although we cannot support the amendment. In the words of the noble Baroness, we are asked to take each constitutional proposition in isolation from others. There was an attempt, spearheaded in many ways by the Liberal Democrats, when we and the Labour Party were in opposition, to put together a constitutional package that included lots of useful and desirable things such as the establishment of a Scottish Parliament and a move towards proportional representation. An important part of that was the body known as the Cook-Maclennan committee, which produced the Cook-Maclennan report.
One of our great disappointments—it will not be shared by the Conservatives—has been that the Government, in their constitutional legislation, have come forward with a piecemeal approach and not presented each item of it as part of a wider package or vision for the fundamental reform of the British constitution that our party believes has been and remains necessary. We applaud some of the work done and some of the legislation. We applaud the establishment of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. We regret that the Government seem
370
to have substantially run out of steam on their constitutional agenda. The Bill is the last fairly feeble spluttering of that agenda before it finally runs into the sand. It is no secret that we want to beef it up and get it going again.
There is a kernel of truth at the heart of the amendment, which is that neither the Government nor Parliament are at present looking at the constitutional package as a whole and seeing what the effects will be. Those effects would include the relationship of this country to the European Union, or the COB as the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, would prefer to call it. We will disagree on how we think that things ought to go. That does not mean to say that there ought not to be such a comprehensive look, but there has not been and we have to take the Bill as it is.
We do not know what an independent inquiry would be or how it would be set up. The noble Baroness talked about why but not how it would happen. We have to make our own judgments into such matters, which we can perfectly well do. Particularly, we will be able to do it if and when we ever get to a Bill to set up regional government rather than this preparations Bill. The amendment seems premature. If such an independent inquiry were to take place, it ought to be in conjunction with definitive but substantive legislation rather than this paving legislation. On those bases, we would not support the amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, with some interest. I understand in a way why he might not support the amendment, yet it seems that there is nothing between his argument and that made by my noble friend on the Front Bench in moving the amendment.
For the whole of my life, I have seen a steady process of accretion of power into government. My noble friend Lord Pearson talked about the Government perceiving that as UK policy to meet UK needs. In my view it is not UK policy for UK needs, but government policy for government needs. I make a clear distinction between government and Whitehall, between Parliament and the people of this country.
Behind all the provisions, we do not see a process of real and genuine devolution. The impact of the Bill, if it is passed and the country then accepts it with regional referendums and we finish up with a full regional structure, will mean that there are that many fewer local bodies in the country with which Whitehall has to deal. The counties will go and the districts will go in the shire areas. We will then have nine regions outside London, London itself and a unitary structure down below.
That is the constitutional effect. Having said that, in the process we will continue the gradual turn of the thumbscrews that has gone on for so long. We will see increasing power in the legislation establishing the new bodies, so that the Government can take more detailed control over what they want the local bodies to do. In a way, the Bill is part of that. It is only paving legislation, but two other Bills are coming through.

371
The Local Government Bill is about to come before us, and another deals with planning and compulsory purchase. That Bill anticipates this Bill in a sense.
1.15 p.m.
Lord Rooker: No, it does not.
Lord Dixon-Smith: It does. It creates a planning structure that assumes that this Bill will be implemented.
Lord Rooker: With the greatest respect, it does no such thing. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill would operate whether this Bill was ever enacted or not. It is not dependent on it.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am happy to have that reassurance, but it almost makes my case worse rather than better. What we are seeing is an increasing ability for the Government to control and direct local authorities, one that has gone on for so long, being extended. If it is not dependent on the Bill, that almost makes it worse because there will be control over existing authorities. One has only to look at what is happening with local government finance, where there is increasingly detailed control and direction, and the physical allocation of more and more of an authority's budget to specific government requirements. That is what is really going on.
If, at the same time, large parts of the country's business are outwith Parliament's control because of the constitutional precedents that have already been set vis-à-vis Scotland, London and Wales, and there is less and less for Parliament to do, that may be greatly to the Government's convenience. However, I doubt that it is really what we should be doing.
I shall return to the amendment, which contains the seeds of an interesting idea. It calls for an,
"inquiry into the constitutional and practical effects of regional government on the United Kingdom parliament".
However, I am afraid, and my noble friend would agree, that it says nothing about what should happen as a result of that inquiry. If the inquiry is not subsequently debated and its implications accepted by Parliament, there is no point in having it. I make the argument badly. If Parliament does not consider the report and either accept or reject it, there is no point in having the inquiry. That is the point to which we need to come. It is on that that there is congruence between what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and by my noble friend when she moved the amendment.
I hope that my noble friend will not press the amendment at this stage for that reason. Unless we have the power to get some control over the consequences of the cumulative Bills that are going through—piecemeal legislation that is not being considered as a whole—frankly we are missing an opportunity. At the moment, the amendment does not go far enough.
Lord Dixon: The amendment is another delaying tactic. It does not refer to the Bill, but to the referendum. Clause 1 refers to the referendum in a region as to whether there should be a regional assembly.
I can understand the Conservatives being concerned about the constitution. I noticed earlier a couple of noble Lords who were Cabinet Ministers when I was next-door in the House of Commons and the Maastricht Bill went through. I cannot recall the Conservative government tabling an amendment about the effect that that Bill would have on the constitution. They did not even suggest a referendum. I can understand why they did not have a referendum on the Maastricht Bill—they could not even get the present leader of the Tory party to vote in favour of it. To come along now and make that suggestion is, quite honestly, another delaying tactic. The Conservatives are opposed to regional government. They have been honest about that. Why did they not vote against that at Second Reading? If the amendment were agreed to, it would delay the referendum.
I turn to the northern region. The noble Lord, Lord Elliott, referred to a poll but I will refer to another two polls. The first is the County Councils Network/ICM poll of the northern region. On support for holding referendum, it found that 60 per cent were in favour and 21 per cent against and on support for establishing an assembly, 51 per cent were in favour and only 13 per cent were against. The Durham county council consultation received 7,000 responses and found that 66 per cent were in favour of a referendum and only 24 per cent against. On establishing an assembly, it found that 66 per cent were in favour and only 24 per cent against. That shows the feelings o r the people in the North East.
Baroness Blatch: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Dixon, but will he tell us the provenance of that survey?
Lord Dixon: One was the County Councils Network/ICM poll and the other was the Durham County Council consultation. The one to which I referred earlier, by the way, was published in the Newcastle Journal.
Lord Hanningfield: Having been involved in that poll, I point out that one needs to see the whole poll before quoting any part of it. That is the same with any poll. In the poll, people were not against having a referendum. When one asked whether or not they wanted a region, the cost of the region or what the region would be in terms of area, the percentages went down. It might be appropriate to quote the whole poll rather than just parts of it.
Lord Dixon: The best way to test that is to pass the Bill and have a referendum in the various regions.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: This is an interesting amendment but whether it should be put to a vote I do not know. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. expressed some reservations.

373
My noble friend Lord Dixon discussed the Maastricht Treaty and I must respond. If only the Conservative government had listened to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and myself during that debate and not voted against—and persuaded others to vote against—the amendment that we had tabled to have a referendum on the Maastricht Treaty, how different things would look now. We would probably not have this Bill before us.
However, we all know that the sinner who repenteth has a place in Heaven. Perhaps the sinners are repenting and understanding exactly what powers were given away through the Maastricht Treaty and what more powers will be given away shortly if the Convention on the Future of Europe has its way. I shall return to that in a moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, referred to the corrupt octopus in Brussels. Frankly, that is a telling description. It is corrupt and we all know that for the past six years it has not been able to get its accounts agreed by the auditors. Corruption is going on. Estimates of the level of corruption range from £2 billion to £6 billion a year. If that is not corruption, I do not know what is.
The noble Lord raised a question about the taxation powers of regional assemblies. Presumably, the intention is not that the regional authorities should have tax-raising powers—I believe that the White Paper says this. Presumably, they will have precepting powers and local authorities need to watch their finances if some of them will be filched by regional authorities. I seek the Minister's view on that. If they are not to have tax-raising powers, they would be inferior to Scotland, which is close to the North East. The fact that they would consider themselves to be inferior, as Wales is now doing, would mean that they would press for tax-raising powers. If they are to be significant regional entities, they probably need tax-raising powers. However, that is an argument for another day.
Lord Rooker: At the risk of making a rod for my own back and giving my noble friend indigestion over lunch, those bodies will have the powers to precept local authorities although they will not be able to change the business rate.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Well, yes. The Minister knows perfectly well that I believe that it is completely outrageous that central government should distribute the business rate. That should be returned to local authorities. If that were done, they would have more independence than they currently have. Indeed, I go further—I do not want to develop this point too far— and believe that we should also give local authorities tax-raising powers. I should like them to be able to introduce a local income tax, but that is another issue.
The noble Baroness pointed out—the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, also touched on this—that this House and another place have no part to play in relation to a large number of issues in which they used to play a
374
part. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said "Well, yes". We can ask questions but the problem is that we do not get any answers. The Government always say, "We cannot answer that question because it is not a matter for us; it is a matter for the regions or the Mayor of London". We can ask questions but we cannot expect, and do not get, a reply.
That brings me back to Europe. We always seem to get back to Europe these days, whatever we are discussing, because the tentacles are spread so far and wide. On the regional map in Brussels, England is not mentioned.
Lord Rooker: I have seen this map—I went to get a copy of it—and "England" is clearly stated on it. I was worried about what my noble friend said. I will show him a copy of the map, which I have with me. It is a European Commission map and it contains Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and all the regions. Overprinted on them—it is true that one needs 20:20 vision and one's Varilux spectacles must be very clean—"England" is clearly stated.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Before the Minister concludes, was he made aware of when the overprinting took place?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: The Minister has seen a different map from that which I have seen, which has not got "England" on it. Perhaps the pressure that some people have applied reminded the European Commission that there is a place called England and a people who live here, and whose ancestors have lived here for a very long time. I am not one of them—I was born in Wales. They are proud of England and believe that it has a great history and hope that it has a great future. Unfortunately, that is somewhat doubtful.
The Minister and others accuse us of harping on about Europe and the European dimension—but there is a European dimension to the question, and it is ongoing. Yesterday, there was a meeting of the Standing Committee on the convention in another place, where we discussed the eighth progress report from United Kingdom representatives. Unfortunately, it had to be terminated prematurely because of the large number of Divisions in the House of Commons.
The European convention is clearly considering the matter of regions, including whether regions should have the ability to appeal to the European Court of Justice if they feel threatened or that the national government have treated them badly or illegally. There is a European dimension to the question, therefore. I hope that the Minister will read that report, because he will see that there is great interest in Europe as to how our regions can be broken down.
Lord Kirkhill: When the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, reads the Official Report tomorrow, he should bear in mind, in relation to his earlier remarks, that Clause I of the Scotland Act 1998 states that there shall be a Scottish Parliament. There is a huge distinction

375
between that assertion and confirmation on the one hand and creation of assemblies on the other. They are not in a pari passu position constitutionally.
Baroness Blatch: Before we go on with that point, I return to the map that the Minister says he has seen. That map shows Scotland, which has a parliament, and Wales, which has an assembly. Does it show London? We do not know what the nature of the creature is. At an earlier stage, the Minister said that it was neither a parliament, as in Scotland, nor an assembly, as in Wales, nor a government, as in London—it is different. So what is it?
Lord Rooker: I want to address one point before I wind up the debate—sorry, before I answer this part of the debate. I must correct myself, before the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, intervenes. I was perhaps equivocal in response to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, on the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. I want to get that point out of the way, so that it does not create a diversion later. That Bill gives the authority to pay the regional planning bodies, but it is not dependent on their being elected regional assemblies. That was my main point. The regional planning bodies can be elected or not elected under that Bill; it is not relevant to the Bill that we are debating. It is simply a mechanism for paying the bodies for doing some work.
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.
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 1.34 to 2 p.m. for Judicial Business and to 3 p.m. for Public Business.]

European Union: Legal Personality
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they support the grant of legal personality to the European Union, as proposed at the Convention on the Future of Europe.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the explicit grant of legal personality to the Union would have the advantage of clarity and simplicity. But if the European Union were to have its legal personality recognised in the European treaties, it could only be on the basis that the distinct arrangements for the common foreign and security policy and aspects of justice and home affairs were fully safeguarded, along with the existing arrangements for representation in international
376
bodies. The Government would need to be sure that the necessary safeguards were in place before taking a decision on this issue.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. But, even so, it must be clear to anyone who reads the convention's current proposals that they amount to a new European legal order with Brussels at its centre and the nation states in a largely subservient position. If the new constitution comes to be embodied in a new treaty, would it be right for the Government to use the treaty-making powers of the Royal prerogative to force it on the British people without free votes on its detail in Parliament, and without a referendum?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, is reading too much into the quite specific point he raised in the Question. The specific point under discussion is the grant of legal personality. At the moment, some legal personality is granted to the European Community under the treaties of the European Community, to which all 15 current members belong. The European Union, established under the Treaty of Maastricht, is different. We need to be clear that what we are talking about would not necessarily mean a huge extension of powers provided that the kinds of safeguard that I pinpointed in my initial Answer were negotiated. I believe that those are the areas where we ought to concentrate our negotiating strength.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the proposed draft Article 4 quite simply states:
"The Union shall have legal personality"?
Is she aware that that recommendation from the Praesidium to the convention fully accords not only with Working Group III and its final document number 305 but also with the view of your Lordships' House? A recent report of the Select Committee on the European Union stated that,
"the Committee agreed with the recommendation of the Convention Working Group III that the Union should expressly be granted legal personality".
That is the view of the Select Committee.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am very pleased that my noble friend pointed that out. I have in front of me a copy of the report, and I fully concur with what he has said. I would add that our own noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart, was on the committee. No doubt he will say what he thinks is appropriate. However, as I understand it from reading the committee's report, there were very few dissenters from the working group's conclusion that a legal personality was the right way to proceed.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords—
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords—
Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Howell.
Noble Lords: Maclennan.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, if we start with the noble Lord, Lord Howell, we will have plenty of time for the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, there is plenty of time, and of course we are going to be debating these matters for many months and years ahead. I, too, have been reading this working group report, as well as communiqués in which Ministers indicate not only that they are considering this idea but that they have agreed to it. It is important to make that clear. However, has not the time come for Ministers to reveal to your Lordships' House and indeed to the general public that the rather innocent-sounding proposal in Article 4 to grant legal personality is in fact of far greater significance than people have been told?
Is it not a fact that the legal personality provision gives the Union the right to conclude treaties and to do so without any need for ratification by the nation states? That is a considerable advance in centralisation on past arrangements. It also gives the Union itself, as an entity, the right to become a member of international organisations including the United Nations. Ought we not to be told a little more about these ideas before Ministers say that they have agreed them?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we will have a full opportunity to debate not only this working group report but all the working group reports. As many noble Lords have said, we very much look forward to the robust exchanges which I am sure we can expect. Conferring a single personality on the Union would give it the capacity to act within the legal system distinctly from the states that are its members. The noble Lord is quite right. In practice that would mean that the EU would have the capacity to make treaties, to sue and be sued, and to become a member of international organisations to the extent that the rules of those international organisations allow. I hope that I have made clear the position which we would take on our own membership of some of the international organisations where we would want to preserve our position. We are currently making agreements through the European Union, certainly where there are competencies on issues such as trade, with a number of countries. We concluded a free trade agreement only very recently with a
Latin American country.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the near unanimous view of the working group—there were two exceptions, I think, in a working group of 40—was based upon the near unanimous view of the lawyers that the European Union already had legal personality and that that in a sense was not the issue? Rather, it was thought that if the Union were to operate in future under one treaty, bringing together with different forms and procedures the operation of the foreign policy aspect with the community aspects, it made sense openly to attribute what was already commonly accepted to be the case.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, that very ably explains the position as I understand it. As I hoped I had already made clear, the fact is that the European Community already has legal personality in the way that the noble Lord describes.
Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, the Minister inadvertently omitted to reply to the question from my noble friend Lord Pearson about a referendum. May I give her the opportunity to repair that omission? Is she aware that the Government of France, whatever their other shortcomings, have promised the French people that any proposed treaty changes and constitutional changes arising out of the Convention on the Future of Europe will be put to the people of France in a referendum? Why are the Government so frightened of giving the same undertaking to the people of this country?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I did not omit it in any sense of not wanting to answer the question. It was merely that I did not wish to detain your Lordships on a subject that we have already discussed in your Lordships' House—when I was able to point out that I did not really understand why the Opposition were so keen to press on with a referendum when they had overlooked the possibility of having one when they were in government and had the chance.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the great advantages of giving legal personality to the European Union is that it could then accede to the European Convention on Human Rights—which would mean that Eurocrats would be directly bound if they abused their powers and that there would be effective remedies for the citizens of this country before the Strasbourg court against the Eurocrats of the European Union? Is that not a great advantage referred to by the Select Committee?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords, I think that that is one of the points that ought to be considered. The ECJ would then extend its coverage into the EU and beyond the EC which it currently covers. I agree with the noble Lord that that would be one of the outcomes.

Regional Assemblies
3.9 p.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry Lord Renton of Mount Harry asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are finding any evidence of support for the establishment of elected regional assemblies in south and south-east England.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister asked for responses by 3rd March from the South East and the other English regions outside London on the level of interest in holding a referendum about an elected regional assembly. We are now evaluating the responses. The soundings exercise did not ask whether people were in favour of an elected regional assembly. That will be the question asked in any referendum on the issue.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, perhaps I may help the noble Lord in the Answer to my Question. A recent poll by Mori showed that in the South and South East of England fewer people were in support of a referendum on a regional assembly than were in favour of a referendum on elected Peers—a rather odd choice perhaps. It also showed that only 27 per cent of those in the south of England knew in which region they were located; the rest did not know.
On that basis, does the Minister agree that the idea of an elected regional assembly in the South or South East of England, where we have no Newcastle, no Manchester and no obvious city, is based far more on ideology than on practicality? Does he also agree that the more people hear about a regional assembly there, the less they like it because they see it as meaning more remoteness from governmental decision, a higher council tax and a further reorganisation of local authorities, which will lead to a requirement for more money?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, there is a fundamental misconception in what the noble Lord says. There will be no elected regional assemblies unless the people choose to have them. The assemblies will not be foisted upon them. Thus far, we have spent nine hours, give or take an hour, on Clause 1 of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill. The new aspect raised by the noble Lord would make our debates even more scintillating than they have been so far, and I hope that he will join us later today.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, will the noble Lord give the House more detail of exactly what, in the view of the Secretary of State, will constitute "evidence", either of support or otherwise? Given that the exact powers and functions of the assemblies have not yet been decided, will he at least take on board that it is rather difficult to judge the level of support?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the support in question relates to soundings as to whether there should be a
380
referendum and not whether there should be an assembly. As we have made clear repeatedly, if we reached the point of holding a referendum, first, the boundary review would have to have taken place and, secondly, each elector or each household in a region would have received a document setting out the powers of the assembly. In any event, although we cannot commit to it firmly at present, we hope that the main draft Bill will be published so that people will know the consequences of their votes.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the noble Lord is by now well aware that the North West Regional Assembly, while campaigning illegally to become an elected body, has been asserting, contrary to fact, that a wide body of opinion is in favour of an elected regional assembly in the North West. Will he ensure that the statements of such self-serving bodies are not taken into account in the soundings exercise but are put in the dustbin where they belong?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister will take these matters into account and make a judgment as to whether there should be a referendum—that is, whether a boundary review should take place first as that will take a considerable amount of time—only after the paving Bill has received Royal Assent. The factors involved in the soundings review relate to the referendum and not to the assembly itself, as we have made clear repeatedly. When my right honourable friend makes a judgment, he will give to Parliament the evidence and the facts on which he bases that judgment.
Lord Morgan: My Lords, will my noble friend observe the support expressed by many Conservative councillors on Buckinghamshire County Council for the Government's proposals? That may suggest that Conservatives in southern England are not quite so resistant to change as some of the speeches in the debate on the Bill suggest.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, that is a new one on me. So far, during the course of our debates, no one has mentioned the support from the Conservatives in Buckinghamshire.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, as a resident of Buckinghamshire, I have seen no evidence whatever of it.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am just the Minister who is presenting to this House the Bill that has already been through another place. It is not possible to know every nuance of the battles that are clearly going on around the country in relation to the Bill. However, the conclusion to be drawn from this morning's debate is that there is so much interest in the matter that people cannot rightly claim no one knows about the proposal.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, why does the Minister say that there will be no regional assemblies

381
unless the people so decide and unless there is a referendum? Why was that Answer not given to my noble friend Lord Lawson on the subject of the Convention on the Future of Europe?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the White Paper, Your Region, Your Choice, made the position clear. There is no unity in the country on this matter. The regions are different and therefore the regions should have the choice. The Bill simply facilitates the opportunity for that. That is what the soundings exercise is all about. A decision will be made in due course and will be presented to Parliament for approval.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I believe that we should hear from my noble friend Lord Brooke.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, does the Minister share the view that, if we have such a great desire to hold referendums, we should involve the people and that, similarly, we should exercise the same view in relation to elections to this House?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, at present, as one of the newest Members of this House, I am staggered that I am on the receiving end of all these manifestos for an election which I thought had nothing to do with me. Therefore, I shall certainly not go down that road.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we must move on now.

Pakistan
3.16 p.m.
Lord Ahmed Lord Ahmed asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will support the lifting of the suspension on Pakistan from the Commonwealth.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, this is currently a matter for the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group. The UK is not a member of that group. Its members will meet in May and we understand that their discussions will include Pakistan. We believe it is important that the Commonwealth stays closely engaged with Pakistan throughout its transition to democracy and that it helps to sustain the process with technical and other forms of assistance. We are providing help and remain committed to supporting Pakistan's development over the long term.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her reply. Is she aware that Pakistani people recently elected many thousands of women as councillors—more than 33 per cent of the total? Is she aware that Pakistan has elected more women as parliamentarians than about 147 other countries? In fact, in that respect Pakistan now ranks thirty-third out of 180 countries. Now that the Senate elections have taken place, is my noble friend satisfied that the process of restoring democracy has been completed, and will Her Majesty's Government help Pakistan to fight poverty and illiteracy?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, of course, we welcome the holding of multi-party elections in Pakistan. The system of having reserved seats for women has meant that there are now a number of women councillors and women in the National Assembly and other parts of the legislature. Although the election process was completed with the holding of the Senate elections last month, it is now the joint responsibility of the new Government, the political parties and parliamentarians to ensure that Pakistan's progress towards democracy is sustained. There are concerns that the Parliament has met infrequently since being established.
My noble friend also asked me about support with respect to illiteracy. We have a development programme, whose focus is on three areas: creating the economic conditions for the reduction of poverty; improving health outcomes; and improving educational outcomes. I believe that that tackles my noble friend's point.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, apart from the progress that Pakistan has made in the restoration of democratic institutions and in enhancing the rights of women, does the noble Baroness agree that it has also made considerable progress in combating corruption and in rural development, as the World Bank has acknowledged? In those circumstances, even though we are not a member of CMAG, does the noble Baroness believe that the Government could exercise their influence with members of the Commonwealth who are part of CM AG so as to restore Commonwealth membership to Pakistan at a date earlier than that of the CHOGM in December?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, as I said in my initial reply, CMAG will meet in May. It will then make a decision, which will he referred to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. It is highly unlikely that it will convene again before the meeting in December, and I believe that we should await the outcome of CMAG's discussions in May. As the noble Lord will know, we were members of CMAG until we left at the last Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that Pakistan has made progress in other areas, including in rural development and in tackling corruption.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, have not people from Pakistan made outstanding contributions in

383
many fields before and after independence in 1947—not overlooking its pre-eminence in the world of cricket?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord is right that people from Pakistan have made outstanding contributions in many areas. I agree with the point about cricket, although that has not been reflected in the recent World Cup.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, if the Government are really serious about democracy and human rights in Pakistan, why is it that the Government, including in answers given by the Minister herself, have absolutely refused to take any interest in the imprisonment of Benazir Bhutto's husband? Whether or not he is guilty, the fact is that he has not been brought to trial; he has been tortured; and his treatment has been condemned at a conference of the IPU. And the Government just say that the plight of the husband of a leading politician in that country has nothing to do with the functioning of democracy and is nothing to do with the Government because he is not a British citizen. Why is it not their concern?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I think I have made it absolutely clear in replies on this matter that I have given to the noble Lord that our consular responsibilities are clear. They are set out in international law. We have a responsibility to look after the welfare of British citizens abroad. Benazir Bhutto's husband is not a British national.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that it is a fairly obvious case of double standards when Pakistan is not allowed to become a member of the Commonwealth because of its undemocratic regime, whereas Zimbabwe is being reconsidered for admission by both South Africa and Nigeria? Does she agree that this case of double standards calls into question the value of the Commonwealth as a forum for promoting democratic rights?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, Pakistan and Zimbabwe are both suspended from the councils of the Commonwealth. Zimbabwe's suspension will continue until the next CHOGM in December in Abuja, as was announced by the Commonwealth Secretary-General last weekend.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am surprised at the answer given by the noble Baroness to the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, that this country does not have a responsibility to people who are being imprisoned in Pakistan, as is the husband of Benazir Bhutto. I thought we—according to the Prime Minister—were in the process of conducting a war in Iraq to make a regime change, a regime that is in fact imprisoning and torturing people. What is the difference?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I made absolutely clear what our consular responsibilities are. I have set out those responsibilities in reply to the noble Lord in correspondence that goes back over many months.

Universal Banking Services
3.22 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Miller, who has been called away urgently from the House for a family emergency, and at her request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress is being made on the introduction of the Universal Bank; and what the impact is expected to be on the future of the Post Office.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, good progress continues to he made on the introduction of universal banking services. The migration of benefit payments to direct payment begins this April and the Post Office's strategy is to respond to that challenge with a range of banking and other services. The impact that the migration of benefit payments has on the revenue of post offices will depend on a number of factors, not least how benefit recipients and other post office customers respond to change.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, given that the switch of the benefit payment system will result in a loss of 40 per cent of the Post Office network income, which is some £400 million per year, can the Minister tell the House how much of the savings resulting from this exercise the Treasury will contribute annually to stop the haemorrhaging of post offices in our country—some 635 in the past few years alone before the scheme has even begun?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is important to realise that there is no alternative to this change. We cannot continue with a system that is effectively dying on its feet, for the simple reason that people are voting to go over to banking services. No assessment has been made of the total impact of the change on the finances of the post offices. But, as the noble Baroness will be aware, we are making substantial commitments to rural post offices. Subject to state aids clearance, we shall be making available £450 million—£150 million a year for the three years 2003–04 to 2005–06—in order to make certain that the rural post office network is in good condition.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, in view of the imminence of the transfer of payments on 1st April to the new system, will the Minister accept that many of the reservations expressed over recent years from all sides of your Lordships' House about the new system have proved to be well-founded? Will he accept that there is a significant danger that many of the elderly, and in particular many of the elderly infirm, will, at best, be confused by the new system and, at worst, be deprived of their benefits?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we have yet to see the introduction of the new system. It will be

385
introduced in April. Therefore, it is not possible to say that we have the evidence to show that reservations are justified. We do not yet have any information on how it will work. A careful process has been put in place to transfer people across to the new system. I have no reason to believe that that is not working perfectly well.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, I declare my usual interest as a former postman. During the proceedings on the Postal Services Bill in May 2000 does my noble friend recall the response he gave to me and to the House regarding beneficiaries being able to get their benefits in cash in a post office? In an earlier response today my noble friend mentioned people voting to transfer benefits into bank accounts. Does he agree that there is no alternative? Beneficiaries must go into one of the systems, and if nothing else, the one that the Post Office is providing. Therefore, he is no longer able to say that people have the right to get cash: they have to go through a banking system.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I remember well the answer I gave. The answer I give now is exactly the same. The point of the Post Office card account is so that people can receive their benefits in cash. What is different is simply that it is not a paper-based but an IT-based system. Their ability to get cash is exactly the same.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister further following his response to the noble Lord. Can he confirm that post offices are being denied the opportunity to offer their first choice to recipients? The Government are deliberately not offering the universal banking system as first choice, but are pushing people into using banking systems as first choice and post office systems as second choice. That could undermine the future viability of sub-post offices.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the Government are not managing people's choices, as has been suggested by some. They are simply informing individuals of the available choices. There are no eligibility criteria. There is no cap on the numbers of the Post Office card accounts. I should have thought that giving people choice was something of which the noble Baroness would approve.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister able to give an undertaking that the Universal Bank and post offices will be able to provide facilities that are adequate for the use of the blind and the partially sighted?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, a system has been introduced for PIN numbers which is, I believe, widely used without any problems, but the Post Office is committed to finding ways to improve such provision. The PIN pads that have been installed are widely used without problems across Europe and
386
elsewhere. The Post Office is committed to three things in order to meet the needs of their customers: first, to improve the current PIN pads by fitting a guard over buttons to help guide customers; secondly, to provide further training for sub-postmasters and post office staff to enable them to help customers; and, thirdly, in the longer term, to look at technological opportunities to provide a secure alternative to PIN pads for people with disabilities.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Minister said that there has been no impact assessment of this on the future of the Post Office. Why not?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as I explained to the House in the, I think, second answer I gave, there is no alternative. We were embarked, as a result of the previous government, on a system to computerise the service which the Post Office gave. When one has a system that has such very obvious economic benefits—the difference between the cost of this system to the DWP is 1 pence compared with £1.40 for every giro direct payment—there really is no alternative to going forward.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, is not the impact of all that the Minister has described for the benefit of the Government, not at all for the benefit of the customer? When discussing PIN pads, does he not realise that elderly people never remember their PINs? I am sure that many people around here forget them too. Small post offices in rural areas serve all those elderly people who have no alternative and do not like those new-fangled banking methods.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as I explained, most people are now voting clearly with their feet. More than 80 per cent of benefit recipients already have access to a bank account; 58 per cent of all new child benefit recipients and 59 per cent of all new pensioners have their money paid directly. The idea that in today's world we can continue with a paper-based system and bury our heads in the sand about change is simply not an option.

Iraq
3.31 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The Statement is as follows:
"Mr Speaker, with permission I should like to make a Statement about military operations to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction.
"President Bush's ultimatum to Saddam Hussein expired at one o'clock this morning. Just as Saddam failed to take his final opportunity to disarm by peaceful means, so he has now failed to take his final opportunity to depart in peace and avoid the need

387
for coalition military action. I draw the House's attention to Hans Blix's comments in New York yesterday that he was disappointed that three and a half months of inspection work had not brought clear assurances from the Iraqis of the absence of weapons of mass destruction.
"President Bush announced at 3.15 this morning, on behalf of the coalition, that operations had begun with attacks on selected targets of military importance. Those attacks were carried out by coalition aircraft and cruise missiles on more than one target in the vicinity of Baghdad, following information relating to the whereabouts of very senior members of the Iraqi leadership. Those leaders are at the very heart of Iraq's command and control system, responsible for directing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
"Saddam Hussein's regime is the chief obstacle to the disarmament of Iraq. The military plan is therefore crafted around his removal from power. We will place a copy of the Government's military campaign objectives in the Library of the House later today.
"In addition to those attacks, coalition forces yesterday carried out certain preliminary operations against Iraqi artillery, surface-to-surface missiles and air defence systems within the southern No Fly Zone. Those were prudent preparatory steps, using coalition air capabilities previously used in the No Fly Zones, designed to reduce the threat to coalition forces in Kuwait. The protection of our servicemen and women will remain a matter of paramount importance.
"The House will be aware of reports of Iraqi missile attacks against Kuwait. Those incidents are being investigated by personnel with the appropriate skills and the necessary protection. There are no reported casualties so far, but I am afraid that there is nothing more that I can confirm to the House at this stage.
"I should like to draw the attention of the House to two particular points. First, coalition forces will take every possible care to minimise civilian casualties or damage to civilian infrastructure. While the coalition will use modern weapons, which are more accurate than ever, we can unfortunately never exclude the possibility of civilian casualties, tragic though they always are. However, people should treat with caution Iraq's claims of civilian casualties. The Iraqi people are not our enemies, and we are determined to do all that we can to help them build the better future that they deserve.
"Secondly, I caution the House against suggestions that the campaign will be over in a very short time. We certainly all hope that offensive operations will be over quickly, but we should not underestimate the risks and difficulties that we may face against a regime that is the embodiment of absolute ruthlessness with an utter disregard for human life.
388
"Turning to the United Kingdom's Armed Forces, I have set out in successive Statements the forces that we have prepared for this purpose. We have deployed a substantial naval force of 29 Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels, including the aircraft carrier, HMS "Ark Royal", and the helicopter carrier, HMS "Ocean"; a land force led by Headquarters 1 (UK) Armoured Division and including 3 Commando Brigade Royal Marines, 16 Air Assault Brigade, 7th Armoured Brigade and 102 Logistics Brigade; and an air force comprising about 100 fixed-wing aircraft and 27 helicopters.
"In all, about 45,000 servicemen and women have been assigned to the campaign to disarm Iraq. Our forces will make a major contribution to the military action to disarm Iraq, which we will pursue at a time and on a schedule of cur own choosing. They are trained, equipped and ready for the tasks that they may now need to undertake. British forces are already engaged in some military operations, although the House will understand why I cannot give further details at this stage.
"Events over the coming days will dominate the 24-hour media. The House will recognise that we must all be wary of jumping to conclusions on the basis of 'breaking news' before there has been time to conduct a proper investigation. Similarly, the House will understand—and I hope the media will too—that if we respond to media pressure for instant operational detail, we could risk the security and safety of our forces. We cannot therefore offer a running commentary on media reports.
"I will, however, ensure that the House is kept fully informed of significant developments. That is why I am making this Statement today. In addition to Statements as and when necessary, I will arrange for a short summary to be placed in the Library of the House, and copies made available to Members in the Vote Office, as warranted by the day's events.
"My right honourable friend the Prime Minister will be travelling to the European Council this afternoon. Once military action has begun and UK forces are substantially engaged, the Prime Minister will ask to make a broadcast to the nation.
"Once again, we are placing an enormous weight of responsibility on the shoulders of our Armed Forces. We have not taken the decision to do so lightly. The commitment to military action of service personnel is always the gravest step that any Government can take. I know that the thoughts and prayers of the House and our country are with them, and their families, as they embark on their mission. We hope for their safe and swift return".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.37 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made by the Secretary of State in another place and for assuring the House that he will keep your Lordships informed and that short summaries will be placed in the Library, as warranted by the day's events.

389
Military operations are likely to be unpredictable, as events in the early hours of this morning confirmed. It is appreciated that throughout this conflict targets will present themselves at short notice and it will be essential that military commanders are able to react immediately and with the necessary autonomy. It is also important to ensure that those commanders in the field are left to get on with the job and win the battles, and that Ministers do not interfere with decision-making on the battlefield.
The Statement refers to last night's aerial attacks being carried out using coalition aircraft and cruise missiles on targets in the vicinity of Baghdad. Will the Minister tell us whether those coalition forces included the UK? If so, what part did we take? Will he confirm that the coalition is far wider than just the United Kingdom and the United States of America and comprises some 35 nations, although not all are directly involved in military operations? There are reports of some four Scud-B missile attacks on Kuwait. If it is confirmed that those are A1 Sammoud missiles with a range of at least 600 kilometres, it would prove beyond dispute that Saddam Hussein had continued to lie and deceive and had failed to disarm. Can the Minister provide more detail about the reported exchange of artillery fire? We welcome the recovery of all the crew and the special forces from the United States helicopter crash in southern Iraq.
It would also help the House if the Minister could provide more information about the situation regarding Turkey. Apparently the Turkish parliament is sitting now. Does he consider that there will be a positive outcome to the request for approval of coalition overfly rights and the movement of US troops through northern Turkey? Is there any likelihood of interaction of Turkish and Kurdish forces in northern Iraq?
It is assumed that Iraqis will be given prisoner-of-war status on surrender. But, bearing in mind that it is a very expensive manpower operation to guard prisoners of war and costly on rations, water and medical facilities, what role might they be invited to play in later stages of the conflict, perhaps as volunteers fighting for us?
I endorse caution in respect of claims that the conflict will be over in a very short time. We hope sincerely that it will be. Cautious optimism is the best approach to adopt. There will inevitably be events in the next few days or weeks that involve bad, distressing news. It will test our determination to continue the fight. However, momentum must he maintained, and we must all have the strength and resolve to see this through to the end.
I feel a special affinity with the troops deployed as the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards, with which I spent the greater part of my life, and the 16/5th Queens Royal Lancers—now the Queens Royal Lancers—which I commanded, who are both about to be in action. I wish them and all other units, including our coalition partners, the best of good fortune. I pray for their safe return and for their families to be given strength during this worrying time.
3.42 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I echo the support for the servicemen and servicewomen from all three services in the Gulf in what is a very frightening time for them and their families. I realise that the Minister will find it extremely difficult to answer many questions on a fluid situation. I shall try not to ask any to which he obviously would not have answers.
I have only three questions. The first concerns the attacks last night. Can the Minister confirm the process by which targeting was agreed between the British and the Americans? Does all targeting go through the British chain of command, ending with the Prime Minister, for such sensitive targets? I ask that, in particular, because it will be a difficult conflict to prosecute, considering that we are trying to change the regime but at the same time spare casualties on the Iraqi side and as much as possible of the infrastructure which will be so necessary for humanitarian assistance in the coming few weeks.
My second question is this. Of the 35 countries mentioned by the spokesperson for the Official Opposition, which have supplied military support in the field? At present it appears that around three have done so.
Obviously, the Minister may not be able to answer the particulars of my next question, which relates to a matter of some concern, but he may be able to give the reason behind any action taken. There are indications that prisoners of war have been trying to surrender to the allied forces. It is rumoured that they have been turned away. The Minister may be able to confirm or deny that. On what basis would such soldiers be turned away, considering the uncertain fate of any soldier trying to desert the Iraqi army?
Now that we are at war, we support our soldiers. However, there is a perception that it will be a short and bloodless war. That may well not be the case, but we hope that it will be. We thank the Minister for all the information that he can give Parliament in the coming few weeks.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am truly grateful to both noble Lords for their comments, questions and, in particular, for their support of the Statement that I have repeated. For the moment, I pick out the noble Lord, Lord Vivian. I found what he said quite moving, because he has real, distinguished experience over many years in the British Army. He spoke to the House with the benefit of that experience. We also have in our thoughts today our colleague, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, who is serving his country as we speak.
I shall answer those questions of the noble Lords, Lord Vivian and Lord Redesdale, to which I can respond. The noble Lord, Lord Vivian, insisted that commanders in the field should have considerable freedom. They will have that freedom, as he knows they have in the past.
As I understand it, the United Kingdom was not involved in last night's engagement. The noble Lord mentions 35 nations in the coalition; I understand that

391
there are more than 35. In response to the question of which nations provide what assets, all provide an asset by supporting what, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, is a noble cause. I am not in a position to say which nations have or have not provided military assets.
I am afraid that it is too early to say whether the missiles that the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, refers to are in breach or not. Whether or not they are, I do not think that we would be surprised to find during the next few anxious days and weeks that quite a number are in breach. I am afraid that I have no more details about the artillery fire incidents that occurred yesterday.
On Turkey, I cannot speak for the Turkish parliament. We very much hope that it will decide to allow coalition aircraft to fly over Turkey. But I am afraid that we will just have to wait and see.
Both noble Lords asked about prisoners of war. It goes without saying that they will be looked after entirely appropriately under international law. I cannot comment on the question of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, on the rumour about incidents yesterday. Yesterday was a particularly difficult day on the border between Kuwait and Iraq, but I cannot confirm or deny what is said to have happened.
All that I may say about last night's incident over Baghdad is that the British Government knew about it in advance, as one would expect. Targeting is taken extremely seriously by the whole coalition. I tell the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that we take very seriously our responsibility to act within the framework of international law regulating international conflict. Very careful attention is applied to ensure that we minimise the risk of damage from any quarter to civilian populations and infrastructure. I think that those points answer the questions that the noble Lords posed.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, did not the Statement do Hans Blix an injustice by using only part of his statement to the Security Council? He went on to say that he regretted that he had not had more time to finish his 'work. The British-American coalition seemed to be in a great hurry to get started, and one of the reasons given for that was the weather conditions. Could it not also have been the fact that Mr Blix might have found that there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction that warranted a pre-emptive strike, rather as my right honourable friend Robin Cook suggested in his resignation speech?
Lord Bach: My Lords, it was not the job of Hans Blix and the inspectors to find such prohibited weapons of mass destruction. It was the duty of the Iraqi authorities to hand such weapons over immediately after the passing of Resolution 1441—well before that, one might say. The inspectors were not supposed to be detectives, and Resolution 1441 was expressly clear on what it required the Iraqi authorities to do.
392
My noble friend is right. I heard the interview with Hans Blix on the "Today" programme this morning, in which he expressed disappointment. I acknowledge that, but, in his turn, my noble friend must acknowledge that Hans Blix also made it clear that he was disappointed that, after three and a half months of inspection work, following the passing of Resolution 1441, there had been no clear assurances from the Iraqis of the absence of weapons of mass destruction. In my view, that justifies what we are doing.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, I welcome the references in the Statement to media reporting. Does the noble Lord recall the excessive coverage during the previous Gulf War by CNN and the damage that it did to the allied cause? On this occasion, might not the media be reminded that it is not some form of showbiz in which they must compete for coverage? This is for real, and lives will be at risk the whole time. In those circumstances, is it too much to hope that they will show some measure of self-restraint and some sense of responsibility?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I remember the reporting of the Gulf War. The noble Lord makes a fair point, but I must say that there is, as yet, nothing to suggest that the media have not learnt lessons from that experience. There is some time to go before we can make a judgment on that, but what the noble Lord said should be borne in mind by all the media—there are thousands of media people in the Gulf—in their reporting of the news.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester: My Lords. I was saddened this morning to hear the news that military action against Iraq had begun, in spite of recent strenuous efforts to achieve a peaceful resolution. As we have heard numerous times in recent days, many people in our country and the world, including me and other noble Lords, had great hopes of a diplomatic solution. It is of the greatest concern when such diplomacy fails and armed conflict is perceived to be the last resort in settling the world's problems.
Like many noble Lords, I remain less than convinced that sufficient evidence was produced to justify the action, but that is now history. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford said in the recent debate in your Lordships' House, we must now refocus our concerns. We can and will unite with those who have always supported military action, and we can do so in several ways.
We will pray that the conflict will be over as speedily as possible. We will pray that casualties will be as few as possible. We will hope and pray for the appropriate rehabilitation of Iraq and its civilian population and for proper humanitarian treatment for families, especially the children. We will pray that a new and better Iraq, free of tyranny, will emerge when the conflict ends—soon, we hope.
In the debate in your Lordships' House the other evening, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford drew our attention to the vital ministry of our service chaplains in the conflict. I am glad to draw

393
our attention to their work and promise them my strong support for their ministry. I assure them and all the members of our armed services with whom they serve and their anxious families and loved ones of our earnest and continuing prayers.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the right reverend Prelate, but I must ask him to frame a question.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester: My Lords, will the Minister ask the Churches to continue to pray, to keep their churches open for such prayer and continue to strive, with other faith communities, to stand firm together in this difficult period?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for those remarks. The United Kingdom Government had exactly the same hope as he and his colleagues had that we could solve the issue by diplomatic means.
I also thank the right reverend Prelate for what he said about service padres. I know that priests of different denominations and faiths already play an important part in keeping British troops—and other troops as well, no doubt—feeling wanted and important. They are helping them at a difficult time for them and their families. We have all seen on television the services that have taken place in the past few days. Importantly, they are inter-faith, rather than being for just one faith.
Finally, I say to the right reverend Prelate that many of us will have listened to his colleague—our colleague—the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford this morning on the "Today" programme and will have heard him use the prayer of St Augustine. I found it very affecting.
Lord Vincent of Coleshill: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear and timely Statement and for the helpful information that he made available to the House in his answers to subsequent questions.
The Minister indicated the number and type of the forces deployed out there. If my mental arithmetic is right, we have more there than at the time of the Gulf War, when the Armed Forces were about 330,000 strong. Today, they are 250,000 strong, and 19,000 at home have to stand by to act as fire-fighters. Can the Minister tell the House whether the Government are considering the long-term sustainability of the operation, if it turns out to be a longer and harder struggle than we hope?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord, who had great experience of the first Gulf War some years ago. Undoubtedly, he is right. The fact that 19,000 of our Armed Forces personnel must stand by for possible Fire Brigades Union strikes is shocking. I believe that most members of that union will appreciate how shocking it is at this time, when our troops are putting themselves on the line.
394
As the noble and gallant Lord will understand better than most, there is much consideration in the Ministry of Defence and elsewhere of the dispositions of our Armed Forces, if the conflict takes any length of time. At this stage, I can tell the noble and gallant Lord only that those discussions are going on.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, we should be grateful to the noble Lord for making the Statement and for the manner in which he made it, whatever side we take on the conflict. However, I must press him on the treatment of prisoners of war. This is an extremely important aspect, bearing in mind that the United States has incarcerated in Cuba, without trial and in not very good conditions, Taliban fighters who are as much soldiers as anyone. It has kept them without access and, apparently, without much representation from our Government.
Will the Government ensure that prisoners of war captured in this war are treated according to international standards? Will the Minister ensure that the Government make representation to the United States and any other country's forces which might be involved in this war that they do likewise? If they do not, we are not acting quite like Saddam Hussein, but nevertheless we are not acting in accordance with the high principles of which this country is rightly proud.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I agree with everything that the noble Lord says. He can rest assured that we shall ensure that any prisoners of war are looked after in accordance with international law. Anything else would be quite wrong. Indeed. if we look forward to a new Iraq, which we should do now, it will be doubly important that those poor conscripts, who in many cases have been dragged into the Iraqi army without any choice, are well looked after. They have a place in the future of Iraq and we must ensure that they do not lose faith in that.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, I offer my best wishes to the Minister and his colleagues, who are to face a very tough time indeed. In the first 24 hours—or barely that—one can see how the wealth of rumour is spreading and the difficulty that the Ministers will have in trying to give accurate information. There is one particular aspect that I hope Ministers will ensure is followed through. If we were, sadly, to suffer casualties, it is of prime importance that the next of kin are told at the earliest possible moment in a properly sympathetic and considerate way and do not learn it from the media. It is important that if casualties have to be announced the Minister can say then that the next of kin have been informed. That is very important because when casualties are announced everyone thinks that their son or brother is involved—all 35,000 of them. Therefore, from the point of view of morale, it is very important that that information accompanies any announcement. It is a major challenge and a major test, but I hope that that will be met.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, for his good wishes to Ministers. He had a very responsible role during the previous Gulf war. He speaks with a great deal of experience from that time. His good wishes are much appreciated by all Ministers.
He is absolutely right about the dangers of rumour. As the noble Lord, Lord Eden mentioned, we live in an age of constant, 24-hour media coverage. There is a real responsibility on the media as regards the prospect of casualties. As he would expect, there are papers in the Ministry of Defence that I have seen that deal anxiously with this particular issue. I reassure him that as far as the Ministry is concerned it will he essential that any announcement of casualties is done in an appropriate way—namely, in the way he outlined.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I strongly welcome the tone and content of what the Minister has said to the House today. I have two questions. My first question concerns the issue of deserters and the report that the half-brother of Saddam last night went into exile in Syria. Is the Minister able to share any information on both that move and the desertion of troops at the border with Kuwait? Will the Minister tell us how we shall prosecute those responsible for crimes of genocide? Is it our intention to use the International Criminal Court or will we be setting up a separate tribunal in order to ensure that those who have been responsible for such crimes against humanity inside Iraq are brought to justice? That is the reason why many of us have supported the Government in the stand that they have taken in prosecuting this war.
Does the Minister agree that the words spoken yesterday by Lieutenant-Colonel Tim Collins were both eloquent and moving and that he summed up the purpose of this conflict when he said,
"We go to liberate not to conquer"?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his kind words. I cannot help him on his first two questions about deserters. I should rather make no comment on that at this stage, not having the information in front of me. Indeed, it would be dangerous to do so and we would not be keeping to our word unless we actually knew what occurred before announcing it.
Secondly, beyond saying that the Iraqi leadership should beware of prosecutions at the conclusion of hostilities, it is much too early to say under what provisions and to which court. I am sure that that is a matter to which we shall return. Thirdly, I back up the comments made by Lieutenant-Colonel Tim Collins. Many people heard them and thought that they were in the best tradition of the British Army.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, I express appreciation of what the Minister said and I understand why he said that it would not be possible for the Government to comment on all the stories that appear and the inevitability of very widespread coverage, much of which will not originate from this
396
country. If the inference is that the Government recognise at this stage that censorship would be unhelpful, I welcome that.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments. One of the differences between us and Iraq is that we enjoy a free press. It infuriates us often but, at the same time, we would protect it to the death. That is exactly what our troops are doing.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, will the Minister comment more fully on the firefighters' strike? Are the Government taking, or considering taking, any action to stop this totally unjustified and deleterious action?
Lord Bach: My Lords, as I understand it, thankfully, the strike that was called for tomorrow has been called off. We know that there has been some conflict between the leadership and other parts of the Fire Brigades Union. We call on that union to say as soon as possible that it will agree the settlement and will call off the risks of any further strikes.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I want to press the Minister further on the prosecution of war criminals. For the sake of argument, let us assume that the Royal Irish Regiment captures Saddam Hussein. He is obviously, on what anyone has said, a barbarian of the first order. Would it not be an irony if he were caught and charged in front of the International Criminal Court when the United States does not recognise the ICC?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I do not want to go beyond my brief. If he was caught in the circumstances that the noble Earl mentioned, he would be prosecuted.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I turn to another aspect of what the Minister said in terms of deployment of our forces. Does it not make it absolutely clear that British forces are now a substantial part of a coalition and not, as some people have said, just an add-on to the Americans?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that question. What he says is absolutely right. We are an essential and important part of the coalition force. The best proof of that is that our American allies say precisely that. We have a very large proportion of our Armed Forces in theatre at present. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Vincent, made that point. The jobs and work that they will have to do will be essential if and when we are to win this conflict.

Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill
4.10 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 1, Amendment No. 25A.
Lord Rooker: As we commence our tenth hour on Clause 1–I enjoyed the first nine hours and I am sure that I shall enjoy the second nine—I shall do my best to answer the questions that have been raised. First, however, I want to get one point out of the way, which I hope will bring a smile to the face of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. Earlier she asked me a question which I was not able to answer. She invited me to do so, but it was impossible and I could only think to myself, "She's got me here".
As the Bill stands, no order is made under Clause 12. So I can give an undertaking that no order will be made within the next 12 months. I know that that is something of a cheap answer, but when officials drew my attention to the clause I realised that it is not an order-making clause in that sense.
I wish to repeat an important point I made last week. In the scale of things, and because of what has been said about wrecking the constitution and the high level of urgency in this matter, I want once more to state that it will be at least 2006 or 2007 before any elected regional assembly is set up. I repeat: the earliest date will be at least 2006 or 2007. So while we have a timetable and a process governed by this paving Bill and a referendum, there is no rush on the establishment of the assemblies.
I wish to make a further preliminary point before turning to the specific issues relating to the amendment. No powers are being ceded from the Westminster Parliament. From time to time during our debates earlier today, the words "Parliament" and "government" were used interchangeably, which was unfortunate. No powers are to be ceded from Westminster, as opposed to Whitehall. Powers are to be ceded from Whitehall rather than from Westminster; that is, they will come from the executive, the Government, their agencies and quangos. The elected assemblies will not have powers to make primary or secondary legislation.
Baroness Blatch: The executive has no powers. Powers are parliamentary powers. The executive is a servant of Parliament. Parliament is sovereign and all powers lie either with Parliament or they will be ceded to local government. However, even the powers of local government are gained from Parliament. I do not know what the noble Lord means when he says that powers will be ceded from Whitehall and from the executive, but not from Parliament.
Lord Rooker: I do not think that that is a fair way of putting it. The noble Baroness has served as a Minister. She must understand the difference between the executive actions a government takes under existing statutory rules, such as the paying out of money and funds, all of which are approved by Parliament. In the main those are executive actions, certainly in terms of government offices of the regions.
I return to the words used this morning about powers from Westminster and from Parliament. The powers of parliamentary scrutiny over the Government will remain. I do not believe that people could think seriously that we are seeking to shut down
398
the questioning of a whole range of public policy. Questions are asked about Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland since there have been devolved assemblies. Given a few moments' thought, it is easy to work out how to raise a point. While it is true that the Minister may not be able to provide the answer—because, in the case of, say, London, the Mayor for London has direct statutory powers in regard to certain functions—the ability to raise any issue in Parliament remains firmly in place.
As a Back-Bencher I never had any trouble raising issues that I wanted to raise, whether they were in order or out of order. Given a little thought, any issue can be raised. It may be that you did not always receive the answer, but sometimes the central aim was simply to ensure that the issue was raised.
There are no legislative powers for the assemblies, either primary or secondary. To that extent, I freely admit that the assemblies will not be like the National Assembly for Wales, which has powers to enact secondary legislation. The Scottish Parliament has primary legislative powers. No one says that the assemblies are all the same. Indeed, it would be wrong if we tried to make them all the same because the country is so diverse.
I turn now to the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. I almost referred to his "tricolour of questions", but I should not say that. I do not want to wind up the noble Lord. He put three questions to me. Yes, the Government do plan to implement paragraph 4.18 of the White Paper. Yes, the Government will continue to take responsibility for negotiations on the total amount of EU spending. Finally, yes, elected assemblies will have a power to raise taxes. I made that specific intervention in response to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I believe that the noble Lord—
Lord Rooker: Perhaps I may finish the answer to the noble Lord's third question before he rises to speak. I have said that the elected assemblies will have the power to raise taxes. Chapter 5 of the White Paper explains that they will be able to raise a precept on the council tax. However, that has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the European Union, which is the central point I want to make. That is made quite clear in Chapter 5 of the White Paper and there is no secret about it.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am sure that either it was a slip of the tongue on the part of the noble Lord or a mistake on his briefing paper, but I referred to paragraph 4.31 of the White Paper, not paragraph 4.18, with which I am not familiar. That paragraph does not appear to address the points I sought to put to the noble Lord. It would be helpful if he could confirm that the Government do intend to stick to what is set out in paragraph 4.31.
Lord Rooker: I fully admit my mistake. The noble Lord is quite right. My note of his speech mentions paragraph 4.31, but my official note refers to paragraph 4.18. No doubt in due course I shall be able to give the noble Lord a fuller answer. However, I can confirm that he did ask about paragraph 4.31 because that is what I wrote down at the time, and that was the paragraph I read.
Perhaps I may turn to the central points of Amendment No. 25A, which seeks to prevent any referendum being ordered until the Secretary of State has published the results of an independent inquiry into the constitution and practice of the effects of regional government on the UK Parliament. There is a simple answer here which no one in our earlier debates mentioned. Noble Lords already have independent advice on the constitutional effects of the Bill. The Constitution Select Committee of the House of Lords published its report on 12th February, but I do not think that any Member of the Committee referred to that during our earlier discussions.
While it is true that the committee noted a number of constitutional implications, it did not highlight any particular effect on the UK Parliament. More widely, on 15th January the committee reported on devolution and inter-institutional relations in the UK, to which last week the Government published their response. In some ways, therefore, while I do not in any way denigrate the importance attached to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, it could be held that this is really a delaying move. The effects on the constitution are already available to noble Lords. The matter has been looked at. We submit that the establishment of regional assemblies will not diminish the role of Parliament.
Parliament and central government will remain responsible for UK-wide matters: defence, foreign policy, European policy, relations with international bodies and taxation. Parliament will retain responsibility for the areas of England-wide importance: the National Health Service and schools. Finally, Parliament will continue to be responsible for primary and secondary legislation for the English regions. So the UK will remain a parliamentary democracy with the Westminster Parliament absolutely supreme.
I repeat once more: there is no Speaker in this House and so there are no rules. It is 10 times easier to raise an issue here than in another place. For myself, I think we ought to change that to bring about a little precision, thus enabling Ministers to provide better answers. The answers would be better if the questions were more orderly than is sometimes the case. My experience is that Members of both Houses, with a few minutes' thought, can raise any issue they wish. Over the years, many of my troublesome friends have found it quite easy to do that. Empowering the English regions will not mean a break-up of England or the United Kingdom.
As to the practical effects, there will be the distinct advantages set out in the White Paper. I am not making a case for or against them because the point of
400
the exercise is to let the people choose in a referendum. Elected assemblies will mean a devolution of power and decision-making will be brought closer to the people. Reference has been made to decision-making being removed from communities, but it will be brought a lot closer to the people. We may argue about their importance, but they will not be made in Whitehall, they will be made in the regions. There will be a new regional level of public scrutiny and democratic accountability.
It is difficult to quantify the way in which individuals will make use of the tool of an assembly. If established, assemblies will give a distinct political voice to the regions of this country and a say in the regional decisions that matter to them. I accept that that will depend on individuals and the leadership given by the people elected to such assemblies.
Assemblies will mean that some of the issues t hat are now decided at Westminster will be decided in the regions. That is the whole point of the exercise and I make no apology for it. But if noble Lords are saving that it would be best if all these matters were still dealt with in London, I can assure them that, whatever I may have hinted I thought about the Bill, I have no problem whatever in dismissing the idea that it is a good thing that all decisions should he made in London. It is not a good thing; it is a bad thing. As many decisions as possible should be made far away from London and near to the people affected by them. If that is at regional level or local council level, so much the better, We will be a better, more mature democracy for it.
It will also put Ministers under greater scrutiny in exercising the devolution of power. A lot more thought will have to be given to the policy structure when decisions are devolved in that way. An independent inquiry would not add to our knowledge. We are confident that once the people choose—if they choose—they will he best placed to take those decisions in those areas. The policy is about choice.
I have with me—although I cannot show it to the Committee—a copy of the said map. I have checked it. It is a genuine EU map of states and regions. I can assure the Committee that the word "England" appears on the map, as does the word "London". I hope that that puts to rest, once and for all, the matter raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch.
The Earl of Onslow: Will not the EU have direct contact with the regional headquarters under the new octarchy produced by Ethelred the Unready's successor? If it by-passes London, will that not have constitutional implications?
Lord Rooker: Not really. I have made it clear, repeatedly, that the regional assemblies will have no new powers and no new money in that respect. It is not a question of by-passing London. I have said that central government will remain responsible for negotiations on the total amount of EU spending, and there will be issues of matched funding which will have to involve London; we will be copied into them. We are not talking about home rule for the regions. Those at

401
the centre will need to know what is happening. It is not a question of by-passing London, but not all decisions will fall to be made in London.
The Earl of Onslow: Is the noble Lord saying that the EU will go to the regions and London will still interfere? That seems to impose a new wedge of bureaucracy. London will take the action and no decisions will be passed down. Is that what the Minister has just told me?
Lord Rooker: Although they are not completely analogous, we have examples in the Welsh Assembly and the Greater London Authority. Although they are at a lesser level than the Scottish Parliament, which has the power to pass its own primary legislation, no one has ever come forward with examples of where the EU has by-passed London and London has been ignorant or interfered in a gross way. I grant the fact that the Welsh Assembly and the Greater London Authority are not very old, but all our evidence to date is that those structures, which were approved by Parliament, seem to be working extremely well. There is no reason why they should not work in the English regions.
Lord Waddington: I am rather concerned by the Minister's efforts to calm the fears of my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch. He may not have succeeded in his efforts.
How many of the regions have already established offices in Brussels? I believe that a number have done so. One of the risks of this exercise is that there will be more and more traffic between the regions and Brussels. Regional committees will visit Brussels to try and screw out of the EU a greater share of regional funds than other regions expect to get. There will he war between the regions in their fight to get a better deal out of Brussels. Not only will this create a lot of bad blood; it will create a new bureaucracy such as we have never had before. We never had to have offices in Brussels until this mad idea of regional government raised its head. How many regions have already established offices in Brussels and what is it already costing us?
Lord Rooker: I shall need to come back to the issue of the paragraph to which the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, referred. I have the answer to that now.
The short answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, is that I do not know.
Lord Waddington: I should be grateful if the Minister would find out.
Lord Rooker: I will find out. If there is an answer I shall give it to the noble Lord and to the Committee. I do not know about the regions, but I have a recollection that one or two cities have opened offices in Brussels. This is not a new issue. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, confirms that.
402
People are arguing, "We want them to know about what we have got to offer. We want to share in this enterprise. We want to make sure that decisions are not taken in Brussels based on ignorance of what our city has got to offer". I do not see a problem with that.
I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. I got the paragraph number wrong. The Government intend to implement paragraph 4.31, which relates to the question he first asked.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Quite so. In which case, how can the Minister say to my noble friend Lord Onslow and the Committee, as he has done on several occasions, that there will be no new money? If paragraph 4.31 is followed, the regions will take over the process to which my noble friend Lord Waddington referred and they will be in competition for the purported munificence—the fraudulent munificence, of course—that flows from Brussels. How can the Minister be sure that there will not be a lot more money for certain regions and certain projects on conditions favoured by, let us call it, the European Union and not by Her Majesty's Government? I did not hear the Minister's previous answer. It was my fault because I was picking up on the mistake on the identity of paragraph 4.31. Will the British Government—leave aside, if you wish, Parliament—be able to intervene and say to the European Union that they do not want something funded or that the funds should be distributed in a different way? It is in this area that our sovereignty is clearly at risk.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Rooker: I do not have a specific answer to that, but we have made it abundantly clear, so far as concerns the Treasury, the UK Budget and our books, that we are devolving for decision making things that already happen. That is why I can use the expression "no new powers". We are devolving, in the regions, more public scrutiny to the Government Offices, the government agencies and some of the government quangos—I do not say all—for those areas that will be covered by the slim, tightly run, well-audited English regional assemblies if they come about.
I shall never be able to convince the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, on any matter relating to Europe. He thinks that it is a bucket-load of crooks with loads of money which he thinks they have stolen from the member states and are giving out as largesse and stuffing people's pockets. I cannot have a debate on that basis. I do not think that that is a fair way of putting it.
The Earl of Onslow: Will the Minister accept that there has been just a tad of that? There has been a certain amount of jiggery-pokery in terms of Italian olive groves and overseas aid. I do not say that it is as bad as my noble friend Lord Pearson believes, but there has been a tad of that.
Lord Rooker: The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, makes the point that that whole edifice is constructed on what he keeps calling a "corrupt institution". I do not accept

403
that. I am not arguing—I know what happened about the Court of Auditors. I did not serve in MAFF for over two years without knowing a thing or two about what was happening over tobacco growers in Europe. It did not seem quite right. So there are those issues. But the fundamentals of the arguments put by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, are such that I shall never be able to convince him.
We are not planning on any new powers in the regions, which means that we do not justify any new money in the sense of it coming from the centre of government. We have made it clear that the regions will be able to precept the local authorities; and, in answer to the second question put by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, that the Government will take responsibility for the negotiations on the total amount of EU spending anyway.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I want to help the Minister and I want him to be able to help us. Therefore, I should like to refer back to the article that the Chancellor of the Exchequer wrote in The Times on 6th March. Perhaps I may read a paragraph from it. He stated:
"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 nations and regions themselves".
If some of us thought that that could be brought about, and that the Chancellor was indeed moving to remove powers from Brussels relating to regional policy and the allocation of funds—partly our taxpayers' funds—from Brussels to the regions; if we believed that that would be devolved from Brussels to our own Government and then to the regions, that might cast a different reflection on the debate.
Lord Rooker: I fear that I have still not got round to reading the Chancellor's article, but I have read reports about it and I know the thrust of it. The point is that that does not undermine paragraph 4.31 of the White Paper. That paragraph does not say that the regions will go to Brussels to negotiate for money. It says that they will take over the current role of the government officials who negotiate the detail of the single programming documents, and then the management of the funding in order to deliver the objectives of those documents. So paragraph 4.31 is fully consistent with what the Chancellor wrote in the article that my noble friend has quoted—obviously with great support on all sides of the Committee, which may enable us to make a little progress.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: But that is not what paragraph 4.31 says. I have it in front of me. I have already placed this on record twice in our debates. The Minister has quoted selectively, but the paragraph clearly says that,
"the assembly will take over the role currently performed by Government Offices"—
not officials—
404
"on structural funds (including the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and rural programmes) for any structural fund expenditure for future programming periods. This would mean that the assembly"—
not the Government any longer—
"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".
The Government do not come into it any more, do they?
Lord Rooker: So what? That is exactly what the regional assemblies will be there to do. I do not distinguish between government officials and the Government Offices. The government officials work in the Government Offices. There is a structure there, so that is a play on words. If the assemblies are carrying out the functions set out in paragraph 4.31, that is exactly the role that they are best placed to carry out for their region, on a regional basis, without it being done from London. I do not see what the problem is—obviously the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, does.
The Earl of Onslow: The noble Lord sees powers being taken away from Westminster and being given to the new heptarchy that is being created—"octarchy", to be accurate. That is a constitutional change. It may be a good idea, but there is a pretence that it is not a constitutional change and that it will not take power away from Westminster. To allow, let us say, Scunthorpe or whatever the "capital" of a region may be, to negotiate directly with Brussels seems to me to be a constitutional change. It would be wise if we did this with our eyes open, if we thought it a good idea. Some of us do not think that it is a good idea to take away powers from Westminster.
Lord Rooker: I return to the second point I made when I came to the more considered parts of my speech; namely, based on the briefing prepared for me rather than ad-libbing. The Constitution Committee of this House published its report on 12th February. The committee noted a number of constitutional implications. We accept that. But the committee did not highlight any particular effect on the UK Parliament. There are implications; the committee noted them; and this Committee has considered them. But there has been no great torrent from the committee saying: "Stop this Bill. It will wreck the UK Parliament". It did not say that. It is not as though the matter has not been considered by this House. It has.
Baroness Blatch: We hope that the Minister will continue to ad-lib. We find it much more revealing and certainly more refreshing than the notes that are written for him. It is characteristic of him to be his own man on the Front Bench opposite. The Minister may consider it a relief that the Committee stage of a Bill is, and always has been, a tiresome stage. On Report, the Minister will be able to engage his wit in slapping us all down and saying that we have already spoken on the matter once. So that is ahead of us.

405
On a more serious note, perhaps I may take up the point made by the Minister about how regional government will work. If he is right—if the powers (I think that the word was not used correctly) are those of Westminster and the quango bodies will merely be an administrative arm of government and will make decisions only within parameters set by government, and if most of the major decisions will be ratified by government in one form or another—why go through this pain of having a trigger, setting up a Boundary Committee and reorganising local government? If no power is being ceded upwards from local government and no powers are coming down from national government, why go through this laborious, expensive, politically de-stabilising process? It seems to me that there is no argument.
Secondly, the Minister, rightly and with some feeling, referred to the amount of time that we have spent on Clause 1. I am afraid that we shall probably spend quite a lot of time on Clause 2. These early clauses are important. They go to the heart of the Bill.
It comes as some relief to know that the Minister checked at lunchtime that the Deputy Prime Minister will not be naming an area and exercising an order under Section 12 for at least a year. That is fine. But what is the hurry? Why must the Bill be through by 8th May? There is no hurry at all if the first regional assembly, even on a fast track, cannot be in place until 2006–07. I do not know why our usual channels—mine as well as the Minister's—want the Committee stage to be completed by Monday evening. That seems absurd. given the timetable to which the Minister referred and given that he has removed the meat of rumours that were fairly strong before we started our work today.
We have some idea of what regional assemblies' functions will be. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill is about to come before the House, and we understand that these bodies will be responsible for spatial planning, which is completely different. Why that should be such a divided subject across regional government and why there should be a separate regional quango, I do not know. But it would help us to know what free-standing decision-making powers a regional assembly would be able to exercise. If no powers are being ceded from below and no powers are ceding from above, that leaves regional assemblies as no more than an administrative arm of government, and for that we do not need such an elaborate system.
The Minister rightly chided us all for not looking at the House of Lords Select Committee report. I have scanned it but I will look at it more carefully to see what it says. I believe there is a link in constitutional impact on the integrity of the United Kingdom as a whole when one considers what is being discussed in the Convention on the Future of Europe. For example, the convention is ceding powers in the areas of defence, foreign policy, law and economic policy. The Government may come to regret the incorporation of human rights because they are already beginning to fall foul of it. That has already ceded sovereignty from the parliamentary body to the courts and the judges.
406
We went about House of Lords reform the wrong way. We did not determine the powers and functions of a second Chamber, ending up with the composition; we started with the composition, which was the wrong way round. That reform is having an impact on the relationship between the two Houses and the way in which Parliament operates as a whole.
Regional assemblies will have an impact. Something is flagged up in the Select Committee report which we will look at carefully. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill will also have an impact. As the Minister rightly reminded my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith, it will go ahead, irrespective of regional assemblies. I accept that; it is a free-standing Bill, and whatever form this Bill takes, the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill will go ahead. But it is seriously paving—it emasculates the existing powers of the county councils, some of the district councils and some of the unitary authorities. I think the regional assemblies will compound all that.
I understand what the Minister says about county functions but, reading the White Paper, some of the functions of the existing county councils will be carried out by regional assemblies.
Whether one or more areas eventually has a regional assembly, there will be an impact on the nature, characteristics, powers and functions of this Parliament. If I am wrong and the Minister is right, why go through this elaborate process simply to turn an administrative arm into an elected assembly?
Simply leaving everything to chance and seeing what happens when regional assemblies are in place is no way to legislate on constitutional change. We could have the worst of all possible worlds, with only some areas having regional assemblies. I think there will be great confusion.
This is such an important issue that we will return to it on Report.
4.45 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: Before my noble friend withdraws the amendment, could the Minister reply to her point about the Bill's timetable? I apologise to the noble Lord for not being in my place this morning when he may have said something about it, but I was called out of the Chamber. Given the timetable that he has enunciated, why is there so much pressure to get the Bill through by early May?
Lord Rooker: I was going to respond to that point but I accepted that we would move on. I cannot be precise about individual dates. However, there are good and bad times of the year in which to hold referendums. At certain times of the year, because of purdah, one would not be allowed to do things. We all know when general elections can he held. There is a maximum period of five years but in general we are almost on a four-year cycle. I am not saying that the next election will be in 2005—I cannot be precise about that.

407
It is public knowledge that if there were to be a referendum, autumn 2004 would be a suitable time. We have said that the Boundary Committee may need up to 12 months in which to do its work. The referendum period is about 10 or 12 weeks. It is easy to work hack from autumn 2004 to see approximately when Royal Assent would he needed. Until we have Royal Assent the Deputy Prime Minister cannot make a statement about the judgment on the soundings. That does not mean that there is a rush, but if we did not do certain things early this summer, the possibility of holding a referendum in the autumn of 2004 would be ruled out. That takes us into 2005, when there may be a general election—I do not know—but there will be local government elections. So it is easy to work backwards.
If there were a yes vote, primary legislation would have to be introduced. I suspect it would be a large Bill compared with this one. That is why I am fairly certain that the earliest possible date for setting up an assembly would be July 2006. Once we have agreed to do it and it is all set up, the elections have to take place. So the earliest possible time for an assembly to be established, on this time-scale, is 2006. That would mean requesting the Boundary Committee to start its work early this summer. One is talking about a very long process and no one can accuse the Government of rushing it. It is a natural progression—there must be time to take certain decisions and time for certain things to happen so that we are not accused of rushing matters. In addition, consultation will take place. I hope that is a satisfactory explanation of the Government's thinking on approximate dates.
Baroness Hamwee: Before the noble Baroness withdraws the amendment, perhaps she can deal with a matter that has been touched on when she comes back with it. The amendment refers to the effects of regional government; it does not refer to the effects of the proposals as set out in the Bill. They are not necessarily the same thing.
Baroness Blatch: One problem with the Bill is that the whole process is triggered by Clause 1. I will have to read the Minister's speech carefully, as he has just contradicted himself. I expressed myself as relieved that the Deputy Prime Minister would not exercise an order under Section 12 for another year. He has to do so in order to start the process for the Boundary Committee; we know from the Minister that it will take a year to do its work. For a referendum to take place in the autumn of 2004, which the Minister said was the earliest date, an order will need to be made in June, July or August this year.
I heard some rumours before lunch. The anxiety of the usual channels in this House to have the Bill finished by Monday is becoming clearer. The noble Lord refuted it, but we are going to get a statement soon after 8th May from the Deputy Prime Minister to allow a referendum to take place in the late summer or autumn of 2004.
Lord Rooker: The noble Baroness has got it right. The note that I have probably explains the situation a
408
lot better than I did. I think it is fair to put this on the record. I do not want there to be any misunderstanding, particularly about Clause 12. I am not playing with words, but Clause 12 does not give order-making powers.
There is a complicated chain of events before an elected assembly can be established. First, we need Royal Assent to this Bill. Then the Deputy Prime Minister needs a bit of time to consider in which region or regions to direct local government reviews—that is the direction, not an order under Clause 12. The local government reviews could take up to 12 months. Then the Secretary of State has to decide whether to order a referendum and lay and make the orders. The referendum process will take a minimum of 10 weeks and maybe more. It would be best not to work on minimum figures all the time. To guarantee a referendum in this Parliament we need early Royal Assent.
If there is a "Yes" vote in a referendum, a main Bill will have to follow. That will need at least one year. Then there have to be elections to the assembly. That is why I said that at the earliest an assembly could not be set up before July 2006. That probably requires getting Royal Assent to this Bill in the not too distant future—early this summer or late spring this year, whatever definition one likes to make. I do not have a specific date to give, but the noble Baroness can see why an early date is required for all these long processes.
Baroness Blatch: My last word is that to spend three years on expensive, painstaking, laborious, politically disabling procedures in order to create an elected administrative arm of government is ludicrous. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Referendum question]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Gould of Potternewton): Before I call Amendment No. 26, I have to inform the Committee that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 27 to 31 for reasons of pre-emption.
Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 2, line 20, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
"( ) The questions to be asked in a referendum held in pursuance of an order under section 1 are:

1. "Should there be an elected assembly for the (insert name of region) region?"

2. "Should county and district councils in your region be reorganised and replaced with unitary authorities responsible for delivering all local government services?""

The noble Lord said: As the Minister said, we have spent 11 hours on Clause 1. I trust that we are not going to spend a similar time on Clause 2. It is my job to introduce this very important first amendment to the clause. We have spent hours discussing the referendum. We are now discussing the question that will be put to the electorate in that referendum. We

409
have just talked about the timetable. Assuming that the Government get their Bill through, there will be at least one referendum towards the end of next year.
The Minister said firmly last week that if we had regional authorities there would be only one tier of government below that or nothing at all. I should like to explore that further. As I said last week, we should not talk lightly about the reorganisation of local government. We seem to have a thrill for local government reorganisation in this country. The United States and most European countries have systems of local government that have stood the test of time over 200 years. We seem to want to reorganise local government every 10 years. I did not agree with the Conservative government's reorganisation in the 1990s and I cannot agree to any reorganisation now. It detracts from providing services, which is what we should be about.
The amendment would separate the issue of having a regional assembly from the reorganisation of local government. That is very important. The amendment would introduce a second referendum question giving people in two-tier areas a chance to express their view on whether local government should be reorganised.
I have been through local government reorganisation twice. Services, staff and the public all suffer. As my noble friend Lady Blatch said a moment ago, the process could go on for two or three years before there was a regional assembly. Some areas of our country would be destabilised and disturbed for two or three years. Services would suffer as a result.
We shall shortly start our consideration of the Local Government Bill during which we shall talk about the comprehensive performance assessment for councils. Many councils that will be reorganised will have been judged excellent or good in that assessment. We are going to tell the public that councils that have just been applauded by the Government and the Audit Commission will be destroyed. Most people who live in two-tier areas are happy to have county and district councils. They would not want local government to be reorganised for the sake of setting up a region. They should have the opportunity to say that.
The proposal is particularly unfair to people in rural areas because those parts of the country can be dominated by the urban electorate. We talked about this last week. I was surprised to hear the Minister say that there would be differential turnout so the rural areas might be able to defeat the urban areas because more people would vote in rural areas. Let us look at the three areas that are most likely to have a referendum. The North East has a total of 2.5 million people. Only 800,000 of them live in the two counties of Durham and Northumberland. There would have to be an enormous differential turnout for the people in Northumberland and Durham to outvote the Newcastle and Sunderland conurbations. In the North West, which has a total of 6.7 million people, only 2.3 million live in the three great counties of Cheshire, Lancashire and Cumbria. That might seem a reasonable number, but it is still only one third of the total. The urban areas of Manchester and Merseyside
410
comprise two thirds of the area. The situation is even worse in Yorkshire and Humberside. There are 5 million people in that area, but North Yorkshire has only 600,000 of them. Even with a 100 per cent turnout in North Yorkshire and a 12 or 14 per cent turnout in the rest of the area, North Yorkshire could still be outvoted. This is a denial of democratic principles. Those counties and districts could be destroyed without people being given a chance to make any comment. We feel very strongly that the question needs to be put to the public in a referendum. I beg to move.
Lord Waddington: I am a little puzzled by Amendment No. 26. It seems to suggest that everyone in the region would be voting on the question of local government changes. My noble friend said that the clear intention is that people who live where there is a two-tier local government structure should be able to vote on it. That is dealt with in Amendment No. 48, which, for reasons I do not understand, is not grouped with these amendments. I would have thought that it should have been. People who live in a part of the region where there is a two-tier structure of local government should be able to vote on whether it is changed. I read the amendment as meaning that, even though it does not mean that on its own. It would mean that if Amendments Nos. 26 and 48 were carried.
Amendment No. 31 is useful. People should be aware of the area for which the assembly they are being asked to vote for or against will be responsible. There is very little appreciation of what is included even in the North West. People in the south of Cheshire do not for a moment consider themselves part of an area that extends all the way to the Solway.
Lord Dixon: I mentioned this morning the result of a consultation carried out by Durham County Council. It had 7,000 responses. Support for holding a referendum was 66 per cent; 24 per cent were not in favour. Support for establishing an assembly was 66 per cent against 24 per cent. That is the two-tier authority on which I used to serve.
5 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: Will the noble Lord tell us why the council is spending taxpayers' money at this stage, before the Bill has received Royal Assent, on surveying whether a referendum is wanted?
Lord Dixon: That is the consultative procedure laid down by the Government, who asked for responses.
Lord Waddington: With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I am not quite sure what that has to do with my speech. At the moment, I am addressing the question of whether people in the south of Cheshire really consider themselves part of a North West that goes up to the Solway. I do not think that he knows whether I am right or wrong on that, and I do not blame him for that as it is not his part of the country.
I want to raise again the extraordinary business of the Government not being prepared to look at the regional boundaries before any referendums are

411
embarked on. I have looked into the matter since we discussed it a little while ago. I simply do not understand what the difficulty is. From Clause 26, one finds that,
"a region is a region … specified in Schedule 1 to the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998".
The 1998 Act states in Section 25 that the Secretary of State may by order and after consultations,
"make alterations in the extent of the regions".
He could embark on consultations right now and, in a matter of months, come to conclusions that would at least get rid of some of the more outrageous anomalies. If that were done, we would be dealing to a large extent with the mischief that is obvious to us all. For the time being, it is obviously essential that when people go into the polling booths they should be made aware of what on earth the strange area is, for which there will be an elected body if they vote yes.
Lord Greaves: The group of amendments is headed by Amendment No. 26, but there are four Liberal Democrat amendments in it. The substantive one is Amendment No. 38, which would leave out lines 33 to 36 of page 2. The other three are consequential on that.
Amendment No. 38 tackles the same problem in a different way. Again it is about the fact that, in the Bill, the Government are combining the establishment of regional assemblies with a reorganisation of local government into unitary authorities in those parts of the region affected that at the moment have a two-tier local government system. We discussed the principle of that in considerable detail last Thursday, and I do not think that there is any point in discussing it all again at this stage, although we may wish to come back to it later.
Amendment No. 38 would remove the second part of the preamble or statement that accompanies the referendum question. The first part states that,
"the elected assembly would be responsible for a range of activities".
That is an interesting wording, given the limited powers available in the Bill, but we can come back to that later. The second part states that,
"local government would be reorganised into a single tier in those parts of the region that currently have both county and district councils. There would be no such reorganisation of other local authorities in the region".
That is in line with our wish to decouple the two issues and leave it up to local people to decide what structure of local government they want, if they get a regional assembly and after they have got one. We want to remove the lines from the preamble because we would not want them to be part of the conditions for having a regional assembly. That is fairly straightforward and is something that may gain support in the Committee.
So far as the Conservative amendments are concerned, Amendment No. 26 sets out two questions. Like the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, we would think their wording not ideal, but the principle behind them is absolutely clear. It is one that we support, so we would certainly support the amendment if the Conservatives put it to the vote today.
412
Amendment No. 31 gives sensible clarification, setting out what the region consists of in the statement. It may be thought that the scale and passion of the referendum campaign will be such that everyone will know about all such matters by the time that they vote. I would not be totally certain that they would know which region covered exactly which area, and it would not be silly to include on the ballot paper a definition of the region proposed to be set up. We would therefore support that amendment as well.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: I wish only to make a point that I made in a speech at Second Reading. The vast county of Northumberland is very big territorially, but not in terms of population. My noble friend said that the population of Northumberland and Durham numbered 800,000. If I get it right, and I think that I do, Northumberland has only 300,000 people.
The second part of Amendment No. 26 asks whether county and district councils should be reorganised and replaced with unitary authorities. It is quite obvious that the eventual aim of the legislation is unitary authorities. That has been made very clear. We are to have no more three-tier authorities, so if we are to have regional bodies and if the individual councils are to remain in being, there will eventually be only the regional authority and district councils. If the district councils were to lose their powers, a county such as Northumberland would be affected. It would be very bad for those who live way apart from the south-east corner of Northumberland where most of the population is. The local councils further north are very important.
I see a great problem in the future of a unitary authority, which will be either a regional authority or the county council. If it is a regional authority, the county council goes. If the local councils remain, they will be all right but remote from the major body, the new regional authority.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: I should like to add a few words in support of the noble Lord. Lord Hanningfield. Like him I am a county councillor, although in Suffolk, and as such declare an interest. I hope that the Minister will accept that the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, and I as leaders and so on suffered from the previous local government review, which was botched because it was not properly thought through. No one gained from it. There were considerable losers, not least people in areas where nothing changed but there were three years of uncertainty. We would certainly be keen to see that situation avoided.
At the Committee's previous sitting last Thursday, the Minister made it clear that the Government's position was that unitary status was non-negotiable in the context of the Bill. If we have a regional assembly, we have to have a regional tier underneath. That had nothing to do with performance or ideal structures, but was simply to deal with a perception of over-government. The Government do not want to give anyone the opportunity to say that the Bill creates an extra tier.

413
Of course, the benefit of Amendment No. 26 is that it leaves the choice up to the people affected. If they decide that they would like an extra tier of government, that is their decision and it makes it much harder for them to then complain about the addition of an extra tier. I hope that the Government will give that some very serious consideration. It seems absolutely right to us on these Benches, and clearly to Conservative Members of the Committee, that local people and not the Government should decide the structure of local government in their areas.
The Earl of Caithness: I echo what the Minister said earlier; that is, that he wants to get government closer to the people and done by the people. The one thing that would destroy what he wants would be to take away district councils.
The Minister said that it was easy to raise any matter in this Chamber. I will take that opportunity, although he knows what I am going to say, but I do not expect him to reply this evening. I take noble Lords up to Scotland, where we suffered horribly from the local government review. Caithness is dominated by Inverness, which is a good two or two-and-a-half hours' drive away. My noble friend Lord Hanningfield mentioned the disparity in populations in England. Exactly the same situation as is proposed in this context has happened in Scotland. We have seen examples of it and learnt to live with it. It is not a terribly happy experience. I regret what the Conservative government did to local government in Scotland; they removed democracy from the local people. I therefore hope that the Minister will think again in this regard; it is absolutely fundamental to the Bill.
While I am on my feet, I jog the Minister's memory about our first day in Committee. He said that he would look again at whether the boundaries of metropolitan areas could be examined. We discussed that and he saw the logic of what we were saying. Has he given that any further consideration?
Baroness Hanham: As I understand it, one of the rationales of the Bill is to give democratic legitimacy to the Government Offices for the Regions through various activities and the organisations that spin off underneath them. One could give democratic legitimacy to the regions if one wished without fouling up all of the rest of local government beneath them. It is extremely important that people within the areas that will be changed—the counties and districts—have an opportunity to comment on that. After all, they probably do not currently know or worry much about the regions. If they are electing a small number of people to act on their behalf, that queries democratic legitimacy. It is important that the Government consider the need to ensure that people understand the implications of what they are voting for—if they do not do so, we may help them. The way in which to do that is to give them two questions.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I follow the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, on regional
414
boundaries. I keep going back to the Redcliffe-Maud Royal Commission. I have memories of that and of the reason why it failed to deal with the problem. One reason why we had the 1974 debacle was because the Department of Education laid down that one could not run an education authority with fewer than 500,000 people. That was always a nonsense. There were many good local authorities: Reading, where I was the leader, was one of them. It was an excellent local authority with a population of about 125,000 and it led the country in providing education for the deaf and in many other innovations. Because of that restriction, we got a form of local government that was not suitable to the country. It failed and had to be reviewed shortly after.
My point is that the number of regions and their boundaries is absolutely crucial. The Committee knows very well that I believe that regional government is completely unnecessary but, whatever one's views on that, if the Government want regional government to be successful, they must ensure that the boundaries and compatibility of the areas are correct in the first place. If one does not get them right, one will have perpetual trouble. It would help the Government if they trust in regional authorities to get it right from the start and not make the same mistakes as were made with the Redcliffe-Maud Royal Commission in, I believe, 1968. It was stymied by the insistence of the Department of Education that there must be 500,000 people to have a viable education authority. That was absurd.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Hanningfield: I want to comment on Amendment No. 31. Although I said this morning that we do not want to look at all of the polls and that one can present whatever figures one wants, I point out that even in the North East, in the poll to which the noble Lord, Lord Dixon, referred this morning, more than 50 per cent did not know what region they lived in now. That was supposed to have had much publicity and support in the North East. We tabled Amendment No. 31 so that people would at least be told on the ballot paper what region they live in. We joke about Essex but a recent survey there showed than fewer than 5 per cent thought that they lived in the eastern region. People in Cheshire do not know which region they are in. The ballot paper should state on it what region one is in and what one is voting for.
I want to say more about Northumberland; people must defend it—
Lord Greaves: I apologise to the noble Lord for intervening and thank him for giving way. I am intrigued to know where the other 95 per cent in Essex thought that they lived.
Lord Hanningfield: The 120,000 who come to London every day thought that they were more associated with London than with anywhere else. The majority thought that they lived in the South-East rather than the East of England.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: Really?
Lord Hanningfield: Yes.
Northumberland needs people to defend it. Geographically, it is a very large county. As my noble friend said, it has only about 300,000 people. It has six district councils, with an average of only about 50,000 each, but the geographical area in each of those district councils is considerable. They serve their people very well. Northumberland as a unitary would be an extremely big geographical area and it would be difficult for it to be a unitary county. People already feel dominated by Newcastle; they feel that Newcastle gets all of the resources and is looked after better. It is important that we give some support to those areas. They feel threatened by the continued dominance of the urban area in places such as the North East. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.
Lord Rooker: I begin by getting out of the way the issue raised by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, which was also raised last week. All of our deliberations are reported back to policy Ministers—Nick Raynsford and colleagues. Several noble Lords discussed the boundary review not being able to consider an existing unitary authority that happened to be in an area. My response was practical: I said that I would take away the issue for consideration. We are considering it but it is much too early to come back with an answer; we are still at Committee stage, as it were. However, the issue has been taken on board.
Amendment No. 26 gives an additional separate question. I stress that the question is separate and is not linked to the first question. I agree that it is unfortunate that, with regard to the two separate questions and Amendments Nos. 27 and 29, the amendments relating to the second question ended up in another group of amendments which we shall consider later. I am not responsible for the grouping of amendments. I wish that there was more conformity with groups of amendments in this House. That is something we could learn from another place. The grouping structure there makes for more concise debate. One does not have the same debate, split over several groups. Sometimes, with our groupings, one may miss points or be excessively repetitive.
We made clear that the move to single-tier local government is an integral part of the package. I do not desist from saying that without the rationalisation, the regional assembly will add extra complexity to another layer of government. We want a clear division of responsibilities between the tiers, and clear lines of accountability.
I have never been a councillor, but I know that forming a structure for local government is a serious issue. Local government delivers services to people in a much closer way than does central government. I understand that, having been a Member in another place. I have lived through local government changes in Birmingham. We do not want this to be a hit and miss or pick and mix affair. I am horrified at the implications made in a couple of speeches that people should be allowed to fix their own number of layers.
416
People would divide up the parishes in some areas, and local government would grow like Topsy—completely out of control.
One needs to take a good strategic view. One question, with the full implications made clear to voters, avoids the ambiguity. Getting across the implications of the answer to one question is fundamental.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: I am genuinely perplexed by the Minister's comments. I understand him to mean that, if we allow people the choice, layers of government will grow like Topsy. His position has always been that the concern would be about over-government; I find it difficult to believe that people could complain about over-government and then choose to create more tiers. How can the Minister have it both ways?
Lord Rooker: The noble Baroness used a good example in her speech. She said that she was content that people should be allowed to vote for extra tiers of government—that was their choice. We do not believe that extra tiers of government are a good idea. I made that point on Second Reading.
This is a political issue as much as anything else. We are not having extra tiers of government: it is as simple as that. We would rather not proceed with the Bill than have that happen. The price of having elected regional assemblies is having a single tier—the best form of single tier we can get. That is why we need the boundary review. This is a political issue, and I have no mathematical or intellectually coherent formula to justify it—it is raw politics. We are not having extra tiers.
To the best of my knowledge, in any other local government reorganisation there have not been many votes by the people concerned. I do not remember there being town polls or anything of that sort in past local government reorganisations, although those reorganisations have occurred frequently. In fact, they have occurred more frequently than they should have done. I accept that.
Amendment No. 31 adds to the end of the referendum question. One has to be careful about the form of words used here. We were told that people do not know what region they live in. The Government's question, which some think inadequate but which was agreed by the Electoral Commission, is set out in Clause 2. The ballot paper will say:
"'Should there be an elected assembly for the … region?"'
The name of the region would be inserted—for example, it would say, "for the north-east region". Do Members of the Committee not think that a ballot paper including that question might tell the voter which region they live in? The question mentions the name of the region, so the difficulty of knowing which region people are in is overcome.

417
Amendment No. 31 goes wider and lists,
"counties, metropolitan boroughs and unitary authority districts",
that comprise the region. I have some sympathy with that aim. Sometimes it is difficult to explain to people where their constituency boundaries are. They are incoherent for reasons of history and geography. I understand that Members of the Committee want voters to be aware not only of the name of the region but how it is made up—what is in the north-east or south-east region? As one noble Lord said, a person living in Banbury might not know that Broadstairs is in the south-east region. However, a ballot paper is not the place to give such information.
The Government will publish that kind of factual information, including the powers and size of the assembly and the counties that make up the region. At that point, the proposed changes will come in from the boundary review. I emphasise that because the Government will have to say what they are going to do with those proposals, the default being to accept them, as they come from an independent body, but not necessarily so.
The proposals must be distributed. We will ensure that the document is delivered to each household in advance of the referendum. It will include information not only about the name of the region but about how it is made up, and which authorities are included in it. People should have that information before they vote as it informs them of the implications of the possible changes to the local government structure. The document will tell people about the two-tier structures that are to become one-tier and how those structures have been formed after a year-long deliberation.
Lord Greaves: The Minister said that the boundary review recommendations did not have to be accepted by the Government but did have to be put to the people in the referendum. There seems to be some conflict there.
Lord Rooker: The proposals for the boundary review —the Government's view of what is planned for the boundaries —will be put to people at the referendum. The Boundary Committee will be asked to come up with the best available form of single-tier government. In the main, the Government would probably accept that as the default, hut the provision is such that the Secretary of State will have to take a view on what comes to him from the boundary review. I am making that distinction because many of the amendments refer to the results of the boundary review.
Baroness Blatch: Will the Minister give way?
Lord Rooker: I shall in a moment, because I can see the question coming. The question that should be asked in the House during scrutiny should not be about the possible recommendation from the Boundary Committee but what the Government will do with that recommendation. In the main—in most
418
cases if not all—the Government would accept a proposal from an independent body asked to do a job based on a list of rules and within the parameters asked of it. That would be the proposal that we would put to the House and to the people of a region. However, that may not happen in every case.
Baroness Blatch: The Minister will know about the relevant point better than I do, as it was a point that exercised the Select Committee. There is no scope whatever for a voter to have a view about the Boundary Committee review of local government. The only question they are asked is, "Do you want a regional assembly?" One goes with the other, without any form of modification whatever.
Lord Rooker: The noble Baroness has got it absolutely right. One is the price of the other, and that is what people must weigh in the balance. If they do not like the implications for local government and that, to them, is the most important aspect of their community and their lives, they would vote "No". They would seek to prevent from happening the local government changes that are part and parcel of the elected regional assembly.
I do not know which regions will be chosen. I cannot know that, because I have not seen the soundings, but people seem fairly certain about which regions will have a referendum. There are eight regions, four of which have a much greater population in the two-tier areas than in the single-tier areas and four of which have a much greater population in the single-tier areas than in the two-tier areas. It just so happens that it is four regions to four. Of course, noble Lords only talk about one set of four and not the other. In other parts of the country, an overwhelming percentage of the population—up to 88 per cent in one case—live in two-tier authorities. If they thought that maintaining that structure was more important than gaining a regional assembly, they would vote "No". That is the price of the package and people will have to make that judgment. As long as they are given all the information and are made aware of the implications of their vote, our electorate and citizenry are sufficiently mature to make that judgment.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister for those comments. I share the view of other noble Lords that the Minister has been fair in most of his responses. However, I am very disappointed with parts of his last response. Several noble Lords are members of local government and know what providing services in local government is all about. Local government reorganisation seems to be spoken of lightly, almost as a purely paper exercise. However, problems often arise not from implementing reorganisation but from talking about it. The Minister said that people can vote against creating a region if they do not like the reorganisation, but he has missed the point. We will have spent a year talking about reorganisation. It is that year of discussion that will cause disturbance and affect services.

419
Before coming to the Committee this morning I had a meeting in Essex, where each day we support about 20,000 disabled and elderly people in their homes. We are desperately short of care workers, but we were examining how we might improve the services for those people. If there were a reorganisation, the staff who work for the local authority would be worried about their jobs. We do not want a year of that. I was therefore disappointed by our discussion because we have missed the point. Discussion of reorganisation is just as bad as reorganisation. If there is a referendum in the North East at the end of next year, there will be a year of disturbance in Northumberland, for example, in which services are not provided properly and the elderly and school children suffer. The Minister clearly has not been in local government. If he had, he would understand that. He talked so lightly about reorganisation.
Such consequences are why other countries do not reorganise. The United States has had a stable system since independence. It has about six tiers of government from the Senate downwards. France has introduced regionalism, but it did not disturb the underlying structure. It wants to provide services. We talk so lightly of reorganisation without realising what it will do to the services that we provide. That is why we who are also elected councillors want to try to provide decent services. That is what it is about. So I was very disappointed by those comments.
The Minister said that the issue was totally political. It should not be totally political, but about the services that we provide. If the Government want regional; government, I see no harm at all in having sufficient underlying tiers to provide decent local government.
The government review will take some time. I should like a little more clarity on that. I think that the Minister said that the final decision on reorganisation will be taken by the Secretary of State rather than in the boundary review. Perhaps he will confirm that. That is slightly worrying as well. If we go through all the processes of a boundary review but the Secretary of State does not make the change, there will be even greater disturbance.
Lord Rooker: We have not changed the rules. The same arrangements have applied in every review, including the parliamentary review. They may have been changed once by a Home Secretary. I want to be clear about this. I do not want anyone to accuse me of not explaining the consequences. In the past few days, noble Lords have concentrated almost exclusively on the results of the boundary review. Although those results are very important, the ballot paper will reflect what the Government do with those results. I honestly thought that I should draw attention to that fact, but there is nothing new about it. The Secretary of State will express his view after the Boundary Committee reports to him in due course.
Lord Hanningfield: That causes me even more consternation about the uncertainty of the whole process. However, I was pleased to hear the Minister say that he wanted the ballot paper to set out clearly
420
the options for voters. In later amendments, we deal with the matter of cost. Enormous costs will be incurred not only in establishing the assembly but in reorganising the area. The reorganisation will be much more costly than the assembly. I was therefore pleased to hear the Minister say that the public should know precisely what they are voting for. We shall return to that issue.
The Minister mentioned the four more rural regions. Those areas will require even more reorganisation. As I said, there is great concern about the prospect of a year's reorganisation in the East of England or in the South East in order to destroy the districts or the counties. Much more reorganisation will be required in more rural areas than in urban ones.
I was pleased to hear that the Liberal Democrats support this type of amendment. I agree that the wording should perhaps be tightened up a little and be a little more self-explanatory. I think that we will return to this type of amendment at Report stage. I think that the amendment will be pursued, although I shall not press it today. l was pleased to hear the Minister's comments on Amendment No. 31. He did not give all the answers that we seek, but we can return to the issue when we discuss the exact wording for the referendum. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Gould of Potternewton): Before I call Amendment No. 28, I have to inform your Lordships that if Amendment No. 28 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 29 to 43 for reasons of preemption.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 2, line 20, leave out from "order" to end of line 36 and insert "shall be determined by the Electoral Commission"
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 28 is grouped with Amendment No. 33, which stands in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. Amendment No. 28 offers another approach to skinning this cat of a question. In this amendment, we want to explore the proposal that the Electoral Commission should determine the question. At this point, I shall talk about "a question" but noble Lords will understand that, in our view, two would be much clearer.
Of course, I accept that the issue of the yes/no answer is political but, now that we have an Electoral Commission, it seems to us that the presentation of the question is squarely within its competence. In fact, our amendment covers both the question and the preamble. It does so because the clearer the question, the less detailed and complex the preamble may be. I deliberately put them that way round.
That is the simple proposition, but I hope that at this stage the Minister can tell the Committee what advice the Electoral Commission has given thus far on the presentation of the question and the preamble, which we shall debate in more detail shortly, I hope that,

421
before bringing the Bill before Parliament, the Government held discussions with the Electoral Commission on what, as I said, seems to be a matter on which it is not only well placed but best placed to advise. I beg to move.
Lord Hanningfield: I support the Liberal Democrat amendment and shall speak to our Amendment No. 33, which is along the same lines. We feel strongly that the Electoral Commission rather than the Government should determine the wording on the ballot paper for the referendum. The Electoral Commission is a neutral body. I refer to what the Minister said in response to the debate on the previous amendment—that is, all the information should be set out fairly so that people have a fair choice in their vote. The Electoral Commission must be the best body to decide the exact wording. Therefore, I commend Amendment No. 33, which, as I said, is very similar to Amendment No. 28 tabled by the Liberal Democrats.
Lord Waddington: I do not say for one moment that the noble Lord may not have good reason to criticise the precise form of Amendment No. 33. But I should have thought that we are pushing at an open door when we say that the statement in Clause 2(2) is far too bland. It cannot be sufficient to state before the question on the ballot paper,
"local government would be reorganised into a single tier in those parts of the region that currently have both county and district councils",
when, by then, the conclusions of the Boundary Committee will be known. I should have thought that it would be very much in the interests of the Government, and certainly in the interests of those in favour of an elected regional assembly, to spell out the matter far more clearly.
I shall give the Minister an example. I may be wrong but I believe that in Lancashire there would be far less resistance to local government reorganisation which turned the county council area into a unitary authority than to carving up the country part of Lancashire and giving a third to one big borough, a third to another big borough and a third to another big borough, where the country interest would be completely overwhelmed by the urban areas.
Therefore, I should have thought—of course, it would depend on the conclusion of the Boundary Committee—that in many circumstances it would be greatly to the advantage of the Government and to those in favour of elected assemblies, and certainly to the advantage of the elector, if, in a concise statement above the question, the conclusion of the Boundary Committee was set out. For example, it might state that in the case of Lancashire such and such a district council area will go in with Blackburn, such and such a district council area will go in with Preston, and such and such a district council area will go in with Blackpool, or whatever it may be.
Therefore, I hope that if the Minister does not feel able to accept this precise amendment, he will go away and consider the possibility of a far more
422
comprehensive statement preceding the question on the ballot paper, setting out in concise terms the effect of the conclusions of the Boundary Committee.
Lord Hanningfield: Before the Minister replies, I should add that, as well as the Boundary Committee's work—a matter to which we referred a great deal during debate on the previous few amendments—we also talked at considerable length during the first debates in Committee about the functions of the region. The intention of the second part of our Amendment No. 33 is that the Electoral Commission should also set out the functions and powers of the region. We have had considerable debate about that over the past two days of the Committee stage.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Rooker: I hope that I can give noble Lords answers that will make them happy. I wish we were at the point of having a referendum somewhere as I would have one of the leaflets that will be delivered to every household in the region. They will explain how the region is made up; what its powers are; what the assembly's functions would be; and other matters. Our intention is not to put that on the ballot paper but to produce a document that spells out all these issues which will be presented to every household in the area before the referendum.
I accept that we have to have the main Bill. As regards Amendment No. 33, voters must be aware of the intended scope of the responsibilities of those elected assemblies when casting their votes in referendums. The only way they can be made aware is by a publication put through the door and not one they have to go and collect themselves. We need to overcome the inertia. It must be done that way and that is what we intend to do. It cannot be done on the ballot paper and it would be too late if it was presented at the polling booth. First, one would be presenting it only to people who turned up to vote; and, secondly, we want to increase turnout. So we would make sure that the document was produced well in advance.
I want to turn to the central point. There seems to be a misunderstanding. Through the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, Parliament gave life to the Electoral Commission. The commission's role is to comment on the intelligibility of UK, national and regional referendum questions and to be consulted where the question or preamble is set by subordinate legislation.
The Act does not give the commission the responsibility to set the question. That is understandable because it is supposed to be a body that is above the fray. The people appointed to the commission need to be as independent as possible. Without giving them a veto, they should be able to comment on the wording of the preamble and if they do not like it to say so publicly. Woe betide a government who go against a strong recommendation of the commission and change what it proposes.
The commission has been consulted on the question and the preamble and is satisfied. Changes were made in another place. This matter is dealt with in another

423
group of amendments and although I have read them all I do not remember where. Clause 2 sets out the preamble. I would hate to go to a polling station and to be met with the preamble set out that way on the ballot paper. One can use that wording but lay it out better. The intention is to produce the preamble in bullet point form without changing the meaning in any way, so it is easier to read. In other words, we will tabloid it, so one can read it at a glance rather than having to read a short essay.
This has all been agreed with the commission as the intelligibility of the proposal is fairly fundamental. We have a degree of sympathy with the issues raised today. I accept that the preamble is relatively short. Our intended operation and the process and the documents that we will publish meet the spirit, and in some cases the actual letter, of what noble Lords have put to the Committee today. That being so, looking at the groupings, I have no doubt we will have the same debate a few more times before we finish. I shall return to the matter if need be. But I hope, having set the scene, that the spirit is there and that we are at one. But we shall do it in a practical way.
It would be quite wrong to give the commission the power to write the question. That would go against its grain. It would remove its watchdog and scrutiny roles and reduce the force of its arguments and power if there was something with which it was extremely unhappy. There would be one hell of a row about it outside as well as inside both Houses.
Lord Hanningfield: On Amendment No. 33, I think we were pleased to hear some of the noble Lord's comments. I am sure that we shall return to this matter, as he said, several more times in Committee and at later stages. Obviously the information that goes to the electorate will be very important indeed. If pamphlets are acceptable, by whom will they be written? Or, if they are to be political pamphlets, there will be various bodies which will be keen on them. But the information that goes to the public is very important. It needs to be neutral and full. It needs to include the aspects of local government reorganisation and we think that it should include costs. It should certainly state strongly what the region is going to do. We suggest that it should be done after the passing of an Act of Parliament setting out the powers and responsibilities of a region. That information is important. The Minister has not spelled out exactly how that will happen. Perhaps he, too, will give the matter some further thought before the following stages of the Bill, because we shall obviously keep returning to it. As I said, the process must be independent and understandable by the electorate, so that they know what they are voting for.
So although I shall not press our amendment, we shall keep returning to the issue until we have some clear answers about what the public will be told before they vote.
Baroness Hamwee: Like the Minister, I know that there is an amendment somewhere that deals with information, but I cannot quite remember which it is.
424
It is absolutely right and proper to put booklets through household doors. But from my experience twice in London—in the case of the referendum and then the actual election—and, most recently, twice with the mayor's scheme for congestion charging, all of which involved booklets through doors, I know that the Royal Mail target rate for delivery is about 87 per cent. It is certainly not accurate. I know that London SW14, where I live, was ignored on all those occasions. But that is not central to my amendment.
The Minister has answered and unanswered my question. He told us that the Electoral Commission has read the question proposed in the Bill and has given it a clean bill of health. I am happy with that, which obviously answers my question. He unanswered the question when he said that there would be a hell of a row if, at a later, more formal stage, the Electoral Commission—
Lord Rooker: It is my fault; I am just too open. I was then discussing the role of the commission and why it should not have power to write the question. Its power lies in approving the question and the preamble. If it does not like it and the Government do not want to change it, that is when there would be a hell of a row. However, in this case, it has approved both the question and the preamble, as set out in the Bill.
Baroness Hamwee: My point was that if there was a hell of a row after the Bill, including that question, had been passed that would not help us. However, I have received the assurance that I need and I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before calling Amendments Nos. 30 and 31, I must inform the Committee that there is a mistake in the Bill's line numbering. I should make clear that Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 are to the question within quotation marks.
[Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before calling Amendment No. 32, I must inform the Committee that if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 34 to 43, for reasons of pre-emption.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 2, line 24, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 34 and 42. Perhaps a little unrealistically, the lead amendment proposes to delete the preamble, because the question should stand or fall on its own and be intelligible without explanation.
I am not wholly confident that voters, seeing a lot of words in front of them, will do more than read the headline question. I do not know whether the Government have undertaken any research on how a

425
question with such a preamble would be received. I am sure that there are testing techniques that could assist him in looking at such an issue.
The Minister alluded to the complexity of the preamble. I suggest that not only the Electoral Commission but the Plain English Campaign might have a role in that regard. It is lawyers' language—and I speak as one—to use such phrases as:
"If an elected assembly is to be established, it is intended that".
It is not the sort of language that prompts many to read on.
Amendment No. 34, the second amendment in the group, would delete the words in parentheses,
"in as nearly as may be the following form".
The amendment gives us the opportunity to hear from the Government why they inserted those words. They did so in the House of Commons without any debate on the matter. We may already have the answer in that bullet points are used to present the preamble differently as a result of advice taken. I hope that the Minister can tell the House why those words were inserted and what is in the Government's mind when they say,
"as nearly as may be".
There are all sorts of different forms that could be similar to that set out in the Bill. What would require the form to be changed?
Amendment No. 42 would permit the Electoral Commission's involvement after the Bill's enactment. We have almost covered that point. If the Minister wishes to add anything, no doubt he will do so. I beg to move Amendment No. 32.
Lord Hanningfield: We on the Conservative Benches do not agree with this amendment. I support the Liberal Democrats in highlighting our discussion on earlier amendments about the need to look again clearly at the referendum question to ensure that the public understand what they are asked to vote on, the intention of the vote, and the information on it that goes out. We have tabled further amendments on that subject. I hope that the Minister will indicate that he and the Government are open to reviewing the matter to ensure that the question is understandable and that people know what they are letting themselves in for.
The Earl of Onslow: Did the Bills providing for referendums in London, Scotland and Wales include such a preamble? I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that the English used is appalling. It is full of all sorts of sub-clauses and unnecessary subjunctives. Is that normal in Bills of this kind?
Baroness Blatch: I hope that my noble friend does not succumb to accept the amendment. First, if the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, were successful in getting rid of the preamble, the question would be almost a confidence trick on the people of England. It is very different from the referendum in Scotland. Scottish voters were asked only two questions: whether they wanted a Parliament and whether they
426
wanted it to have tax-raising powers. But they were not at the same time agreeing a massive reorganisation of government below the tier of Parliament.
I argue that the major part of the reorganisation in England is not the imposition of a regional assembly but the complete upheaval of local government. That is pertinent to people and should form part of the question. We have just withdrawn an amendment to that effect.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that the words in parentheses,
"in as nearly as may be the following form",
give the Government scope to change the wording agreed by the Electoral Commission. I worry about the scope given. There is no definition of what would be,
"as nearly as may be".
Would it go back to the Electoral Commission for approval?
The Earl of Onslow: I am pleased to say that my noble friend can rest assured: I am just as worried as she is about the consequences of local government reorganisation. We have been round the steeplechase before. There should be a separate referenda amendment. That does not mean that this clause is not sloppily drafted, badly written and probably unclear.
Lord Rooker: I apologise for any confusion that I might have caused in the previous debate. I know that it sounds daft, but I referred to the preamble being in bullet point form, and anybody who has an up-to-date version of the Bill will see a couple of bullet points. I was carrying around the Bill as it was in another place, in which there were no bullet points.
We are not trying to pull a fast one here. I must make that clear. Amendment No. 34 is based on suspicion about the words,
"in as nearly as may be the following form".
There was no opportunity to explain the purpose of the words in another place. There is no sinister purpose. The words will not allow the wording of the statement to be changed. Subsection (2) goes on to say that the statement,
"must precede the question on the ballot paper".
It is unfortunate that, in Clause 2, the question is printed at subsection (1) and the preamble is printed at subsection (2). On the ballot paper, it will be the other way round, as is made clear. Subsection (2) says:
"The following statement … must precede the question".
The Earl of Onslow: The noble Lord has just said that the clause is unsatisfactorily printed. By that, does he mean that he will take it away, write it so that we can all understand it and put in back in the Bill in the proper order? That is the logical conclusion of what he said. I know that the Minister listens to what people say and takes it into account. I know that, when he says that something is silly, he means that it is silly. That is the logical conclusion of what he said.
Lord Rooker: No—far from it. If I did that, I would be criticising the parliamentary draftsman. In a clause

427
on the referendum question, the question should be put first, and that is what the parliamentary draftsman has done. That is why we have subsection (1), and the preamble is set out in subsection (2). On the ballot paper, they will he set out the other way round, as is clearly stated. The preamble will appear in bullet point form, leading to the question on which the voter is required to give a view. That is the only point that I was making.
The phrase,
"in as nearly as may be the following form"
is a technical device to ensure that the statement that is to precede the question will contain the bullet points, when it appears on the ballot paper. That is the point. It is to get over a technicality, and we are not pulling a fast one.
As I made clear, the role of the Electoral Commission is to comment on the intelligibility of the issue. The commission suggested that bullet points would improve the structure of the preamble, and we agreed that it would be helpful. It makes sense that, in due course, the ballot paper also reflects the bullet point structure used in the Bill.
Making Amendment No. 42 would mean that the referendum question and the accompanying statement could be,
"amended by regulation at any time after the Electoral Commission has made a report to the Secretary of State regarding the question and the statement".
Those regulations would be subject to affirmative resolution in both Houses. Under Section 104 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, the commission has a statutory obligation to comment on the intelligibility of UK national and regional referendum questions and of any statement preceding them that are contained in Acts of Parliament. As I said, the Electoral Commission has commented on the question and the statement and is content with the current wording.
However, Amendment No. 42 is unclear as to whether the Electoral Commission would need to be consulted on any amended question that the Secretary of State proposes. In effect, the amendment could mean that the question and statement could be amended after the first region or regions have held referendums, so that the question and statement are different for subsequent regions.
I do not think that that would be a good idea. It would be wrong to circumvent the Electoral Commission, but it would also be wrong if later the basic ground rules were changed for other regions, should there be other regions. We must treat them all equally in this respect, so that Parliament has the opportunity to debate everything before this, the primary legislation, goes through. Therefore, I hope that Members of the Committee feel that they can withdraw their amendment. I hope that the explanation and the words added, but not debated, in another place, are satisfactory.
Baroness Hamwee: I have no problem with the question appearing in the Bill before the proposed
428
preamble. That is sensible. If on the ballot paper it was not to be a preamble but to follow the question, it would be called something other than a preamble—perhaps a postscript.
I hope that the Minister has not been using the previous version of the Bill throughout this Committee stage. I should hate to think that we shall have to go back through all the amendments and debate them again because the Minister has been referring to different lines.
I am still a little confused. If the Electoral Commission has now said that bullet points, or blobs, are helpful to make the preamble clear—I agree that they are— why do we still have,
"in as nearly as may be the following form"?
If the work has been done and, having gone through this consultation process, the Secretary of State has taken on board the comments made by the Electoral Commission, why are those words still needed?
Lord Rooker: It is a technical point. I suspect that it is because the words "The following statement" in subsection (2) means the words. The statement may not include the bullet points. The bullet points are the layout and the phrase,
"in as nearly as may be the following form"
namely, the layout—is to cover that. It is purely a technical means of setting out the ballot paper so that it is easier to read. The words will not change.
Baroness Hamwee: I accept that. I do not know why parliamentary counsel is so paranoid or precise that he or she feels that if the line endings happen to come at slightly different points, this technical approach is needed to cover that. But there we go. It is not—
Lord Rooker: No.
Baroness Hamwee: I am about to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rooker: No, let us be serious about this. Once the Bill has obtained Royal Assent someone who wanted to be a troublemaker might claim that "The following statement" must appear. He may say that the typesize must be the same or the line-spacing must be the same, whereas the form in which it appears to make it more legible—more white space, a better typeface—is the form,
"in as nearly as may be the following form".
We are not allowing troublemakers—barrack-room lawyers—to come along and mess this up. Therefore, those words are needed to overcome any technical problems in order to lay out the same words in an understandable form. Not that I would dream of referring to Members of the Committee as troublemakers, of course.
Baroness Hamwee: It depends which way the wind is blowing. That is extremely helpful. I am grateful to the Minister for spelling that out so clearly. I am not for a moment questioning the assurance that the Minister

429
has given about the consultation with the Electoral Commission. I realise that Amendment No. 42 may do so, but I did not intend it to treat regions differently, one from another. However, I am not clear what happens if, following consultation after the passing of the Bill, the Electoral Commission is unhappy, and what procedure would be allowed to enable the question and preamble to be changed.
Lord Rooker: After consulting and taking advice from the Electoral Commission before publishing the Bill, the Government made changes to the preamble to the question. The commission has now confirmed that it is content with the wording as set out in the Bill. We have no intention of changing that. Once the wording has been set out in the Act of Parliament, that will be it. The Electoral Commission would have approved the wording.
Baroness Hamwee: I am grateful to the Minister and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Simon): If Amendment No. 35 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 36 on the grounds of pre-emption.
Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 2, leave out line 27 and insert ""This referendum is advisory only. The Secretary of State will decide, after considering the referendum result, whether to establish an elected assembly for the"
The noble Lord said: I am sorry to have to return once again to the wording of the preamble, but I think that it is necessary to seek a further amendment. In the course of the previous debate the Minister remarked that he was a little confused by the wording. I am pleased that we were able to clarify at least part of it.
We are particularly concerned about some of the words used in the preamble. The words,
"'You can help to decide",
are rather ambiguous. We have already discussed the fact that after the review, if he so chooses, the Secretary of State will be able to change any recommendations made by the Boundary Committee. We know also that it will be for the Secretary of State to decide whether a region will be formed. The referendum will not decide whether a region is created; that is a matter for the Secretary of State. Perhaps it is for that reason that the words "help to decide" have been used.
We feel that the position should be made much clearer. The preamble should stress that the referendum is advisory to the Government. Therefore, we propose that a form of words making that point should be included, otherwise the public could be misled. In helping to decide, people may think that they may be actually deciding something when they come to vote, but in fact they are not. Ultimately, it will be for the Secretary of State to decide. We believe
430
that, in seeking to be fair and honest with the electorate, the preamble should make it clear that the referendum will be advisory and that the Secretary of State will take the ultimate decision. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I must further advise noble Lords that a mistake has been made in the line numbering of the Bill at this point. The amendment is to the first line of the statement, ending in a question mark.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I would oppose the amendment, as indeed I would oppose the wording set out in the Bill. I should have tabled an amendment to delete all those words. They are unnecessary and nothing is required at that point. If people take the trouble to go down to the polling station or to put a cross on a ballot paper at home, they will know damn well that they are contributing towards making a decision. They do not need to be told that they can "help to decide" whether there should be an elected assembly. If they are voting, then they ought to know what it is they are voting for. This is unnecessary verbiage.
I oppose the proposed amendment because, given that under our constitution we have a parliamentary democracy rather than a people's democracy, every referendum must be advisory. No referendum can bind Parliament. Again, any amendment is completely unnecessary. All referendums must be advisory; the decision of any referendum need not be accepted by Parliament because Parliament is supreme. As I have said, we are a parliamentary democracy.
I wish to make a further point. The amendment suggests that we should add a form of wording to make it clear that the referendum is advisory:
"This referendum is advisory only. The Secretary of State will decide, after considering the referendum result, whether to establish an elected assembly for the".
But that is already the case. You do not need an amendment to state what is already the position in law.
Indeed, inserting those words may very well cause electors to say, "Well, what on earth is the point of my coming down here to vote if the Secretary of State has the final decision? In spite of what I say, he can do what he likes anyway". Many noble Lords are coming to the same conclusion that, no matter what we say, the Government and the Secretary of State will do what they want anyway. We do not want to encourage the electorate to believe that, no matter what they do in a referendum, it will be the Secretary of State who makes the decision.
I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment. It is completely unnecessary under our constitution.
6.15 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: The noble Lord. Lord Stoddart, has given a perfectly good reason for inserting the advisory clause. He said that the referendum is advisory anyway because you cannot bind Parliament.

431
In that he is constitutionally correct. It should therefore be pointed out to the electorate that it is advisory only because of the state of the constitution. I do not believe that every member of the electorate understands that point. It is an extremely good and very important constitutional point. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has made a speech which, were you to take out the word "not", would make a perfectly valid argument for the advisory state of the referendum.
Baroness Blatch: Before the Minister replies, perhaps I may ask a question. The opening words of the preamble are, "You can help to decide whether there should be"— not, "You can help to decide whether there should not be"— because the vote will decide one way or the other. I would argue that it is not an advisory note. It should be an explanatory note because it explains to people what they are voting for.
My understanding of the Bill as it stands—I hope that it will not be in this form when it leaves the House—is that as few as 10 per cent of the electorate could turn out to vote and a majority of one would not leave the Secretary of State to decide whether there should be a regional assembly; it would bind him to forming one. Am I wrong? Would a majority of one be enough to determine the issue unless a threshold is put into the Bill?
Is the Minister suggesting by the words, "You can help to decide" that, if the turn-out is very low and the majority extremely slim, the Secretary of State could use a flexible power to introduce a regional assembly; or, worse than that, if the referendum is lost by one or two votes, that the Secretary of State could decide that the result was so close that he could establish a regional assembly?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: A new face at the Dispatch Box. We are all agreed that the referendum is advisory. It is important that the Committee should know that the Electoral Commission has read this clause and has signalled that it is content with it.
Baroness Blatch: I thought that the referendum was a vote as to whether one should or should not have a regional assembly, not that it was advisory. Will people vote and then leave it to a third party to decide whether or not there should be a regional assembly? My understanding is that when you are asked to vote, you vote "Yes" or "No" and there is a majority one way or the other. An assembly will then be established if there is a "Yes" vote, and not established if there is a "No" vote.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: The referendum will be advisory only. As we have said, the Secretary of State will decide after the referendum whether or not there should be an elected regional assembly.
The Earl of Onslow: So we go through the palaver of passing this Bill; there is a referendum; and then the Secretary of State says—I almost used the favourite spherical word of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee— that he is going to pay no attention
432
whatever to the result. In other words, for the sake of pure argument, there can be a referendum; 95 per cent of the people in a region turn out; 60 per cent say either yea or nay; then the Secretary of State says, "Because this is a referendum, it is advisory. I am going to ignore the result and do what I wanted to do anyway". That is a pretty odd way to run a referendum.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: If the Secretary of State were to act like that, he would be irrational. I think that we ought to bring this discussion into the real world. If a clear majority vote for—
The Earl of Onslow: Can or cannot the Secretary of State say, "I disagree with the referendum result"? If the answer is yes, it is advisory. That means that he can ignore it at will, and at any level.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: The intention is for the Minister to be guided by the referendum results. If people vote "Yes", we intend to establish an assembly. If people vote "No", we intend not to. However, there is the obvious point that a further Bill is required to provide powers to establish assemblies.
The Earl of Onslow: That does not help at all. The Secretary of State can, therefore, say that he is going to ignore the result of a referendum. I am sorry to hammer this point home. It seems quite an important one.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: It is a very important point, but the sentence that I read out a moment ago is crystal clear. The Government's intention is to be guided by the referendum result. If people vote "Yes", we intend to establish an assembly; if they vote "No", we intend not to.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Perhaps I may put another scenario to the noble Lord. It is important that we understand that Parliament is supreme. It is Let us suppose that, in 2005, a referendum is held under a Labour government saying yes to a regional assembly; then, a few months later, there is a general election at which a Conservative government, not committed to regional assemblies, are elected. Is the noble Lord suggesting that the new government should be bound by a referendum instituted by the previous government? That is why Parliament is supreme.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: Parliament is supreme. Perhaps I may return to the amendment and, if necessary, return to the points that we are discussing now.
When the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, spoke initially he made a very good point; namely, that by including the word "help" we are allowing the electorate to contribute to making a decision. That is a good and inclusive thing to project to the electorate. I do not have difficulty with the inclusion of the word "help". In a democracy, it is rather a good word to have in this sentence. I really do not think that it moves away from the principle that the Secretary of State will decide,

433
after considering a referendum result, whether to establish a regional assembly. So I do not have the problem with the word "help" that the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, has. I find it rather a helpful word.
Lord Hanningfield: There have already been some amendments on the preamble. The more we go on, the more confused we become. We were trying to make it clearer to the electorate that, as the Bill stands, they will not be deciding whether there will be a regional assembly. As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said, Parliament is currently paramount, but once the Bill reaches the statute book—if it does—the Secretary of State will probably be more paramount than Parliament because he has enormous powers under the Bill to establish a region or whatever he wants to do. That is really what we object to, and we think the preamble should make it clear what people are voting for.
The White Paper is called Your Region, Your Choice. As I said on Second Reading, it should be "Your Region, the Secretary of State's Choice". We should make it clear in Committee that the preamble is very unsatisfactory. I and most of my noble friends would prefer that if people voted yes, the referendum would take place, and if they voted no, it would not. If that is not going to happen, the electorate should know that the referendum is advisory and not in any way binding on the Secretary of State who has all the powers if the Bill becomes law. I shall withdraw the amendment, but I am sure we will come back to the preamble later in the Bill's proceedings. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 2, line 27, leave out "an" and insert "a directly"
The noble Baroness said: I must admit that it was a slip on the keyboard that did not group this amendment with others when we were dealing with the groupings for last week. However, I move it simply to see whether the Minister has been able to give further thought to the inclusion of "directly", which we discussed then. He may still be burning the midnight oil, pondering over the issue. I beg to move.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: We are back to the word "directly". I have not been burning the midnight oil, I am afraid, but I hope that officials have. I made a commitment last week that we would consider the amendment further. That stands. So, having been given this re-reassurance, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I needed no re-reassurance.
Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment, what is the reassurance? What exactly is the Minister saying? We had a long discussion about what "directly" meant, and it is not consistent with the Bill. It is not a directly elected assembly. What assurance is the Minister giving?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: The assurance—I said re-reassurance because I have given it to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, twice—is that we will consider the discussion that we had last week on "directly" in front of "elected assemblies" and will come back to the House with our full recommendation.
Baroness Blatch: I offer a fulsome apology to the Minister. I had not realised that the question was still being considered. I thought he was confirming an assurance I had not heard about.
Baroness Hamwee: The noble Baroness may recall that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, came into the Chamber and offered some advice during the debate. I needed no further assurance; I had no doubt the matter was being considered. I simply hoped that we might take one issue off the Marshalled List for Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 2, line 32, after "development;" insert—
"the functions of the organisations listed in the schedule below which are exercised in the region shall be transferred to the elected assembly and the powers of such organisations for the region shall be abolished;"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 37, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 39.
I accept that the amendments complicate the preamble and that I have been arguing for more simplicity. I wanted to ensure that we did not fall foul of the Bill by being outside the Long Title. I hope it will be apparent, at this hour of the evening, that I would like to probe the issue of powers. I am not proposing to go in detail through each activity and function of all the organisations listed in the amendment, and I hope the Minister's approach will be similar.
The White Paper describes each region in the relevant appendix rather like a tourist brochure, giving an indicative list of the public bodies active in the North East. On Second Reading, in reply to my noble friend Lord Shutt, who asked whether there would be any fewer quangos, the Minister said:
"The answer is probably 'no'. The legislation would not lead to the abolition of quangos. The strength of the provisions would lie in how the quangos were arranged and managed and were democratically accountable to the people sent by the electorate".—[Official Report, 20/2/03; col. 1331.]
By definition, quangos are not democratically accountable. Our approach is to bring them clearly within the aegis of democratically accountable new regional assemblies.
Page 80 of the White Paper says that many of these organisations are accountable to central government. It goes on to talk about central government operating

435
locally. I am not wholly clear about the Government's approach to accountability. If we accept having central government programmes operating locally with quangos accountable to central government, the objective of having those quangos accountable through the regional tier will not be achieved.
The government offices alone administer much of the regional programme. They are not going to be abolished. No doubt there are issues of costs. On this point it would be an unnecessary diversion to talk about the recipe for added costs that could be dealt with, but the Government seem to be going out of their way to fail to deal with. In any event, there is a cost of democracy and the cost-benefit analysis and balance suggests very strongly to me that a regional accountability mechanism is worth a great deal.
The most important issue is the effectiveness of the work undertaken by the various organisations. The White Paper tells us:
"Elected Assemblies will improve the quality of life for people in their regions, particularly by improving regional economic performance".
It also says:
"Assemblies will be given a lead role in developing strategies to achieve this".
However, when we look further to issues such as transport, we find that the elected assemblies' responsibilities for transport strategy will include,
"advising central government"—
that is not being responsible for transport strategy; it is an advisory role—
"on the allocation of funding for local transport, including consistency of local bids with regional policies and priorities".
Assemblies will also have,
"powers to make proposals to the Highways Agency and the Strategic Rail Authority".
That is not strategic responsibility in the terms in which the chapter introducing all this seems to imply. It is an input into central government decisions. A regional input is good, but it does not amount to what could be achieved, which could take forward the development of the regions significantly. The White Paper tells us on page 34 that assemblies will improve "regional economic performance". However, the regional development agencies will remain operationally independent. The new assemblies can appoint to the boards, but there are constraints and criteria to be met with regard to those whom the assembly can appoint.
The White Paper states that the assembly will provide funding from the block grant and will have maximum flexibility in allocating resources. I accept that there has been some movement as to how detailed the designation of the government grant is, but I do not believe that the words will accord with the experience of anyone in the Chamber who deals with economic regeneration as to flexibility in allocating resources.
I am not going to go through the whole list, but I want to refer particularly to learning and skills councils. They are central to good economic
436
performance. The skills of the workforce are the building block of good economic performance. The White Paper says so as well, stating:
"Developing the skills of the workforce plays a vital role in economic development".
It goes on to tell us that:
"Elected assemblies will assume responsibility for drawing up and organising Frameworks for Regional Employment and Skills Action (FRESAs), which will set out the key priorities of the region in respect of skills development and improving employment opportunities".
Why the separation? Why the responsibility for drawing up a central government programme? Might not a regional assembly see better than the Government what is appropriate for its own region?
We do not see that approach as the right way to go about achieving good strategic regional government. I fear that it demonstrates a mindset, which is that the proposals do not amount to real devolution. I beg to move.
Lord Hanningfield: The amendment only highlights the whole problem of what we are talking about. Until the Government spell out what regional assemblies will do and what their powers and functions might be, we are talking in a vacuum about regional government. As we have said several times in Committee, we need the Government to publish—perhaps initially in draft form so that we can comment on it, but then fully so that we can debate it in both Houses of Parliament—an Act of Parliament that sets out the powers and responsibilities of regional government.
The noble Baroness has put forward a long list of quangos that are in the Government's paper on regions. We all agree that those quangos would be rather better if they were democratically controlled rather than appointed bodies controlled by people who did not have any democratic accountability. For our part, we would not want to see some of the quangos going to large regional government. Many of them could be dealt with much better by local authorities. For example, the Small Business Service is fairly local. One does not need a large regional government for it; a local authority would do. Therefore, I do not agree that everything should go to a regional assembly, but the issue will add to the problem.
Until the Government spell out in an Act of Parliament what the powers and functions of regional government will be, we will continue to debate the issues without clarity as to what we should be doing.
The Earl of Caithness: I merely take up a small point mentioned by my noble friend. He said that there would be a problem until the Government spelled out in an Act of Parliament exactly what there would be. The trouble is that the referendum will already have taken place before we get the Act of Parliament. When we seek to alter that Act, the Minister will turn round and say, "Oh no, you can't alter the Act of Parliament

437
because this is what people voted for in the referendum". My noble friend is not going to get what he wants; we have to get in earlier.
Baroness Blatch: I absolutely agree with that point. That is what makes the Bill so important. As I said earlier—much earlier—the Bill will trigger a great deal of executive action over which Parliament will have no say. The conditions that will apply when people come to make the decision are only "maybe or maybe not"; we have not had assurances that there will be a draft Bill before them. The Scottish people certainly made their decision without the detail before them, as did the Welsh people; that was also the case with London government. At the moment, I have no high hopes that a draft Bill will contain all the detail that will allow people to understand the issues.
I take issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about learning and skills councils. Under some decisions, they could disappear altogether. Learning and skills councils are second-guessing organisations and their functions should reside with county councils, which previously had those functions and were doing a good job. I say to the noble Baroness that the tensions that grew up as a result of the way in which the learning and skills councils operate were very real. They fund sixth forms. A head teacher can be forgiven for being confused; instead of funding coming from one stream, it now comes from learning and skills councils for sixth-formers and from the Government through local government for the rest of the school. Although the school is a single entity, it has to deal with two different bodies.
We also know that learning and skills councils are starting to discuss cuts in sixth-form funding. That makes running a school extremely difficult. A third problem arose in my area, where we have an outstanding music school in Huntingdon. Outside school hours, it serves the needs of adults and children, some of whom are as young as two or three and who are taught the violin by the Suzuki method. It is now likely to close because—would you believe it—the learning and skills council was set up only to deal with people who are 16-plus and by law cannot fund anyone below that age. There is a mixture of adults and children in that establishment, so it will probably go to the wall because of an unforeseen lacuna in the legislation. I argue not that learning and skills councils should be absorbed into the regional assembly but, frankly, that they should disappear altogether.
It is terribly easy simply to put out the list and say that those bodies should form part of the regional assembly. We need a much longer and more detailed debate about the nature of each of the bodies, whether they should exist at all, and where their functions properly reside. A good number of them will be in local and/or district and/or unitary authorities. Simply to include them in this way and say that they should form part of regional assemblies is much too simplistic.
Lord Rooker: I will stick to the spirit of what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, proposed when she
438
said that she did not want to go into much detail and that she knew that there were other Bills to come. However, she proceeded to go into an enormous amount of detail.
I have repeated in this House what Nick Raynsford said in another place during the passage of the Bill; that is, that information will be available to people in the regions before they vote in the referendum, as will a statement from the Government, based on the White Paper, setting out what powers the elected regional assembly would have.
Noble Lords have heard me say several times that we intend to bring forward another Bill to establish the elected regional assemblies when parliamentary time allows and after there has been a "Yes" vote in at least one region. That Bill will include detailed provisions about the statutory functions of elected assemblies. There is no doubt that both Houses of Parliament will want the Bill to be scrutinised properly. I am not going to anticipate those detailed discussions now; nor can I accept that the paving legislation should do so.
The amendments are wholly inappropriate for this Bill. I know that I am going to get my hands slapped by the noble Baroness, who says, "This is so important. We need to know everything before we start". Life is not like that. We have a set of procedures to go through—I spelt them out in detail earlier.
This level of detail should not be included in the Bill. Before people vote, they will know that level of detail in relation to elected assemblies. I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment to a Division.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: I shall not press my amendment tonight.
I am chastised for going into too much detail, but I could have gone into a great deal more. There is a point of principle about the nature of quangos which it is right to address as part of the paving legislation. I am wholly with the noble Baroness on the need for a full Act. We have not had a satisfactory rationale from the Government as to why quangos and public bodies should be left with central government, but I can see that I shall not get such a rationale at this stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, suggested that two particular services would be better dealt with by local government. I do not necessarily disagree with them. Someone may recall who set up the Small Business Service—I do not remember whether it was this Government or the previous Conservative government. Having a regional assembly with proper powers would enable the regional assembly to devolve some matters to local government. We on these Benches would be enthusiastic about that. However, no amendment will be perfect or sufficiently extensive, and had I produced one that was longer than the Bill itself, someone would probably have commented.
The learning and skills councils are certainly a difficult issue, and I am aware of the problems highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I was concentrating on the connection between skills

439
training and economic development. I wholly appreciate the difficulties that have arisen from the issue of continuity of education in skills training from 14 to 19. There are matters to be debated in that regard, but I named those bodies because the White Paper promotes economic development as central to the proposals for regional government. We should have skills training in whatever form—the more local the better, but better regional than national. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 not moved.]
Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 39A:
Page 2, line 36, at end insert—
"It is not proposed to establish an elected regional assembly in any region until at least three regions have voted in favour of the establishment of such assemblies in referenda conducted pursuant to section 1 of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003."
The noble Lord said: The amendment is designed to test and reconsider the constitutional area of setting up the regions. I doubt that we want to reopen the debate about the constitutional effect on England that took us an hour and a half earlier today. However, whatever the Minister says, setting up regional government will cause a big constitutional change. It affects both this Parliament and local government. In a previous debate, we discussed whether regional government was "big local government"—we do not want to go into that again, either. However, these changes will involve a massive reorganisation of local government, including moving to a unitary system in England. Therefore, there should be a sufficient test of public opinion; people should be asked whether they want to go down that route.
We have been told over many years that Members of Parliament in the North East desperately want regional government, and that is why the Bill is before us and why there will be regional elections, although that may be only media speculation. That is the favoured area for regional government, because it adjoins Scotland and people around Newcastle want it. We do not think that that would be sufficient. I know that the Minister will deny that it is only for the North East, the North West or Yorkshire and Humberside. However, we believe that there should be a sufficient test of the feeling for regional government in England. There should be sufficient support for such change before we start to dismember the current system and replace it with different systems across the country.
We tabled the amendment because we feel that at least three potential regions should vote in favour of regions before even one of them is set up. It is a constitutional issue and we think that the issue should be pursued. We feel that without the legitimacy bestowed by such a test, it would be wrong to set up one region while perhaps leaving the rest of the country as it is. We want to test the popular support for regional government in England. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham: The amendment raises an issue that I do not think we have yet discussed at all—the
440
mishmash of layers of government that would be created if there were regional government in only one or two parts of the country. We have not yet discussed how those layers of government would interrelate. Is the North East of England to have superior powers and to get more of what it wants? It certainly thinks that that would be the result. It thinks that it would be much better placed than areas without regional government to get money from the Government and from Europe. I think that that is a falsehood. Indeed, I think that the Minister himself has said that that is unlikely. He said that regional status is unlikely to be preferable and that it is more an administrative matter.
However, if there are fewer than three or four regions—three would be less than 50 per cent of potential regions—there will be a very strange local government structure. We have not tested that proposition. This amendment gives us the opportunity to ask the Government what they are doing with the structures of government. What do they expect to result from this change? Why should one part of the country be governed in a completely different way from others? As my noble friend said, we need an indication of how popular the idea is across the country. Indeed, we could have done that had we had a referendum across the whole country before we set off on this debate. We have not tabled an amendment to that effect, but it might have been a very good idea.
I think that there is going to be a great lack of cohesion. I think that this amendment opens up that debate.
Lord Greaves: I do not think that we can support this amendment and I shall explain why. In a sense, it comes back to the different positions from which we and the Conservatives approach the Bill. Both Opposition parties are very sceptical about the Bill and the Government's objectives, but we are sceptical for different—and in many ways opposite—reasons. We are sceptical because we want to see good, strong regional government in as much of England as possible. We do not think that this Bill will deliver that. The Conservatives are sceptical because they do not want the Bill at all and they fear that it will deliver at least part of that agenda. There are occasions when we come head to head with the Conservatives and say that we disagree fundamentally.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, mentioned the risk of creating a mishmash if only one or two—and then she said three or perhaps four—regions are created. The amendment specifies three regions. In her terms, there would be a mishmash unless the whole of England had regional government or did not have it. From her point of view, it would not matter whether one, two, three, six or seven of the eight regions went ahead with regional government. She said that areas under regions would be governed by completely different systems and in a completely different way.
But, of course, we already have that in the United Kingdom. We have three countries: Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I correct myself—Northern Ireland is a Province and has suspended regional government, although perhaps the suspension will be

441
lifted before too long. Therefore we already have a "mishmash" in the noble Baroness's terms. London has a completely different system from that of the rest of England, and that does not appear to have resulted in the disintegration of the kingdom.
There is now a whole series of different systems even within local government. Some places have elected mayors—a rather disastrous system which was nevertheless foisted on various parts of the country by the present Government. Even when we do not have elected mayors, local authorities have different systems of running themselves. We have unitary authorities, two-tier authorities and so on.
Therefore, in the noble Baroness's terms, we have a mishmash. That is not an argument for or against the amendment. It may be an argument against the Bill altogether and I am sure that, if the noble Baroness is honest, that is her argument in relation to the mishmash.
Whatever happens, if regional assemblies are elected in any parts of England, we shall end up with different systems in different regions. As a Liberal Democrat, that does not worry me very much. I should like to see effective regional devolution throughout England. However, I recognise that, at least in parts of England, it will take time for the understanding and the wish for that to develop. I am certain that, if regional assemblies were on offer at present, Cornwall, for example, would grab it with two hands and possibly parts of the north of England would also be willing to go ahead.
However, the fact is that there is one system in one area and another system in another. I use the earlier words of the Minister: so what? Why does it matter? Why is it necessary to have uniformity of administrative and democratic structures across the country? The model is Spain, which has had a whole series of asymmetrical initiatives and systems of devolution for the different regions, and still has. Some Catalonians might consider Catalonia to be a country and not a region, and most Scots consider it to be a country and not a region.
Catalonia has a substantial system of devolution—far greater than most parts of Spain. But does that mean that Catalonia is in a state of disintegration? Of course it does not. The Basque country has far greater devolution than other parts of Spain. There are political problems associated with separatism, but those are distinct from the question of the system of government and administration. That does not matter. What matters is that the people who live in those areas are comfortable with the system they have. That is why consulting people and referendums—
Baroness Hanham: It seems to me that the Basque country is a dreadful example to put forward. People in the Basque country fight each other all the time not only over the administration and the political system—I understand that—but over the question of
442
nationhood. That is a very poor example to put forward as an area which administers itself and has its own democratic point.
Lord Greaves: That may be the noble Baroness's view but it is not one with which I agree. There are problems in the Basque country. They are political problems and problems of separatism, which often arise after people have lived in a state of subjugation under highly centralised, dictatorial systems, of which the former Yugoslavia is a classic example. What has happened in the Basque country is very similar to that.
Whether the Spanish Government centrally have dealt with the matter as well as they should have done is a different issue. But the difficulties in the Basque country have nothing to do with the system of regional devolution there. In practice, that has been quite successful. The difficulties are far more national within Spain, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, may understand.
The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, also talked about different systems all over England. Again, there is no problem with that. Our objection to the amendment is that if regionalisation goes ahead and regions are willing to experiment, take it on board and do it, they should be allowed to do so. It is quite likely that under the present Government proposals, there will be one region only in England that wants to embrace it and go ahead. That is a likely outcome. I speak as someone from the North West, who knows the North West—
7 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: Will the noble Lord address the asymmetric point? One or two amendments ago the noble Baroness Lady Hamwee suggested a number of regional bodies that could be subsumed into the regional assemblies. But a great many of those bodies, including the learning and skills councils, which we discussed in some detail, are tied in line management terms with a national body. There is a national Learning and Skills Council as well as learning and skills councils and a national Sector Skills Council as well as sector skills councils. There is a national CBI organisation and a national environmental organisation. So if one gets one, two or even three parts of the country becoming asymmetrically regional what would happen with the break-up of these national bodies which are regionally delivered? It would create the most incredible confusion around the country.
Lord Greaves: I have greater faith in people's understanding of systems than does the noble Baroness. I do not think that it would cause incredible confusion.
The noble Baroness is not arguing—I say again—in favour of this amendment, which is only about whether it should be one, two, three regions or whatever, but against the whole tenor of the Bill and the whole process of going ahead with asymmetric devolution. We do not think it is a problem. The question is: what would other national organisations

443
do? Almost inevitably—as happened with Scotland and Wales in many cases—they would reorganise themselves in order to fit in with the structure of public decision-making. That is the way organisations work. The reason why they presently have an English national structure is because that is the way government in England is organised. If there were devolution for some regions in England organisations would match it in their own structures and systems. To suggest that it would be so confusing that no one could possibly understand it is stretching the argument a little far, to put it mildly.
I make one final point. I think that there is a good argument for going ahead with one region only. It is up to the people in the regions as to whether they want to go ahead. I mention the North East because, despite the fact that the Minister will tell me that he knows nothing about this and never hears this talk, everyone knows that region is the leading contender to go ahead. There is a good argument for saying, "Let the North East go ahead and test the Government's proposal, despite the grave scepticism many of us have about it from opposite ends, and let other areas see how it works". That would provide a model which would be a much better basis on which areas such as the North West could make their decision as to whether to go ahead.
The danger I foresee is that in the first wave too many regions will be forced to have referendums. The regions which would really benefit from regional government will lose the referendum because of the uncertainty; because of the effect it will have on local government; because people will be split between those who do not want it and who invent all kinds of bogeys about how much it will cost and so on; and those who cannot raise the enthusiasm to campaign for it because it is a fairly feeble offering. The referendum will then be put off almost indefinitely.
So I oppose the amendment simply because, among other things. I think there is a good case to test it out in one region only at the beginning.
Baroness Hamwee: To add to what my noble friend said, the asymmetric nature of the proposal does not trouble me—as it obviously did not trouble those drafting the amendment.
However, I wonder what faith people would have in politics if they turned out to vote in their region, voted in a majority "Yes" vote, but nothing happened because two other regions did not also vote "Yes" by a majority. Indeed, I wonder whether that proposal would skew the outcome. It would certainly skew the turnout, because someone might think, "My cousin Betty in Pendle says that the North West does not want an assembly, so it will not happen, because there will not be three. And it is raining, so I will stay at home in Skipton and watch the new series on television". That is a likely reaction to the proposal in the amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, instanced the position in Spain. I respectfully suggest to him that the history of Spain is entirely different from that of this country. The history
444
of a country impinges on the present. The local government structure in this country has evolved —if I can put it that way—from being a collection of kingdoms, which were first united by William the Conqueror and, to an even greater extent, by Edward VII. The tradition of government in this country has therefore come from the shires and towns. That is what we are left with; that is what we have.
The Deputy Prime Minister is an expert on the matter. He toured the country to discover whether regional government was desirable and possible. He came to the conclusion that it was. He has been selling the idea for many years but, unfortunately—this is my theory—many people would not buy it. Because a lot of people would not buy it, he feels that it is impossible for Parliament to impose a regional system on the country, which has county loyalties above all and, sometimes, even town loyalties.
We therefore have the Bill as a ruse, as has been mentioned, to create a domino effect. The most likely area votes first, and then others say, "We must have that as well. They have an elected assembly; we must have one too". Then one goes throughout the country and gets a vote in every part of England for regional assemblies. I do not think that it will happen that way, because, let us make no mistake, people are fond of their shires. Even our cricket teams, for example, are based on counties, not regions. There is no regional loyalty—not even in the North East. The nearest we come to it is in Yorkshire. We all know that people in parts of Yorkshire are very loyal to Yorkshire.
The North East is the favoured area because people there have seen what has happened in Scotland. They say, "Look what has happened in Scotland. They have their own Parliament". Of course, the North East will not have its own Parliament, nor its own tax-raising powers, as Scotland has. What is more, as we already know—we have been told it time and time again—the North East will not be favoured as Scotland is in the Barnett formula. It would he different if we were to alter the Barnett formula. But, in spite of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said that the formula should be ended, it is to be continued. That is why people in the North East feel that they would do better if they had a regional assembly. It simply will not happen.
I do not agree with the regions, as noble Lords know. But, if the Government were confident about their policy and that regional assemblies were a good thing, they would have a properly structured Bill for regions throughout the country. It is nonsense to suggest that this is the proper way forward. I do not think that it will work. Frankly, I do not know whether this amendment would help much; it would probably complicate matters even more. But perhaps that is a good thing. I would like to consider the matter further.
Lord Rooker: At the risk of winding anyone up, this is the cheekiest amendment that we have dealt with—the brass neck in proposing to slap down the variety and mishmash that is England. Long may that

445
mishmash continue; we do not want all of England to be the same. This amendment seeks to make all of it the same. The whole thrust of it is cheeky.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in his 12-minute speech, made some brilliant arguments against the amendment but spoke for so long that I have forgotten them, so I cannot use them. It is a bit rich to demand that three or more regions vote in favour of a regional assembly. It is a wrecking amendment that seeks to drive England to be uniform. The underlying thrust is that everywhere must be the same. We do not want England to be the same; we want to embrace its variety. We argue about the boundaries, but all of the country is not the same; therefore, people should have a choice. The idea that people in one or two regions could stop people elsewhere effectively exercising their choice undermines the democratic credentials of noble Lords.
The amendment is unworthy—I am getting even stronger now. It is cheeky and unworthy to come up with it. I could go through a long list, playing off one region against another, but I shall not fall into that trap. We should celebrate the mishmash of England. I realise that around 83 or 84 per cent of the UK's population live in England. The United Kingdom is unbalanced—long may that continue. But it is wrong in principle to seek to drive the system to be the same for everybody. Noble Lords should think better of it. I cannot believe that, even if its supporters thought that they would obtain a majority, they would seriously seek to include it in the Bill. I challenge them to say that, even if they thought that there was majority support for the amendment, they would not press it. I certainly hope that they do not.
Baroness Hanham: Before the Minister sits down, the corollary of his argument about mishmash and uniformity is that, beneath the regional tier, one does nothing—one does not form uniformity below the tier of government.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Rooker: We are not seeking uniformity—no, no, no. In some regions, there will be unitary districts or, maybe, unitary counties. It will not be the same in every region. Some districts that are single tier may join or overlap because of the boundary review. The Boundary Committee will not come up with the same pattern for every region; I am absolutely certain of that.
Baroness Blatch: If they are unitary authorities, they will be the same. Whether merged districts or county councils, they will have exactly the same functions and will be uniform unitary authorities, unless something new that we do not know about is happening and powers are to be moved around all over the place. They will be unitary authorities with unitary powers, and they will have uniform powers throughout the land.
Lord Rooker: As I said, they will be unitary, but they will not be the same, in the way that the noble Baroness
446
puts it. A unitary county is not the same as a unitary district. Other districts will be considered. It will not be the same pattern in every region. By definition, the regions are different, but "No new tiers" is the mantra, and we are sticking to it.
Even at this late stage, I challenge noble Lords opposite to say whether, if they got the votes, they would seriously put this amendment on the statute book.
Lord Hanningfield: I am sad that I had to be the one who proposed this cheeky and unworthy amendment, as the Minister called it. This one fell to my turn.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred to two bad examples, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, said, Spain is about the worst possible example of the variation of regions. There is great unhappiness in Spain. One knows only too well what is happening in the Basque area, and Catalonia sees itself as being divorced from the rest of the country. I do not want to see us doing the same thing in England, making one part separate from the rest.
I agree with the Minister that one does not want everything to be the same. One of the great virtues of England is that Cornwall is enormously different from Cumbria. Everywhere should be different. The suggested system of eight regions is more uniform than the system that we have. I like the diversity of the current system. I have been in local government since I was about 20, and the fact that there have been metropolitan areas, county areas, district areas and London boroughs has added to the spice of life in local government. I would rather see that continue than have one unitary system in the country.
I return to our earlier point. This is a constitutional issue. It is changing the system. There are no natural regions in this country. As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, said, we have counties and large metropolitan areas, and there are no natural regions. In many other countries, there are, for historical reasons, natural regions. We have what we have—large counties and small counties. Disturbing that is a big constitutional issue. That is why we proposed the amendment. We should ensure that a substantial number of people in England want to see regional government, not just in one area. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. Why should the North East be a guinea pig? Why should Northumberland suffer?
Lord Greaves: The answer to the question, which the noble Lord might like to consider, is that it wishes to be a guinea pig.
Lord Hanningfield: I doubt that Northumberland and Durham wish to be guinea pigs. In fact, I know that Northumberland does not. The people whom I know there are not very supportive of the concept. I have been to several meetings with people from Durham. They are busy trying to make a unitary county out of Durham county. There is a lot of

447
unhappiness. I doubt that all the people in that area wish it to be a guinea pig, even if there is a majority on the question of a referendum.
The proposed developments for England lead us into a minefield. I must say to the Minister that we would have the gall to put the provision into the statute book, if we had the votes, so I shall test the opinion of the House.
7.19 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 39A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 19; Not-Contents, 53.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Blatch, B.

Hanham, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Hanningfield, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Byford, B.

Marlesford, L.

Onslow, E.

Colwyn, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Renton, L.

Courtown, E.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Cox, B.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Dixon-Smith, L.

Wilcox, B. [Teller]

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Addington, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Amos, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord

Andrews, B.

Chancellor)

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Borrie, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brennan, L.

[Teller]

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Carter, L.

Mitchell, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Craigavon, V.

Rennard, L.

Crawley, B.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Rooker, L.

Desai, L.

Russell, E.

Donoughue, L.

Sawyer, L.

Dubs, L,

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Simon, V.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Greaves, L.

Whitty, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Wilkins, B.

Hamwee, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.(Lord

Haskel, L.

Privy Seal)

Hayman, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.29 p.m.
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.

Apple and Pear Research Council (Dissolution) Order 2003
7.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, I shall speak also to the second Motion.
The orders seek to transfer the work of the Apple and Pear Research Council to the Horticultural Development Council by dissolving the Apple and Pear Research Council and extending the HDC's remit to include apples and pears. Both councils are executive non-departmental public bodies funded by a statutory levy on growers and with a remit to commission research and development.
The Horticultural Development Council raises about £3.6 million from the levy, of which about 11 per cent is spent on administrative expenses. The Apple and Pear Research Council is a much smaller organisation. Its levy has been declining with a regrettably contracting apple and pear industry. It raised just under £261,000 in the year ending 31st March 2002 when its administrative expenses were running in excess of 33 per cent of income.
A statutory review of the APRC took place last year and included an independent economic evaluation. The report of the evaluation concluded that there continues to be a requirement for a levy-funded organisation carrying out near-market R&D in support of the apple and pear industry and recommended that the functions of the APRC and HDC should be merged. The continuation of a separate development council solely for the apple and pear industry was seen as unsustainable in the face of declining levy income and the proportion of the council's income that was being devoted to running costs. The recommendations of the economic evaluation were subject to consultation with the industry, which was supportive of the proposed merger of the two councils.
The Horticultural Development Council (Amendment) Order 2003 will make a number of changes. It will allow the HDC to raise a levy from growers of apples and pears; add an additional member to the council to represent the interests of growers of apples and pears; extend the council's remit to allow for market research and promotional activities, thus implementing recommendation 28 of the report of the policy commission on the future of food and farming, the Curry commission; and it will clarify the council's health and safety remit.
Although the amendment order increases the maximum permissible rate of levy for apple and pear growers, which currently stands at 50p above the levy rate of £24.50 per hectare, this does not represent an increase to the current rate but allows scope for future increases.
The Apple and Pear Research Council (Dissolution) Order 2003 will wind up the council and transfer its assets and liabilities to the Secretary of State. Once those liabilities have been dealt with, the remaining assets will be transferred to the HDC to fund apple and pear research.
The merger of the two councils can only be of benefit to payers of the apple and pear levy. I am pleased that the industry—and, indeed, the horticultural industry generally—has given its approval to a move that will make it stronger in the future. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Whitty.)
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that clear explanation of the two orders. We on these Benches support the move described by the Minister.
It is extremely important that the research and development functions of the HDC and the Apple and Pear Research Council are merged. That will add strength to both bodies, particularly to the smaller body, and to the apple and pear industry. It is important that the functions of quality research into crop protection, reduction of input costs, increasing yields and efficiency, improving the quality of produce and making better use of post-harvesting technology are included. We all want to see the industry thrive.
The amalgamation of the two councils will bring economies of scale, which we welcome. However, we are concerned about the future and the long-term financial commitment of the Government to research. The HDC will extend its remit to cover market research and promotional activities at its centre at East Mailing in the heart of Kent. As the Minister pointed out, this will enhance the recommendation of the Curry commission.
In another place, my honourable friend John Hayes raised the wider issue of long-term horticultural research and resources. The Minister clarified the issue in his response but I should like to put on record that, although we are dealing today with the apple and pear industry, we are still anxious that research into horticulture generally is encouraged and supported by the Government. We welcome the two orders.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we on these Benches can see the necessity now for this merger. The research work commissioned by DEFRA into the future of the two bodies was carried out, I believe, in 2001. I hope that that will be seen in future as the low point for British produce. It is already on the
450
upturn: farmers' markets have taken off well since then. The Curry commission pointed out the importance of marketing our produce in a different way. Supermarkets are now at least seized of the issue. When one looks at their shelves, one sees that they are not doing a great deal about it at present, but their literature indicates that they understand it.
Perhaps the Minister will clarify the following points. Some eight recommendations came out of the research at the University of Reading. I shall highlight only one, but I ask that all eight should be taken on board. I refer to the recommendation that there should be a five-year research and technology transfer strategy for tree fruit. I echo the words from the Conservative Benches regarding the importance of research and of the Government providing sufficient support. I ask for that recommendation in particular to be taken on board.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing these orders before the House. I agree with everything that my noble friend said. There is great concern throughout agriculture about the present state of the industry. The apple and pear industry is no exception. I only hope that this change will help to halt the fact that the industry is shrinking, and that it will help the industry to increase part of its output.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am grateful for the support of noble Lords who have spoken. The amount of research funded by the HDC, now to include the Apple and Pear Research Council, is only part of the total support for research into horticulture. A significant part of the Government's expenditure on horticulture, which is itself the largest single element in agricultural research—10 per cent of the horticultural research directly funded by government—relates to apples and pears. The figure last year was £1.1 million. So the apples and pears sector is already receiving a significant proportion of the horticultural research funding.
That recognises the need—indicated by the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller—for an upgrading of the performance of the apples and pears sector. It has been going through bad times in terms of its ability to compete with imports, and in some of the downstream sectors as well. So we are concerned to ensure that the apples and pears sector has a prominent and important research element.
So far as concerns general expenditure on horticulture, the noble Baroness will be aware that an exercise is taking place on the future of HRI, which was the recipient of a very substantial proportion of government research. We hope for a constructive outcome from that. A part of the research will deal with the East Mailing site, which is adjacent to the headquarters of the research councils, but some will deal with the need to bring the totality of horticultural research closer to the market and to enable all sectors of horticulture to have an adequate research base. The Government are committed to that. The total research

451
budget for DEFRA, as for other government departments, has been protected and horticulture will continue to be a major element. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Horticultural Development Council (Amendment) Order 2003
7.38 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have already spoken to this Motion. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill
Returned from the Commons with certain of the Lords amendments agreed to; with certain other Lords amendments agreed to with amendments and with the remaining Lords amendments disagreed to, with reasons for such disagreements; it was ordered that the Commons amendments and reasons be printed.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before eight o'clock.

  Ulster Scots Language
  Ulster Scots Language
  Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the WEU Assembly: UK Delegation
  Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the WEU Assembly: UK Delegation
  China: Human Rights
  China: Human Rights
  Medical Research Council Facilities in the Gambia
  Medical Research Council Facilities in the Gambia
  Zimbabwe: President Mugabe's Honorary Knighthood
  Zimbabwe: President Mugabe's Honorary Knighthood
  Iraq: Legality of Armed Force
  Iraq: Legality of Armed Force
  Southern Lebanon
  Southern Lebanon
  Terrorism Threat: Information
  Terrorism Threat: Information
  Iraqi Nationals Resident in UK
  Iraqi Nationals Resident in UK
  Local Authority Social Housing Grant
  Local Authority Social Housing Grant
  Titan Bridgelayer Vehicles
  Titan Bridgelayer Vehicles
  Armed Forces Pension Scheme: Unmarried Partners
  Armed Forces Pension Scheme: Unmarried Partners
  Taxable Incomes
  Taxable Incomes