Sitting of 24 March 2003

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

    Police Officers
    Andrew Selous: What recent representations he has received about the retention of police officers in police forces near London. [104106]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): We have received letters from hon. Members, chief constables, police authorities, the Police Federation and members of the public about retention in London and the south-east. Since the autumn, we have been working with chief constables and police authorities to develop practical solutions. As a result, on 13 March we announced a package of measures to address the problems, which was
    2
    welcomed by the consortium of London and south-east forces, and we will monitor the effectiveness of those measures.
    Andrew Selous: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he accept, however, that for far too long the Metropolitan police's recruitment problems have been solved by taking officers from neighbouring forces? Police officers in Bedfordshire receive around £6,000 more if they transfer to the Met, as well as free travel within 70 miles of Charing Cross. Will the Minister undertake to consider reviewing the London weighting or the regional allowances to forces such as Bedfordshire?
    Mr. Ainsworth: I would not seek to minimise the problems suffered by the hon. Gentleman's force, but the allegation that he throws at the Met is not as simple as he suggests. Between April 2002 and February this year, the Met took on 2,631 new recruits. There was a big transfer into the Met, but many officers transferred out too. Yes, we need solutions, and there are other options that we can consider in order to help the hon. Gentleman's force, but he should accept that the problems are caused by the substantial increase in recruitment to the police service that is taking place across the country.
    Margaret Moran: Does my hon. Friend accept that there are problems in Bedfordshire and Luton? Is he aware that Luton police say that the problem centres not on a need for additional money, but on retention? Will he consider how we might, for example, instigate a transfer fee to ensure that police recruits who are trained in Luton and Bedfordshire are retained in our area, or to ensure that if they move to other areas, we receive compensation so that we can swiftly replace experienced police officers?
    Mr. Ainsworth: We would be prepared to consider my hon. Friend's proposal, as well as any others, as we try to find a solution, but we do not want to prevent

    3
    transfers, because they can be positive in enabling the transference of knowledge between police forces. We are considering other options to do with whether we should extend the special priority payment scheme to more officers in south-east forces to help with retention. We will take my hon. Friend's comments on board as we consider ways to deal with this difficult problem, which has been thrown up while we are in the process of substantially increasing recruitment to the police service.
    Mr. James Paice: I am sure that the Minister realises that the problem is not just money—there are retention problems in forces around London and elsewhere—but morale. When will the Government do something to boost police morale and allow officers to get on with the job by reducing the bureaucracy and paperwork that face them? I have here a complete file of 25 forms that have to be filled in for the simplest arrest, then photocopied six times. When will the Government deliver on their rhetoric and reduce paperwork, which has not been changed at all for several years despite all the talk about reduction?
    Mr. Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we need to do everything we can to try to reduce police bureaucracy. Some measures that we implemented through the Police Reform Act 2002, which was opposed in part by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends—
    Mr. Paice: Nonsense.
    Mr. Ainsworth: But the hon. Gentleman opposed the very measures designed to make our police service more effective at the front line. He knows that to be true.
    We are considering how we can improve the effectiveness of the police service by providing it with a range of tools—for example, an increased range of fixed penalty notices—and we should be able to expect a more positive response from Conservative Front Benchers in developing those proposals.

    Drugs
    Lawrie Quinn: What plans he has to support communities in the fight against drugs.[104107]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): We accept that communities have a major role to play in tackling drug-related crime and antisocial behaviour. The communities against drugs programme has been successful, but we have decided to target those areas most affected with a £46 million programme for the 30 basic crime units that face the greatest difficulty from the expansion of drug treatment and testing orders, and the expansion of after-care work for those coming out of treatment—including those coming out of prison.
    Lawrie Quinn: My right hon. Friend will know that market towns and rural areas in my part of North Yorkshire suffer from the scourge of drugs activity. The North Yorkshire police force has done an excellent job in building relationships with communities to fight that
    4
    evil. Would my right hon. Friend or one of his colleagues be prepared to visit North Yorkshire soon to hear about the excellent initiatives in the fight against drugs in rural areas and to support the sterling efforts of the North Yorkshire police force to protect the many sensitive military bases in the county?
    Mr. Blunkett: I was pleased to come to North Yorkshire about 15 months ago to see the work that was being done, and I would be happy, as would my hon. and right hon. Friends, to enjoy the spring sunshine in Scarborough, which would do us the world of good. When we were there, we acknowledged the major challenges in dealing with drug taking, particularly in coastal towns such as those that my hon. Friend represents.
    I hope that the House will forgive me if I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), whom we will all miss on the Front Bench. He did a sterling job. We will also miss from the Opposition Front Bench—although he is with us this afternoon; he has not died—the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins). We shall miss his company on these occasions.
    Mr. Charles Hendry: Will the Secretary of State do more to encourage drugs awareness education in primary schools? Is he aware that many excellent schemes around the country rely almost entirely on voluntary funding? Will he talk to his colleagues at the Department for Education and Skills to see how those schemes can be given more support and more resources to carry out their vital work?
    Mr. Blunkett: In recent years, there have been substantial improvements in the ways in which sensitive drug policies are applied in schools. Coverage is almost 100 per cent. in secondary schools, and almost 90 per cent. in primary schools. However, a lot of work still has to be done, and people will need proper training to do it. We have to be very sensitive when dealing with the age group that the hon. Gentleman describes, but it is essential to start schemes with children of that age so that they can understand the dangers around them and what is pushed on them when they are out of school.
    John Mann: The Dutch Government say that treatment of heroin addicts more than pays for itself. If the Secretary of State agrees, will we this year in this country see the money to treat all heroin addicts within 24 hours?
    Mr. Blunkett: I repeat the tribute that I have paid before to my hon. Friend for the work that he and those who work with him have done in his constituency on this issue. I remember his asking the Prime Minister whether, given that there was a three to one gain in terms of investment in tackling heroin, he could have such a three to one gain in his constituency. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was sitting next to me at the time, and I said that I would discuss the matter with him.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: I join the Secretary of State in his tribute to the right hon. Member

    5
    for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) and my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) for the work that they have done.
    Does the Secretary of State accept that many people at the sharp end in drug treatment and many people in education share in our criticism that the system is not working well enough? There are far too few residential places for intensive rehabilitation for users of hard drugs. Does the Secretary of State accept that, for all the rhetoric, the reality at the sharp end is that drug professionals feel that not enough is being done and that the Government are sending all the wrong signals, especially to young people at school?
    Mr. Blunkett: I do not accept—nor do drug professionals—that we are sending the wrong signals. Professionals are entirely on board with our commitment to tackle class A hard drugs and to ensure that the £500 million of additional resources being pumped in over the next three years will have the impact that we want. However, I accept that it is critical to ensure that being sent to prison is not the only way in which a person can be given secure residential treatment. That is why arrest referral through drug treatment and testing orders is so important. Intermediate programmes that do not rely on extremely expensive residential care can have an important impact.
    Mr. Bill Tynan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that resources for parent education are absolutely essential if we are to make real progress in ensuring that communities are able to tackle the drugs issue?
    Mr. Blunkett: Informing and supporting families is absolutely critical, and it has been a theme of mine since I first attended a day conference organised for and on behalf of the families of drug users to ensure that we do that. I want to pay tribute to the Community Fund—I do not always do so—for the work that it has done in supporting that endeavour, and we need to do a lot more through the additional resources that the Government are allocating.

    Asylum Seekers
    Sir Teddy Taylor: What the impact is of the international conventions which the UK has signed on the length of time taken to determine asylum applications; and if he will make a statement.[104108]
    The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes): The international conventions to which the UK is a signatory have no direct effect on the length of time taken to determine asylum applications. They simply provide the framework in which we consider those applications.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: As international conventions and even European Union association agreements are used as a means to extend asylum and nationality applications for many years—as the Minister can see from a case that I have reported to her, which commenced nine and a half years ago—will the
    6
    Government examine carefully the possibility of withdrawing from such conventions, thereby speeding up decision making? Does she agree that, if we are to maintain the good race and community relations that we have always enjoyed in the UK, that issue should be looked at very carefully?
    Beverley Hughes: I certainly agree that it is imperative for the sake of community relations and cohesion in this country that we reform the asylum system. The case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and I thank him for identifying it for me, has been protracted not as a result of either of the main conventions, but because the person concerned and his representatives have used the successive appeals that were possible under the Conservative Government—a practice that we have now stopped. In fact, the way to speed up the process is to tackle abuse exactly as we are doing—by bearing down on unfounded cases, removing in-country right of appeal, deterring unfounded claims by taking away support, strengthening our borders with France, Belgium and Holland, and detecting more clandestine entrants. It is that package of measures, and others that we will introduce if necessary, that will reduce delays, and not the latest version of the constantly changing policy from those on the hon. Gentleman's own Front Bench.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: Will my hon. Friend tell the House what advice she is giving to people interviewing new asylum seekers in the United Kingdom, in view of the Court of Appeal's decision last week?
    Beverley Hughes: We gave further instructions on the procedures following the High Court's decision some weeks ago. In fact, I he Court of Appeal overturned the High Court on all the key legal principles and found in the Government's favour. Some really important principles were involved—for example, that the burden of proof of whether the claim was made as soon as reasonably practicable rests with the applicant, not the Home Office; that the measure does not contravene the European convention on human rights; and that destitution of itself does not engage article 3. The measures can operate as Parliament intended, and we have adjusted procedures to take account of the court's findings on procedural measures.
    Mr. George Osborne: The Minister will remember that the Prime Minister told David Frost that the Government were re-examining their international treaty obligations on asylum. To reassure those of us who suspected that that was just a throwaway remark to get good headlines, will the Minister tell us how the reassessment is coming along and when she plans to publish the results?
    Beverley Hughes: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows precisely where we are with that commitment. We have every confidence that the measures that we have introduced, which are already showing results in reducing the intake of asylum claims, will continue and that we will reach the target that we want to achieve by

    7
    September as a result of those measures. We will not have to consider coming out of those conventions, and we have no plans at the moment to do so.
    Fiona Mactaggart: Are the instructions to immigration officers about how to interpret whether someone has applied for asylum as soon as possible available on the internet or in other ways, in the same way as are other instructions to immigration officers?
    Beverley Hughes: Certainly, I have seen that guidance. I cannot give an answer as to whether it is available on the internet, but I will make inquiries and write to my hon. Friend about that.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: In east Kent, with its proximity to Dover, we are particularly affected by this problem. In the light of the Minister's earlier answers to two of my hon. Friends, if the Government plan to stay inside the convention, is there any truth to the rumours leaked in the Sunday papers 10 days ago that the Government are considering processing asylum claimants offshore? My constituents' real concern is that race relations, overcrowding and other connected issues are getting progressively worse as the Government talk about the matter.
    Beverley Hughes: As the hon. Gentleman will understand, the key issue is to reduce the intake of claims so that we can have stability, order and rationality in the asylum system. That is why the measures that the Home Secretary and I have been talking about were introduced, both in legislation and in our negotiations with France—that is imperative. Equally, we want to deal better with refugees generally. The hon. Gentleman will know that the vast majority have no hope of entering this country, whether clandestinely or in any other way. That is why we have been developing proposals for zones of protection outside this country and means of processing people in transit places between source countries and Europe. The Prime Minister and the Home Secretary will discuss those issues further in the Council later this week.

    Police Statistics
    Tony Cunningham: How many (a) civilian police support staff and (b) police officers are in post. [104110]
    Angela Watkinson: If he will make a statement on police numbers in London. [104113]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): I am confident that the target that we have set of 130,000 police officers by the end of this month will be substantially exceeded. We will publish figures shortly on the situation up to September last year. To March last year, we had record numbers of 129,600 police officers and 58,900 civilian support staff. In London, there were 27,000 officers and 10,700 civilian staff.
    Tony Cunningham: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. That is certainly reflected in my experience in west Cumbria, where the police tell me that they have
    8
    never known numbers as high as they are at present. In terms of trying to increase numbers of special constables, may I say that we have been waiting some time for the final approval of a pilot scheme in Workington to pay police specials? Will he take this opportunity to give the go-ahead for what I know will be a very successful scheme?
    Mr. Blunkett: We have received an application for a pilot programme from the Cumbria police for 10 specials working eight hours or more to be paid a trial sum of £1,000, in addition to meeting tax and other liabilities. I am pleased to say that we have approved that for one year from 1 April. We will want to monitor that project and see how we can expand it across the country.
    Angela Watkinson: The allocation of police officers to the London borough of Havering has stayed static, at 334, for some considerable time. Given the huge concentration of late-night entertainment places in the adjacent constituency of Romford, which makes huge demands on the Havering police, and the two fast roads going through the borough—the A12 and the Al27—would the Secretary of State undertake a reassessment of Havering's police needs?
    Mr. Blunkett: I can certainly ask the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to look at that, including the way in which the use of community support officers, perhaps in conjunction with police allocated to Romford, would release full-time trained police time to deal with the antisocial behaviour and other difficulties that the hon. Lady has raised with the Met police and the commander in her area. I am sure that the commissioner will be sensitive to that.
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Although increases in the number of police are obviously welcome, is it not also important that all police forces continually reassess the way in which qualified police officers are being used and look for opportunities to use civilians to undertake duties that they can undertake? In that context, is my right hon. Friend aware that in Milton Keynes we have effectively had an extra 30 police officers this year because of extra money from the Government to fill backroom posts, which has released police officers to do the job for which they are qualified? Is he reviewing the situation to see whether there are more opportunities like that?
    Mr. Blunkett: I am pleased that there have been additions of that sort, together with the back-up for the police family, so that civilianisation and expansion of police numbers go hand in hand. I also draw attention to the fact that along with the crime fighting fund, some local authorities are now willing to join with the police in providing street and neighbourhood wardens and to contribute towards the police service directly, including buying in community support officers. I hope that we will see a great deal more of that in future.
    Simon Hughes: First, I associate the Liberal Democrats with the warm tributes and thanks to the right hon. Member for Southampton. Itchen (Mr. Denham) and the hon.

    9
    Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) for their work in their parties and their honourable resignations from the Front Bench.
    The Home Secretary will know that we welcome the increase in police numbers, but he has said that police numbers are not everything—what counts is whether each community feels that the police in their area are visible, responsive, effective and accountable. I wonder whether he accepts that if we are to reduce crime and the fear of crime even more, the decision about how to deploy numbers force by force must be left to the chief constable in each local police authority. Would he be willing, on a cross-party basis, to agree with police authorities and chief constables to produce an independent report providing advice and guidance about how many police we need in each area, so that communities around Britain can have the number of police that they are calling for to bring down crime?
    Mr. Blunkett: That is an interesting idea, which I am quite happy to discuss with the Association of Chief Police Officers. However, the new national centre for policing excellence and the way in which chief constables are now sharing information, including that collected by the inspectorate and used by the police standards unit, are assisting with the formula used for the distribution of police within police authority areas. Police authorities themselves will want to look at that, because decentralisation and devolvement must involve greater responsibility, not through one individual—the chief constable—but a collective responsibility through the police authority itself and by consultation with local community groups. I think that we would all like a great deal more of that.
    Jim Dobbin: It is my understanding that up to 57 additional officers are about to be appointed to the Rochdale division, which serves my constituency of Heywood and Middleton. Can the Home Secretary assure me that those police officers will be used on the streets, where they are most needed?
    Mr. Blunkett: Every endeavour will be made to do so. Chief constables, including the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, who made an honest appraisal of what happened 10 years ago, have witnessed a sea change in attitudes, ensuring both that officers are in the community getting intelligence but also relating to the community. The work that we are doing on the back of the O'Dowd taskforce to slim down paperwork and bureaucracy, and the measures that must be introduced to make that effective, will be critical. My right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) was in fact responsible for initiating "The diary of a police officer", looking at 400 police officers and what they did. That, of course, revealed what we all know—far too many of them are never on the street. If they are, they spend too much time having to deal with those whom they arrest.
    Mr. Oliver Letwin: I begin by joining the House in noting with regret and personal admiration the departure of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) and the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham). If I am honest, I have to say that I lament the first and celebrate the
    10
    second—my hon. Friend was a huge support, and the right hon. Gentleman was a dangerously effective opponent.
    What does the Home Secretary think is the required number of police officers in England and Wales to provide a proper police service?
    Mr. Blunkett: On the right hon. Gentleman's first point, I lament both those Members going, for different reasons.
    I believe that the requisite number of police officers is a minimum of 132,500 by spring 2004, and a substantial increase mirroring the sort of resources that we have been putting in year after year, but I do not believe that that will be achieved by demolishing completely the establishment of other parts of my Department.
    Mr. Letwin: I do not know whether the Home Secretary thought that that was an answer, but as he knows, having reflected on the matter ourselves, we have provided a genuine answer. We believe that an extra 40,000 officers, taking us to about 170,000, are necessary. I imagine that in the course of the past couple of years, he has reflected on this matter. I am sure that there is a target in the Home Office—the one genuine target that would really be worth hitting—for the actual number of police officers required to police England and Wales. Will he tell us what that number is?
    Mr. Blunkett: I gave the right hon. Gentleman an answer—a figure that was substantially above the falling number that we inherited in 1997, when a decision had not been taken by the then Conservative Government to abolish the whole nationality and immigration department and transfer those resources to paying for the police. I say to him that I do not believe for a moment that the Opposition have come up with a figure that they calculated as the totality required for England and Wales as a What they did, opportunistically, was see what the budget for immigration and nationality was at the moment and decide to switch it into police numbers. Of course, policing our boundaries and those who come here is just as important as policing our streets.
    Mr. Letwin: I wonder whether the Home Secretary is aware—in fact, I say that rhetorically, because I am sure he is—that our numbers are based on a comparison of New York and London. Why does he think that London is capable o f being policed as effectively as New York with some 8,000 fewer police officers? Does he admit that there may be some connection between the fact that New York has reduced its crime rates by about 60 per cent. over a decade and the fact that it has a proper number of police officers? Does he not believe that that is what is required not only in London, but in the rest of England and Wales?
    Mr. Blunkett: For a variety of reasons, I intend to be in New York very shortly, and I will talk to the present commissioner and mayor about the situation, not least including what they count in terms of the overall strength of the New York police. Of course, that would now include what we call community support officers and the British Transport police. I accept that substantial extra numbers are required in the capital—a

    11
    view that we share with the Mayor of London. Between the Mayor of London, the Metropolitan Police Authority and the Home Office, I am determined to ensure that we get those numbers and sustain them, and recruit quality police officers, rather than simply making this issue a numbers game. People on the street with quality training and the right support are what all of us want to see.

    Under-age Drinkers
    Andy Burnham: What recent advice he has given to police forces regarding confiscation of alcohol from under-age drinkers. [104111]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): The Licensing Bill now before Parliament will, if it is enacted, amend existing legislation to allow the police to confiscate all alcohol, including sealed and opened containers, from young people who are drinking in public places. Guidance will be issued on the extended power before its commencement.
    Andy Burnham: May I tell the Minister that many of my constituents are sick and tired of waking up to smashed bus shelters on a Saturday morning and to the other hallmarks of an under-age drinking spree? I welcome the measures introduced in the Licensing Bill, but may I ask him to urge all police forces in England—especially the Greater Manchester police—to make full use of the new powers that are being given to them? May I further ask him to look carefully at what more can be done to clamp down on off-licences that knowingly and persistently sell to under-18s?
    Mr. Ainsworth: I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who I know has campaigned long and hard for the Licensing Bill and other measures seeking to bear down on the problem of under-age drinking and some of the problems that flow from it. He will be aware that in the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, we strengthened the law to place a clear duty on retailers to take positive steps to ensure that their customers were over 18, and also placed test purchasing on a statutory footing. We are as committed as he has been over a long period to clamping down on under-age drinking and the antisocial behaviour that sometimes goes with it.
    Bob Spink: But the police did have the power to remove alcohol from under-age drinkers until the Government removed it in 2001. Will the Minister explain why the Government removed the power? When the power is returned to the police, will he ensure that they will have the power to remove cans of alcohol—whether open or not—held by people over 18 who might supply them to people under 18? My original private Member's Bill gave the police that power.
    Mr. Ainsworth: The measures in tie Licensing Bill will do precisely that. I have listened to the hon. Gentleman continue to campaign for something that he knows to be on its way, agreed to and making legislative progress, so I congratulate him on his political opportunism.
    Glenda Jackson: While I welcome the measures inherent in the Bill, could more
    12
    be done if the Government approached the alcohol and brewing industries and asked them to be infinitely more selective with their advertising? In many instances, such advertising blurs the line between drinks suitable for those above the legal age of drinking and drinks suitable for those below it.
    Mr. Ainsworth: My hon. Friend is right that much could be done by the industry. Regular meetings are held between the industry and Ministers and we try to work with it to improve the code of practice that applies to advertising. Some progress has been made through our direct contact with organisations such as the Portman Group, but I do not pretend that the situation is nearly as good as it could be. I assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to encourage the industry to advertise responsibly.

    Rural Policing
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What recent representations he has received on the level of rural policing. [104112]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Hilary Benn): The Home Office has received a number of representations about the funding of rural policing. Following consultation on the police funding formula last summer, it was decided to retain the rural policing fund. Police authorities in sparsely populated areas will this year share £30 million.
    Miss McIntosh: Is the Minister aware that this year's budget for North Yorkshire police is a standstill budget and that there is a shortfall of £8.2 million? That meant that the police precept required a massive increase to enable rural policing to continue at the same level as the previous year. The Minister will know that the Vale of York is equidistant between Menwith Hill and Fylingdales and that a sizeable demonstration at Menwith Hill on Saturday required the presence of six police forces in addition to North Yorkshire police. That will have a big impact on the North Yorkshire police budget and might jeopardise rural policing in the forthcoming year. What additional resources will he make available?
    Hilary Benn: I am, indeed, aware of the issue that the hon. Lady raises in relation to the policing of demonstrations. As she will know, North Yorkshire received, courtesy of the Home Secretary, an additional £1 million for policing the demonstrations at Fylingdales and Menwith Hill. My right hon. Friend will look sympathetically at further representations made by police authorities about the policing of current demonstrations.
    Mr. Ian Cawsey: In a recent conversation with our chief constable, he told me that policing in the Isle of Axholme, which is one of the most rural parts of my constituency, had been more than doubled due to a combination of the crime fighting fund and the rural policing fund. However, he regretted that that was subject to an annual review of rural policing

    13
    grants. Will the Minister, on behalf of the Government, assure him that the fund will give long-term funding to police authority budgets?
    Hilary Benn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the improvements to policing made available by the funding to which he referred. I hope that I can reassure him by telling him that having established the rural policing fund, we do not intend to get rid of it.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Is not the Minister being disingenuous? In reality, giving a standstill budget is effectively cutting what is available under the fund. All four Welsh police forces have had standstill rural fund budgets, despite the increasing cost of fuel, insurance and so on, which means that they are less able to do the work that they are supposed to do in rural areas. The Government, to their credit, identified the need for the fund. Unfortunately, however, they now seem to be back-pedalling.
    Hilary Benn: I concur with the hon. Gentleman's final point; the rural policing fund did not exist until it was created by this Government precisely because we recognised the strength of the argument put forward by him and other hon. Members who represent rural areas. However, we need to look at the funding of police forces in the round, and the rural policing fund is only one element of the resources that have gone in. This year, the cash rise overall has been 6.2 per cent., which feeds its way into police authority budgets through both the core grant and the additional funding that police authorities get. It is precisely for that reason that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was able to refer a moment ago to the record number of police officers that we now have in this country.

    Criminals
    Mr. Richard Bacon: If he will make a statement on access by the Office of Fair Trading to information on convicted criminals held on the police national computer. [104114]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Wills): Decisions on access to information on the police national computer are primarily a matter for the Association of Chief Police Officers. Direct access by the Office of Fair Trading was approved in 2001 to enable it to undertake its role as a prosecution agency. An application for access for the purpose of checks on applicants for consumer credit licences was not approved at that time because it was considered that such checks would be more appropriately made through the Criminal Records Bureau once the basic disclosure service became available. As the priority for the CRB is now to ensure that the demand for higher level disclosures is fully met, I understand that the OFT is considering making a fresh application for direct access to the police national computer as an interim measure.
    Mr. Bacon: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. Will he tell us what advice the Home Office will be giving to the Association of Chief Police Officers on
    14
    this matter? Dodgy consumer credit companies prey on some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in the country, and there seems to be little point in holding criminal records on people if a body as important as the Office of Fair Trading cannot get routine access to that information before deciding whether to grant or withhold a consumer credit licence.
    Mr. Wills: The hon. Gentleman rightly draws attention to the importance of this issue. It is a matter for the Association of Chief Police Officers, but the OFT has been advised that the next committee meeting that will decide on such access will take place in April. It might help the hon. Gentleman to understand that, since the original application was made in 2001, circumstances have changed in two respects. First, the Criminal Records Bureau service that it was then thought would be available is not currently available. Secondly, recent advances in information technology have made security of access much more possible. I am sure that ACPO will bear both those factors in mind as and when the OFT makes such an application.

    Crime Detection
    Mr. David Amess: If he will make a statement on the crime detection rate.[104115]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): The Government have taken a number of measures to improve the detection rate. These include the creation of the police standards unit, which has a fundamental remit to increase detections; the increased use of technology, including automatic number plate recognition and video identification parades; a major expansion of resources for forensic science; and the rolling out of the national intelligence model. These measures should deliver a significant improvement in detection rates, and. force performance is being tracked nationally by means of the police performance monitors launched last month by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham).
    Mr. Amess: I congratulate policemen and women throughout Southend and Essex on their magnificent attempts to detect crime, but is the Minister aware of the increasing feeling among the general public that it is a complete waste of time to send Members of Parliament to this place to legislate when the laws that we make are increasingly not being enforced and when crimes are not being detected? Will the Minister tell the House what advice he would give to senior officers as to how they should deploy their scarce resources, in terms of striking a balance between detecting a huge number of less serious crimes and detecting those that are serious?
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Answer.
    Mr. Ainsworth: I am unable to answer for why people in the constituency of the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) feel that it is a waste of time sending Members to the House. He had probably best answer that for himself. To be serious, he should know that detection rates are not what they should be, so it is important that we seek to improve them, although that

    15
    is not the only responsibility for the police. They have to provide reassurance and visibility if we are to reduce the fear of crime in the same way that we have reduced most categories of crime, but there are important opportunities in terms of the use of technology, which can substantially bear on detection rates.
    The facility of video identification parades is massively more efficient in terms of quickly providing identities of suspects than the old system, and the gains have real potential. I hope that the hon. Gentleman continues to be interested as we try to roll out all those initiatives, which are designed to improve the detection rate and the confidence that his constituents have.
    Caroline Flint: As the days get longer and warmer, the bane of many people's lives in Don Valley and Doncaster are those people who illegally use motor bikes without insurance on footpaths, on estates where people live and on the streets. That is despite the fact that on any Sunday morning at any given point in my constituency, the regular white van pulls up to unload those motor bikes and the people who use them. What is my hon. Friend's advice for South Yorkshire police on having a strategy to tackle that bane of people's lives, which could lead to serious accident and death?
    Mr. Ainsworth: As my hon. Friend will be aware, we have strengthened the law through the Police Reform Act 2002, which was introduced in November, to deal with exactly the problems that she is talking about. If there is a particular problem in her locality that she wants to bring to my attention, I will most certainly raise it with the local police on her behalf.
    Mr. David Cameron: Will the Minister give us an update on the improvements in the burglary detection rate? Is he aware that in my west Oxfordshire constituency, a spate of burglaries has been carried out by a group believed to be based in the next-door county? What is the National Crime Squad doing in terms of targeting cross-border burglary to put my constituents' minds at rest? They do not feel that the problem is being dealt with.
    Mr. Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman knows that burglary rates have fallen substantially over recent years, but if there is a problem of the type he is talking about, it is not necessarily the case that we automatically call on the National Crime Squad to deal with it. There ought to be a reasonable level of cross-border co-operation. If there is not, I would be happy to hear from him as to why that is so.
    We provided additional funding through the police standards unit for enhanced forensic service, and the sponsoring of such an enhanced service for the Lincolnshire county force led to burglary detection rates increasing from 13.4 to 25 per cent. The hon. Gentleman can see from that that the use of some of those new techniques and the adequate use of forensic science can dramatically increase detection rates.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: Following that reply on the forensic service, is the Minister aware of the serious disquiet in the police that the proposed privatisation of that service could seriously compromise its priorities?
    Mr. Ainsworth: There is a review of the forensic service, not a proposed privatisation as the hon. Gentleman suggests, which is considering how the service can be delivered effectively and cost-effectively. I do not know whether he thinks that those reviews should not take place, but we most certainly think that they should.

    Asylum Estate (Dover)
    Mr. Gwyn Prosser: What plans he has to increase the asylum estate in the Dover constituency. [104117]
    The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes): There are no plans to put further asylum centres in the Dover constituency.
    Mr. Prosser: I thank my hon. Friend for her answer, and I know that her assurances will be well received by my constituents in Dover, who rightly believe that they have borne more than their fair share of responsibility for supporting and dealing with asylum seekers. Does she accept that the past poor performance of the National Asylum Support Service has given us bad decisions and inadequate consultations, which have led to great problems, especially with respect to asylum accommodation? What measures has she taken to improve the performance of NASS?
    Beverley Hughes: I agree that my hon. Friend's constituency has arguably borne more than its fair share of the difficulties involved in supporting asylum seekers. I thank him not just for the constructive way in which he has represented his constituents, but for recognising that we all have some responsibility for the problem.
    I hope my hon. Friend will acknowledge that the measures adopted in northern France have resulted in a big drop in the number of clandestine entrants arriving in Dover. I can tell him unequivocally that we will not create any more induction and removal centres for asylum seekers in Dover, or use Dover for any accommodation purposes beyond our existing contracts.
    As for NASS, I am trying to deal with all the issues my hon. Friend raised in the regionalisation and review that I have instituted, particularly communication and joint working between NASS and local authorities in the regional consortium.

    Prostitution
    Dr. Brian Iddon: What plans he has to review the law on prostitution. [104118]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Hilary Benn): My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is examining the scope for a review of prostitution, including the serious drug abuse, violent crime, trafficking, antisocial behaviour and damage to local communities often associated with it.
    Dr. Iddon: In a nine-month period last year, in a small part of my constituency, there were three murders. One of the victims was a man and two were young women, one regrettably pregnant, who were supporting a heroin habit through prostitution. Does it not make sense to take such young women off the streets and offer them clinically pure heroin, in a clinic, for their own safety?
    Hilary Benn: I am sorry to hear about the three murders. I agree that we need to do more to help those who have been drawn into prostitution because of a drug habit to end that habit. That is why all the work that the Government are doing to make drug treatment more available will be of benefit. It is also why, through the crime reduction programme, we are funding a number of projects. In particular, we are trying to help women and young people involved in prostitution to get out of the profession.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: Is the Minister aware of the huge rise in the number of cases of sexually transmitted disease, especially among young people, and of the threat of a spread of the AIDS epidemic through Europe from other continents? Would it not be far better to regulate prostitution in some way, so that prostitutes can be medically supervised and do not transmit diseases as they do now?
    Hilary Benn: I agree that it is important to provide proper health advice and support for those engaged in prostitution. Many voluntary organisations throughout the country are trying to provide such support, so that the health risks can be minimised both for those engaged in prostitution and for others.

    Paedophiles (Internet)
    Helen Jones: What steps he is taking to protect children from paedophiles operating on the Internet. [104120]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): Through the work of the taskforce on child protection on the internet, we have recently introduced measures in the Sexual Offences Bill to combat paedophile "grooming" both online and offline. We have also run a public awareness campaign, providing £2.5 million worth of supportive material for parents and children to increase awareness of the potential risks. Along with the internet industry, the taskforce has also published a good practice guide—a model for the internet industry which should help to provide safer online services for children.
    Helen Jones: While acknowledging what has been done so far, I think most Members believe that the sentences given to those who operate through the internet are still far too low. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking not just to track down those who use the
    18
    internet for purposes of paedophilia, but to ensure that when they are caught they are severely punished as a deterrent to others?
    Mr. Blunkett: I hope that with the wholehearted support of all parties in this House and the Lords, and without prevarication or delay, we will be able to introduce addition al sentences, including a sentence of up to life imprisonment for paying for sex with a child and a 14-year sentence for causing or inciting a child to become involved in prostitution or pornography, for introducing a child to prostitution or involving them in pornography, and for arranging or facilitating child prostitution or pornography. The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000 increased to 10 years the maximum sentence for possession and distribution of child pornography. All the new measures will be combined with existing ones to ensure that the message is clear and enforcement rigorous.
    Chris Grayling: A constituent recently drew my attention to the availability of software packages that are designed to enable internet users to conceal their identity. Is the Home Secretary aware of the availability of such software, and has he considered, or had discussions with colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport about, ways in which access to such software can be restricted and the software removed from the market altogether?
    Mr. Blunkett: Yes, protection is required, and it is crucial that server providers help to ring-fence entry to the internet. I shall ask the taskforce, under the direction of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn), to consider that software, and I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman provided my hon. Friend with details.

    Active Community Unit
    Mr. Gareth Thomas: What the work programme is of the active community unit; and if he will make a statement. [1041211
    The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes): The active community unit leads on work to achieve the Government's target to promote the development of the voluntary and community sector and to provide people with opportunities to become actively engaged in their communities, particularly in deprived areas. The unit's work programme includes a wide range of activities aimed at increasing the sector's contribution to public service delivery, increasing community participation and building the capacity of the sector.
    Mr. Thomas: Will my hon. Friend encourage the active community unit to consider what further role local residents associations can play in working alongside crime and disorder partnerships to tackle antisocial behaviour? Will she join me in praising the

    19
    Pinner and Hatch End associations in my constituency for their successful campaign to get Pinner police station reopened?
    Beverley Hughes: I certainly congratulate those organisations on their success, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's support for them. Local residents are fundamentally important both as volunteers in local organisations and in contributing their views on how services can make a difference in their community. I shall certainly ensure that the active community unit helps local organisations to encourage residents and their associations to make connections with crime and disorder partnerships, because the role that they can play in tackling antisocial behaviour is very important.
    Bob Russell: Will the Minister confirm that the concept of volunteering in our society has declined rapidly over the past 20 years in particular? Looking at the special constabulary, whose numbers have fallen dramatically since 1997, does she agree that the active community unit should address the decline in volunteering so that we can recruit more special constables?
    Beverley Hughes: The main thing is to encourage participation in voluntary activity of all kinds. Individuals will differ as to the ways in which they feel most comfortable making a contribution to their community. The active community unit works with organisations across the board to enable people to make that contribution, whether through the special constabulary or the many other organisations that want volunteers.

    Police Numbers
    James Purnell: If he will make a statement on changes in police numbers in the last three years. [104122]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): By 31 March 2002 there were 129,603 police officers in England and Wales—a record number and 3,507 more than in March 1999. There were also 58,909 civilian support staff in March 2002. That is also a record number and 5,878 more than in March 1999. In addition, at the last count there were 1,165 community support officers. We have set a target of 130,000 police officers by 31 March 2003 and 132,500 police officers by 2004.
    James Purnell: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, for the fact that there are an extra 100 police officers in my area since 1997, and for the further 50 officers that we have been promised. However, will he look into the letter about overtime from David Crompton, my local chief superintendent, which I sent to the Department? He wants to meet the overtime target by reducing back-room staff overtime. However, he is being forced to cut overtime for front-line police staff as well, even though he wants to keep bobbies on the beat.
    Mr. Ainsworth: I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. I am aware of the correspondence that has taken place between himself and my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham). The question of the way in which overtime is counted is being looked into as we speak.

Iraq and European Council
3.30 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on the European Council, which I attended in Brussels on 20 and 21 March, and report also on the conflict in Iraq.
This meeting was the fourth of the special summits on economic reform in the European Union but, of course, the summit was dominated by Iraq. I should like to place on the record what I know will be the heartfelt gratitude of the entire House for the valour of British servicemen and women. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I send the deepest sympathy of the Government—and again, I hope, of the whole House—to the families of those who have died. They gave their lives for our safety. They had the courage to lake the ultimate risk in the service of their country, and of those who value freedom everywhere in the world. We owe them an immense debt. I would like also to extend my condolences, and those of our nation, to the families of the American personnel who have sadly been lost in recent days.
We are now just four days into this conflict. It is worth restating our central objectives. They are to remove Saddam Hussein from power, and to ensure that Iraq is disarmed of all chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programmes, but in achieving these objectives we have also embraced other considerations. We want to carry out this campaign in a way that minimises the suffering of ordinary Iraqi people, brutalised by Saddam; to safeguard the wealth of the country for the future prosperity of the people; and to make this a war not of conquest, but of liberation. For this reason, we did not, as some expected, mount a heavy bombing campaign first, followed by a land campaign. Instead, land forces were immediately in action, securing oil installations and gaining strategic assets and retaining them, not destroying them. The air campaign has been precisely targeted. Of course, there will have been civilian casualties, but we have done all that we humanly can to keep them to a minimum. Water and electricity supplies are being spared. The targets are the infrastructure, command and control of Saddam's regime, not of the civilian population. We are making massive efforts to clear lines of supply for humanitarian aid, although the presence of mines is hindering us.
By contrast, the nature of Saddam's regime is all too plainly expressed in its actions. The oil wealth was mined, and deep-mined at that. Had we not struck quickly, Iraq's future wealth would even now be burning away. Prisoners are being paraded in defiance of all international conventions. Those who dare speak criticism of the regime are being executed.
Now let me now give the House some detail, if I may, of the military campaign. In the south, our aim was to secure the key oil installations on the al-Faw peninsula; to take the port of Umm Qasr, the only Iraqi port to the outside world; and to render Basra, the second largest city in Iraq, ineffective as a basis for military operations by Saddam against coalition troops. In the west, in the desert, our aim is to prevent Saddam from using it as a base for hostile external aggression. In the north, our objective is to protect people in the Kurdish autonomous zone, to secure the northern oil fields, and
22
to ensure that the north cannot provide a base for Saddam's resistance. Then, of course, the vital goal is to reach Baghdad as swiftly as possible, thus bringing the end of the regime closer.
I hope that the House will understand that there is a limit to how much I can say about the detail of our operations, especially those involving special forces, but with that caveat, at present British and US troops have taken the al-Faw peninsula; that is now secure. The southern oil installations are under coalition control. The port of Umm. Qasr, despite continuing pockets of resistance, is under allied control, but the waterway essential for humanitarian aid may be blocked by mines and will take sonic days to sweep. Basra is surrounded and cannot be used as an Iraqi base, but in Basra there are pockets of Saddam's most fiercely loyal security services, who are holding out. They are contained but still able to inflict casualties on our troops, so we are proceeding with caution. Basra international airport has been made secure. The western desert is largely secure. In the north, there have been air attacks on regime targets in Mosul, Kirkuk and Tikrit. We have been in constant contact with the Turkish Government and the Kurdish authorities to urge calm.
Meanwhile, coalition forces led by the American 5th Corps are on the way to Baghdad. As we speak, they are about 60 miles south of Baghdad, near Karbala. A little way from there they will encounter the Medina division of the republican guard, which is defending the route to Baghdad. That will plainly be a crucial moment. Coalition forces are also advancing on al-Kut, in the east of Iraq. The two main bridges over the Euphrates south of Baghdad have been taken intact. That is of critical significance.
The air campaign has attacked Iraqi military installations, the centres of Saddam's regime and command and control centres. More than 5,000 sorties have taken place, thousands of Iraqi soldiers have surrendered and still more have simply left the field, their units disintegrating. But there are those, closest to Saddam, who are resisting and will resist strongly. They are the elite who are hated by the local population and have little to lose. There are bound, therefore, to be difficult days ahead, but the strategy and its timing are proceeding according to plan.
At the European Council, there were, of course, deep divisions over the coalition action. That is well known—but it is not that all of European opinion is one way. On the contrary, there was both understanding and support for the British position from many nations represented at the Council and near unanimous endorsement from the 10 accession countries which joined our Council on Friday afternoon. In any event, whatever the disagreements about the conflict itself, Europe came together to set out clearly its wishes and responsibilities in post-conflict Iraq.
The Council agreed the need to be active in the humanitarian field, to ensure that the oil revenues are held for the Iraqi people by the United Nations and to ensure that the oil-for-food programme continues. The Council further agreed that the UN Security Council should give the UN a strong mandate for post-conflict Iraq and make sure that the new Administration is one that is representative, careful of the human rights of the Iraqi people and allows the people to live at peace inside Iraq and with their neighbours.

23
In addition, the Council stressed the vital importance of the middle east peace process and the publication of the road map drawn up by the US, EU, Russia and the UN, and now endorsed by us all. I reported on the talks that we had had both with the US Administration and the Palestinian Authority. We welcomed the appointment of Abu Mazen as Palestinian Prime Minister. I also welcomed the US intention to publish the road map for peace as soon as the Prime Minister and his Government are in place.
I know that it seems somewhat incongruous and out of place, but I should say one word on the conventional subject matter of the summit. Although overshadowed by Iraq, this summit on economic reform regained some momentum. In the last few months, energy liberalisation, a single Europe-wide patent and a single Europe sky policy have all been agreed. An employment taskforce, due to report on ways to cut unemployment without generating new regulation, was also agreed. That marks progress, though much remains to be done.
To return to the conflict, there are, of course, difficulties that have arisen, tragedies and accidents. We grieve for the lives lost. That is in the nature of war. And it is in the nature of today's instant, live reporting of war, that people see the pain and blood in vivid and shocking terms. However, it is worth recalling the nature of what is not always apparent and what we do not see: an Iraqi nation, degraded and brutalised by decades of barbarous rule; a country that is potentially rich but whose people go hungry and whose children die needlessly from malnutrition and disease; and a regime for which repression, torture, the abuse of human rights and possession of weapons of mass destruction define its very nature. That is why we must achieve our objectives. Saddam will go and this regime will be replaced. The Iraqi people will be helped to a better future. The weapons of mass destruction—for which a peaceful Iraq has no use—will be eliminated. That we will encounter more difficulties and anxious moments in the days ahead is certain. But no less certain, indeed more so, is coalition victory.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the brave servicemen who have lost their lives, to their families who now mourn, and to those who continue to put their lives at risk. I also send my condolences to the families of the journalists who have also lost their loved ones. I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the US servicemen who have put their lives at risk and whose families, in many cases, now wonder about their future.
I thank the Prime Minister for his words about the road map, and for the importance that he places on assessing and addressing the matter. As he has said on a number of occasions, it holds the key to future stability in that region.
The war was never going to be easy, but the cause, I believe, is just. Despite the tragic losses of individual lives and the resistance that has been encountered, I agree that we must keep sight of the bigger picture. The pace of the advance towards Baghdad has been rapid. The capture and preservation of the oil wells has been a
24
notable success, and the seizure of the bridges intact has been vital. The objectives, as the Prime Minister says, remain the same. However, there remain a number of questions.
What assessment has the Prime Minister made of the impact that the campaign has had on the cohesion of the Iraqi regime? In particular, given Saddam Hussein's television broadcast and some questions about whether that was live or recorded, what is the latest assessment of Saddam Hussein, his sons and the regional commanders in Iraq? In terms of strategy, can the Prime Minister confirm that the coalition is continuing to isolate towns to protect the civilian population, and that there is no change? Specifically, with reference to Basra, there are serious concerns about the shortages of water and electricity in the city. What steps does he believe can be taken to put that right?
The treatment of coalition prisoners of war was degrading and a clear breach of the Geneva convention. That gross spectacle yet again shows the nature of Saddam's regime and must be considered a war crime. Will the Prime Minister reassure the House and the British people that the perpetrators will be brought to justice? Is it not vital that in our treatment of prisoners of war, we continue to show that we have come to free the people of Iraq, not to conquer them?
There is continued concern at the talk of Turkish troop movements in northern Iraq. The situation is extremely delicate, I am aware, and there are reports that the Iraqi Kurds are diverting forces towards the Turkish border. Does the Prime Minister agree that a major Turkish incursion into northern Iraq would be wholly unacceptable? What assurances has he sought and received from the Turkish authorities that that will not happen? Is there any prospect of Turkish forces being placed under coalition command?
On the humanitarian crisis, can the Prime Minister tell the House how soon aid can be deployed in Iraq and who will be in charge of the delivery of that aid? Will he also confirm that in the early stages of delivery, the armed forces' participation is essential? Perhaps he can confirm that HMS Sir Galahad is standing by with large amounts of humanitarian aid for delivery as soon as the port of Umm Qasr is cleared. The House should note that the more successful operation has been carried out by American troops under British command.
At a time of heightened concern about national security, the Prime Minister will be aware that there is currently no Minister of State at the Home Office with responsibility for security services and home defence. When will he replace the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham)? At this vital time, when will the new ambassador to Washington officially take up his post?
The Prime Minister referred to the European Council. I have one question. Does he now accept the need to reassess fundamentally the concept of a common foreign and security policy? Surely now is the time for a new Europe rooted in its nation states, not the deeper and deeper process in which we are engaged.
The days ahead may well be difficult. The Prime Minister assured us that our objectives remain clear: ridding Iraq completely of weapons of mass destruction and the end of Saddam Hussein and his brutal regime. Our forces out there will carry out tasks that we know

25
will place them in great danger, and I have no doubt that they will carry them out with efficiency, bravery and success. For our part, it is essential that we send our forces the clearest message that they have our unflagging support.
The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his general message; obviously, I am in agreement with him and thank him for his support at this difficult time. I should like to express my own condolences to the family of Terry Lloyd, and to those of the others who lost their lives. Terry Lloyd was a brave and distinguished correspondent. Such people run considerable risks in trying to inform the outside world of what is happening.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, obviously, about the road map. In respect of questions about Saddam and leading members of the regime, the truthful position is that we cannot be sure whether the broadcasts were pre-recorded. Some of them appear to be dated, but there is not an exact science in this. At the present time, we simply do not know for certain.
As a result of the arrangements that are being made by Red Crescent and help from British engineers, we should get back 40 per cent. of the water supplies in Basra by Sunday—within the next few days, at any rate. We are certainly doing everything that we can to protect the essential infrastructure while, obviously, attacking the regime's command and control centres.
In relation to Turkey, any incursion would be entirely unacceptable. That has been made very clear to the Turkish Government and military. I believe that they have understood those messages, which have been given not just by ourselves but by the United States of America. Of course, there are no Turkish troops under coalition command.
The provision of humanitarian aid depends in part on how soon we can clear the waterway. The right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that HMS Sir Galahad is standing by. It has a very large amount of humanitarian aid and provision on board. I very much hope that in the next few days we will be able to achieve that, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development will say some more about that in a moment, following her talks in Washington.
The Home Secretary has taken personal charge of home security. The person who is to be the new US ambassador is presently my adviser, so I would prefer him not to take up that post immediately, if that is all right. I have a lot of use for him here.
I am afraid that the one point on which the right hon. Gentleman and I will disagree is the European common foreign and security policy. What he really means when he says that we should re-evaluate it is that we should get rid of it. That would not be wise. In any event, if Britain opted out of the policy that would not get rid of it. It would just go forward without British participation. We can return to the argument in later and more peaceful times, but I register it as at least one point of disagreement.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I extend our deepest sympathies to the families of the service personnel and of journalists who have lost their
26
lives. They were courageous people carrying out their tasks in the most extremely difficult circumstances in a war zone. Let us hope that service personnel who are missing will be found safely and be able to return home in due course.
We on these Benches last week voted against this war, but we have to accept the democratic decision of the House. What everybody in the country surely wants is a minimum amount of casualties—first and foremost among our own service personnel, but equally among innocent Iraqi civilians with whom, as a country, we have never had any quarrel, and who have suffered so much under the totalitarian regime that is Saddam Hussein and his cohorts.
The Government said from the outset that the humanitarian aims of the mission are as important as the military ones. Therefore, equally urgent thought needs to be given to the task of reconstruction once the immediate hostilities are over. Does the Prime Minister agree that the best way to gain the confidence of the Iraqi people and of the region is for the United Nations to take overall responsibility for that reconstruction course? By entrusting the reconstruction of Iraq to the UN, does he agree that we would have the opportunity to begin the reconstruction of the international order, which has suffered so much damage diplomatically in recent weeks, and of the European Union, to which he referred in his statement?
May I ask the Prime Minister some specific questions? First, it is clear that the confidence of our air crews depends on the knowledge that awful mistakes such as those that led to the shooting down of the RAF Tornado have been rectified. Can the Prime Minister say more about the steps that are in hand to prevent that from happening?
Secondly, has there been any recognition at all from the Iraqi regime—probably not—that its behaviour towards prisoners of war is in flagrant disregard of the Geneva convention and is utterly unacceptable on the international stage?
On the humanitarian aspects of the crisis, within the past hour Kofi Annan described the position in Basra as being on the verge of "a humanitarian disaster". What further steps can we take at this point to help to alleviate the plight of the citizens in that city and to enable coalition forces to deliver the humanitarian aid that is so urgently needed?
We all hope that this conflict will be concluded as swiftly and as successfully as possible, but if we are to win the peace we must repair the damage not only to the infrastructure of Iraq, but to the international order, by which we mean the Legitimacy of the United Nations.
The Prime Minister: First, I should correct one piece of information that I gave earlier, which is relevant to the questions put by the right hon. Gentleman. In fact, 40 per cent. of the water in Basra was reconnected yesterday—last Sunday. We are working on making sure that the rest is reconnected over the coming days. Obviously, we shall get the humanitarian aid in as quickly as we possibly can, but there is a problem because apparently the waterways are mined.
In relation to casualties, as I said, we are doing our level best to minimise civilian casualties. One reason is that it is important that we make it clear to the Iraqi

27
people that our quarrel is not with them—it is with the regime of Saddam. To a far greater extent than in any previous conflict, we have tried to make sure that the targets are carefully chosen and that we do everything that we possibly can—consistent, obviously, with achieving our military objectives—to keep civilian casualties to a minimum. These words are obvious, but it is necessary to utter them: any claims made by the Iraqi authorities should be treated with some scepticism.
In relation to reconstruction, of course we want it to be authorised by the United Nations. Let me emphasise again that when we talk of reconstruction we mean the reconstruction of the country following Saddam, not reconstruction to do with allied war campaigns. That reconstruction—that rebuilding of Iraq—will be a lot easier if it has proper United Nations authority. I hope very much that people can come together and make the system work. That will be an important part of bringing the international community back together at the end of this.
In relation to combat ID and the issues raised about the tragic shooting down of the RAF Tornado plane, there have been significant improvements but we are looking urgently at the lessons we can learn from that incident. As for the Geneva convention and the way that the American prisoners of war were paraded, that is, I am afraid, typical of Saddam's regime. It is a very good reminder of why it is important for Iraq and for the wider world that the regime is removed.
Ms Bridget Prentice: Our condolences go to the families and friends of those in our own forces and others who have died in this conflict to secure a peaceful Iraq. My right hon. Friend spoke of the European Council coming together to look at post-conflict Iraq, but what assurance has he received that the United Nations will indeed be in charge of the humanitarian aspects after the conflict, and that the road towards democracy for Iraq will be achieved through and with UN support?
The Prime Minister: Those were indeed the commitments that the European Council made—that we should ensure that the UN is involved not only on the humanitarian side, but in the authority that succeeds Saddam's regime in Iraq. Of course, it will be easier if Europe comes together and works together on that. It is very important, if we want to get that United Nations resolution—as we do—that whatever differences there have been over the conflict itself are set aside in the interests of ensuring that the United Nations is fully involved in the post-conflict situation in Iraq, and that that develops in a way that has the support not only, obviously, of the coalition forces and of the Iraqi people, but of the wider international community.
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The Prime Minister has already referred to the tragic deaths over the weekend of the pilot and navigator of the Tornado from RAF Marham in my constituency, and the House will certainly want to echo his sympathy for their families. I am sure that he can imagine the sense of shock at the idea that some kind of technological failure caused the Tornado to be hit by friendly fire in the form
28
of a Patriot missile. If it was a technological failure, that is clearly an enormously serious matter. The Prime Minister may well not be able to comment in any more detail than he already has about what is being done to look into that, but if he could it would give a great deal of reassurance to people in the RAF and in the wider community.
The Prime Minister: I again express my condolences to the right hon. Lady's constituents for their tragic loss. The planes have of course been fitted with the latest combat ID equipment—that is important. We are, however, looking to see what lessons can be learned, because something has gone wrong and we must make sure that it does not happen again. That gives rise to issues not only on our side, but on the American side. We are looking at the matter urgently, and I assure the right hon. Lady and her constituents that the moment that we have something precise and accurate to say to people about it, we will say it first to them, then tell the wider world.
Ms Julia Drown: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this action is not about giving the US a footprint in the middle east, but about getting a better Iraq, a safer Britain and a safer world?
The Prime Minister: I can absolutely assure my hon. Friend that those are indeed the objectives.
Mr. John Bercow: I thank the Prime Minister very warmly for his fitting tribute to my constituent, Terry Lloyd, which I know will be greatly appreciated by his widow, Lynn, and their children, Chelsey and Oliver. Given his outstanding work over two decades in Halabja, the former Yugoslavia, Cambodia, Lebanon and Northern Ireland, which displayed in each case a combination of extreme professionalism and personal courage, Does the Prime Minister agree that Terry Lloyd was a credit to his family, to his profession and to his country, and that his loss will be mourned by decent people everywhere?
The Prime Minister: Again, I agree entirely with that. I extend my condolences to Terry Lloyd's family in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. He was someone of huge experience in such situations who reported with very great bravery and distinction. His loss will be felt not only in this country, but throughout the world, because he was immensely respected in many different parts of the world.
Ann Clwyd: I echo what was said about Terry Lloyd. I, too, knew him; we met in various parts of the world at various times. He was a very good reporter and a very brave one. I am very sorry for everybody who died this weekend, irrespective of whether—in the words of the Oscar winner at the weekend—they believed in God or in Allah. We all hope for a speedy resolution and a peaceful Iraq in future.
This morning, I was phoned by an Iraqi friend who lives in this country and has relatives living in Baghdad. She said that she gets very annoyed with hearing commentators say, "Everybody expected the Allied troops to be cheered when they arrived." She said,

29
"How can you cheer when you've got a republican guard living in your house?" There has to be a sense of reality in that respect.
The Prime Minister: What my hon. Friend says on this subject is, as ever, extremely wise. Many of the local population still live in a great deal of fear from Saddam's security services. Let us be honest: because of the history of the past 12 years, they cannot yet be sure in their own minds that we mean what we say. We do indeed mean what we say. We will remove Saddam from power and liberate the country. However, given the history, it is hardly surprising if people are very circumspect about showing their feelings about the regime until that regime has actually gone.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does the Prime Minister agree that, given the Americans' difficulties in getting the 4th Mechanised Division in through Turkey, the contribution of British forces is even more significant than it otherwise would have been? Will he extend to the coalition forces the congratulations of the whole House on the remarkable speed with which they have pressed ahead in the north? It has been a military as well as a logistical miracle thus far. Will he assure the House that necessary reserves have been stood up in case they should be required?
The Prime Minister: I can confirm all of that. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right on the importance of the British forces—particularly after what has happened in Turkey—and on the remarkable advance of, I think, some 280 miles inside the country. It is astonishing that they have done that in just a few days. Of course, we will ensure that the proper reserves are in place.
Mr. Frank Roy: This morning, I spoke to a worried mother whose son is currently serving in the Gulf. She spoke of her anger and dismay when, this morning, in trying to send a package to her son, she was charged nearly £16. Ten years ago, when she did the same for an elder son, the service was free. Will the Prime Minister assure me that he will consider the pricing policy to ensure that mothers, daughters, wives and husbands across the country can send welfare packages free of charge to service personnel?
The Prime Minister: The Defence Secretary has just told me that we are trying to put arrangements in place to allow that to happen. I will look into the matter and discuss it with my right hon. Friend. We will try to ensure that arrangements are in place as soon as possible.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: On behalf of Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party, may I associate myself fully and sincerely with what the Prime Minister has said in tribute and in condolence? It has been encouraging to hear the Prime Minister mention three times the need to protect the Kurdish community to the north of Iraq. I urge him to consider a federal system for post-conflict Iraq, to protect those boundaries and those people.
The Prime Minister: The precise nature of any Government for the whole of Iraq will have to be considered carefully at a later time. The Kurdish community in the north, because it has been protected by British and American pilots over the past 12 years, has achieved a remarkable degree of autonomy. It has achieved at least something of the beginnings of democracy. As a result of that, and as a result of the way that the area is governed free from Saddam, that community actually has a far better record on things such as the poverty of its people, the building of schools and hospitals, and the reduction of child mortality. We must ensure that we retain the gains that have been made by that community. However, as I say, the precise nature of the government of Iraq will be a matter for discussion at a later point.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I deeply regret all the loss of life and all the injuries that have been caused over the past five days. Has the Prime Minister studied the footage from al-Jazeera, which went in to report on the 50 or so civilians who were killed in Basra after the bombing or shelling? There were terrible pictures of women and children—one child with half its head blown out. Just before I came into the Chamber, I heard a report on the radio that we are shelling Basra yet again. How does the Prime Minister think that we can protect civilians when that kind of thing is happening?
The Prime Minister: First, let me say to my hon. Friend that we regret any loss of civilian life in Iraq. I think that most people would agree that we have done everything that we can in the targeting to ensure that we minimise the dangers of that. However, of course, there will be innocent civilians who die in any war; that is why we have struggled so long to ensure that Saddam disarmed peacefully.
Although the pictures are not as vivid and not as shocking, the fact is that people have been dying the entire time in Iraq under Saddam. We will do everything that we can to make this conflict as swift as possible and to minimise civilian casualties. As I say, every civilian casualty is one that we regret. However, we are doing all that we humanly can to keep them to a minimum.
Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Malling): I welcome what the Prime Minister said in answer to an earlier question about the adequacy of reserves, but does he agree that the length of the supply line makes the coalition forces very vulnerable to ambush and other guerrilla forms of insurgency, and that may well extend to service personnel engaged in delivering humanitarian aid along those supply lines in future? Will he assure the House that he is satisfied that not only the British reinforcement position but the American reinforcement position can ensure that those crucial long supply lines are fully protected, possibly for an extended period?
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue of the length of the supply line. All I can say to him—without going into detail because that would not be sensible—is that the issue of force protection is one that we visit and revisit constantly with the military commanders, and I am satisfied that they are doing everything that they can to ensure that those lines of supply are secure.
Mr. Andrew Miller: May I press my right hon. Friend a little further on the de-

31
mining of Umm Qasr? Is it the case that that work cannot start yet because there are still pockets of resistance; or is it the intention to start that work very soon? Obviously, the sooner it starts, the sooner we can begin to deliver our promise on humanitarian relief.
The Prime Minister: As I understand it, the position is really this: it is not the pockets of resistance, which are fairly limited now in Umm Qasr; it is more to do with the fact that there is the prospect of mines being in the waterways approaching the port. We cannot be sure exactly how many are there at the moment. That is what we are investigating, and at this stage—obviously, before we see what we are up against—we cannot give a definitive time, but we hope that we will be able to get the humanitarian aid moving in the next few days.
Mr. James Paice: Although we clearly have to wait a little longer to decide Iraq's long-term future—I hope, with the UN's involvement—would it not help to gain greater international acceptance of our actions and encourage the Iraqi people to surrender wherever possible if the Prime Minister were a bit more specific about what he sees immediately after the war? It is difficult to believe that he has not already carefully considered who should be part of any interim Administration, representing Iraqi exiles and people presently in Iraq, so could he not tell the House a little more about how he envisages Iraq being governed for the first few weeks and months while a new constitution and Government are put in place?
The Prime Minister: Obviously, we have to be careful of being too specific on that—otherwise it renders somewhat nugatory the discussion that we will have in the UN about exactly what the form of government should be—but we can lay down certain principles very clearly. It should be as representative as possible; it should move Iraq along the road to democracy as much as possible, given the history and the circumstances; it should protect human rights; and it should protect Iraq's territorial integrity. At this stage, before we have discussions with the UN and other allies, I cannot be more specific than that, but. I believe that most people in Iraq can see the basis of how Iraq could be governed differently, and they can do so not least because, in the northern part—protected, as I say, by British and American pilots—a different Iraq has already taken shape.
Ms Oona King: Although I am very clear on the need for this action, may I put on record my strong opposition to the use of cluster bombs, as experience suggests that they are contrary to our stated aim of causing the minimum possible civilian casualties? If the Prime Minister raises that inconsistency with the President, could he also diplomatically point out that if the Americans were not so flagrantly breaching the rights of prisoners of war captured in Afghanistan, their current justified outrage for our own POWs would be less inconsistent and more effective in securing their safe return?
The Prime Minister: On the latter point, the people at Guantanamo bay are not combat troops in the service of a country. However, I have said on many occasions
32
before that there will have to come a point when the situation at Guantanamo bay comes to an end, although it is also true to say that information is still being provided by people there that is of importance.
In relation to cluster bombs, I will not comment on what munitions we may use, except to say that I am personally satisfied that whatever munitions we are using are in accordance with international law.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: May I commend the Prime Minister on not only his brave and courageous action, but his statement this afternoon? Will he confirm whether it is true, as has been claimed in a number of tabloid newspapers, that a chemical plant has been discovered by coalition forces? Secondly, will he confirm whether Turkish troops have entered Iraq from the north? If he can do so, I am sure that a great many people will be reassured.
The Prime Minister: On the latter point, we have no reports of that in respect of Turkish troops. In respect of the chemical plant, that is still being investigated. As soon as we have news on that, we will state it.
Harry Cohen: Millions of people at the weekend will have heard Donald Rumsfeld opine:
"We are not bombing Baghdad".
I therefore ask the Prime Minister: who is? Are we?
The Prime Minister: I think that people know that the campaign that we have conducted has of course included targets in Baghdad, but they have been targets designed to weaken the regime, not destroy centres of the Iraqi population.
Bob Russell: The Prime Minister rightly drew attention to the courage and professionalism of our armed forces. In particular, I want to draw his attention to 16 Air Assault Brigade, the 3,000 troops from the Colchester garrison who are currently in the Gulf. He has also drawn attention to the concerns, anxieties and worries that wives and other dependants have back home. May I offer an invitation to him to visit Colchester garrison for a two-way exchange with families so that he can reassure them and benefit from their response, too? I am also grateful to the Secretary of State for Defence for the briefing that he has just given.
The Prime Minister: First, of course I admire and applaud the work that the hon. Gentleman's constituents and others from that garrison are doing. I cannot give any commitments as to when I may visit, but I understand that the Secretary of State for Defence is due to visit next week.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Now that the international rule of law has been replaced by the law of the jungle, can the Prime Minister tell the House whether, when he met President Chirac at the European Council, he told him that most of the British people dissociate themselves from the xenophobic insults that have been hurled at France by some of his Ministers in recent weeks?
The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, I have a certain fondness for France, so I would not join in any of those insults either in relation to France or the French people. He mentioned the law of the jungle: if he wants an example of the law of the jungle, he should look at the regime of Saddam Hussein.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Many of those who opposed war, including me, were worried about inflaming Arab nationalism and Muslim fundamentalism. There was always a concern that such people would hole themselves up in towns and cause enormous difficulties to our troops. Indeed, that appears to be happening in Umm Qasr, a town of only 4,000 people, whereas Baghdad has millions. What is the Prime Minister's strategy? Will he be fair and honest with the British people and warn them that while we all hope that this regime will haul up the white flag, a long war of attrition is possible? We cannot defeat this regime by staying on the outskirts of the cities or by staying in the desert. We must go into the centres. It may be wiser to warn the British people now that if we are to win the war, we must do that.
The Prime Minister: On the latter point, I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that we are about four days into the conflict at present, and I think that the progress of the troops has been remarkable, despite the tragedies and the accidents that necessarily happen in such a situation. As for inflaming Arab nations, I repeat what I have often said on this subject: I do not believe that the Arab nations will be inflamed by the removal of Saddam; I do, however, believe that they will be hugely encouraged by our even-handedness if they see us proceed genuinely with the middle east peace process.
Barbara Follett: Can my right hon. Friend say how long he thinks it will be before the much-needed road map to peace is published? Is it a matter of days or weeks?
The Prime Minister: I very much hope that it is a matter of days, but it depends on the new Palestinian Prime Minister appointing his Cabinet, which will take him some time. As soon as that is ready, the road map will be given to him—that is the commitment of the President of the United States and myself, and is indeed what he himself wants.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Would the Prime Minister dissociate himself from the anti-French rhetoric that has been coming out of his Government in recent weeks? Does he recognise that, although he and the Government may disapprove of French foreign policy, the French have a perfect right to take a different view of the world? Will he instead reserve his condemnation for those who have written or drafted the European constitution, which seeks to impose a single foreign and security policy on all member states
"who shall actively and unreservedly support"
it
"in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity."
That is not a harmless fantasy—it will attempt to impose binding obligations on the Government and the House, contrary to our interests.
The Prime Minister: First, I can respond to the right hon. Gentleman's stout defence of French policy, or at least their right to have a policy. I entirely agree—of course, the French are entitled to have a point of view different from ours, but we are entitled to point out why we were unable-to secure a second United Nations resolution. On the common foreign and security policy, I do not agree, for the reasons that I gave earlier. I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that, as a result of the agreement that we secured, there is no question of British forces being committed in any European defence effort without the express permission in each individual instance of the British Government.
Donald Anderson: Turning to the European Council, clearly, the European Union agenda is much wider than Iraq. Does my right hon. Friend have any fears that the divisions and bitterness on Iraq will spill over and sour areas in which we have considerable interest, such as the Balkans, and asylum and immigration? Does he have any fears, for example, that the French will be less than helpful in respect of a new UN Security Council resolution on reconstruction?
The Prime Minister: I hope, first, that everyone accepts that it is good for the United Nations to be involved in a post-conflict Iraq, so I hope that the difficulties to which my right hon. Friend drew attention will not arise. Secondly, I very much hope that the disagreements here do not in any shape or form contaminate other areas of policy. It is interesting, for example, that we have agreed the European defence mission in Macedonia, which will go ahead as planned. There are real and important issues that will have to be resolved at the end of this, primarily to do with the relationship between Europe and the United States of America. It is right that we have that debate—I do not think that there is any point in masking or hiding the divisions, and it may be time after this to try to sit down and resolve them sensibly.
Mr. Gary Streeter: The Prime Minister will be aware of the air of sadness mixed with pride in the west country over the weekend at the tragic news of the loss of so many Plymouth-based Royal Marines, closely followed by the loss of helicopter pilots from nearby RAF Culdrose. Does he agree that the famous green berets have already played a significant part in the liberation of the Iraqi people, and will he send a personal message and tribute to the families of armed forces in the west country, many of whom are grieving for the loss of their husbands?
The Prime Minister: The west country has often provided some of our finest forces, and of course I send my deepest condolences to the families of servicemen in the hon. Gentleman's constituency who have lost their lives. I hope that they realise that they gave their lives in a just cause, which is important not just for British security but for the safety and security of the world. I am sure that in time we will remember them as people who gave their lives in that way with immense courage.
Mrs. Louise Ellman: What are the implications of Saddam Hussein's decision to use civilians as a human shield in the course of this war?
The Prime Minister: There is no doubt at all that Saddam Hussein will try to do so, as he did in the last Gulf war, which is one reason why it is important that we are careful with the targeting of the air campaign. However, there is a constant risk because there is no doubt at all that there is evidence that where he has troop movements, he will try to surround them in areas of civilian sensitivity. As we have reflected many times before, there are no lengths to which he will not go.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Can the Prime Minister be a little more specific about his discussions with his EU partners at the European Council this weekend? Considering that a quarter of all our overseas aid more than —700 million—goes to the aid budget in the European Union, surely the British taxpayers who have paid that money would expect Britain to make a really good contribution through Europe to the reconstruction of Iraq after the war.
The Prime Minister: Well, we will do so on our own behalf and also in the European Union. That is why it is important that we work together with the other European countries to get a new UN resolution both on the humanitarian front and elsewhere. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that it is fair to say that many countries were speaking in our support at the European Council; indeed, virtually all the accession countries did so.
Mr. Chris Bryant: Coalition forces are clearly doing everything in their power to minimise the number of civilian casualties, but we hear stories of non-uniformed armed Iraqis attacking British troops. Does the Prime Minister believe that this is a case of ordinary Iraqis arming themselves or, as seems far more likely, of cowardly Iraqi troops deliberately masquerading as civilians?
The Prime Minister: It is certainly the latter, as far as we can make out. My hon. Friend is right; these people will be fiercely loyal to the regime, as they will have suppressed the local population. They are armed at the present time and we will do all we can to root them out. Where those pockets of resistance are taking place, they come from the Fedayeen and people who are fiercely loyal to the regime. That is only to be expected, as they are the people, not the Iraqi people or the ordinary Iraqi soldiers, who have most to lose from the departure of Saddam's regime.

Iraq (Relief and Reconstruction)
4.21 pm
The Secretary of State for International Development (Claire Short): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the humanitarian situation in Iraq and the preparations for reconstruction.
I should begin by apologising to the House for the fact that I was unable to be here to respond to the urgent question tabled by the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on 19 March. I gather that the exchanges were unsatisfactory and I am sorry about that. The reason was that I visited New York and Washington to meet the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the US Administration to try to ensure that arrangements are in place to provide adequate humanitarian relief and that proper preparations are being made for reconstruction in Iraq. I had detailed talks with Kofi Annan and his senior staff, Horst Köhler at the IMF and Jim Wolfensohn at the World Bank. I also met senior officials at the US National Security Council, the United States Agency for International Development and the State Department. There is, I think, a growing will to reunite the international community behind the humanitarian and reconstruction effort in Iraq.
As I made clear in my previous statement, the immediate responsibility for humanitarian support for the people of Iraq in the territory that they occupy lies with the US and UK military forces, in line with their duties under the Geneva and Hague conventions. My Department is providing humanitarian advice to the UK military and the Treasury has agreed to provide £30 million to ensure that UK forces can play their role. The US Administration have made their own plans with the help of USAID.
The UN humanitarian system has also made detailed preparations to resume its role in Iraq and provide for refugees, displaced people and continuing humanitarian needs. The UN employs 1,000 international staff, who have recently been withdrawn from Iraq, and 4,000 local staff in Iraq, and has considerable experience of working in the country. My Department has contributed £13 million to help UN agencies to make preparations to resume their work in Iraq and prepare for the possible consequences of conflict. We are expecting a flash appeal to occur shortly so that they can make their plans operational. We will make an appropriate contribution. The UN will return as soon as it is possible to do so.
We provide regular briefings to non-governmental organisations with the experience and capacity to work in Iraq to enable them to plan to take up their role, and we are urgently assessing their funding requests. We also strongly support the International Committee of the Red Cross, which has a critical role to play as it can operate in the acute conflict phase and is a highly effective and impressive organisation. We have provided £2.5 million for the ICRC's work in Iraq this year and also expect to respond to its appeal, which has just been received.
However, it is important that we are all clear that the most important humanitarian priority is to restore the operation of the oil-for-food programme. To achieve this, there is a need for a new Security Council resolution to give the Secretary-General authority to continue to

37
operate the programme. The Secretary-General is making preparations and we are supporting his efforts to ensure that a suitable resolution is passed.
The scale of the programme is massive. It spends $10 billion a year and is funded by the sale of Iraqi oil. Almost all Iraqis receive assistance from the oil-for-food programme and 16 million are totally dependent on it for their daily survival. I should, however, say that they were given a couple of months supply before the conflict began. People are supplied for the time being, but we need to get the programme up and running very quickly.
The programme provides not only food but water, fuel, medicines and other basic requirements. It is organised through 45,000 local distribution centres, which are all run by Iraqis. If the programme were not reinstated, it would be difficult to avoid a serious humanitarian crisis. We are therefore committed to supporting the Secretary-General of the United Nations in every way possible to get the oil-for-food programme up and running again as rapidly as possible. Talks in New York toward a resolution are positive and we hope that the resolution will be secured so that the international community will be ready to go forward.
At the same time, we are making preparations for the reconstruction of Iraq after Saddam Hussein's regime has gone. It is clear that we can rise to that challenge only if we heal the rifts in the international community and engage all major players in supporting the people of Iraq to rebuild their country. The UN must provide a mandate for the reconstruction effort because that is a precondition for the engagement of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and many countries. Their engagement is key to the reforms that are needed to move the economy forward and to secure an agreement on debt rescheduling and a reparations strategy that will enable the Iraqi economy to recover and grow. I held detailed talks with officials of the UN and the US Administration about how that might be achieved and I am hopeful that we will soon make progress in line with the agreements reached between the Prime Minister and President Bush in the Azores.
As the House is aware, a precondition for the reduction of division, bitterness and anger about double standards in the wider region is progress on the middle east peace process, as the Prime Minister has said. The UK's efforts were crucial in getting President Bush's commitment to publish the road map toward the establishment of a Palestinian state by 2005. That, and Abu Mazen's appointment as the new Palestinian Prime Minister, offer the chance of a way forward. The Government are committed to driving forward the process to bring hope and peace to a new Palestinian state and security to Israel. I discussed the issue with Department of State and National Security Council representatives who said that President Bush was determined to take the commitment forward. The IMF and World Bank also have detailed plans to provide support. We are all aware that full implementation of the road map will not be easy, but it is essential.
There is a sense of regret and dismay among the UN, the IMF and the World Bank about the divisions that were allowed to arise during the international community's handling of the Iraq crisis. There is agreement that our duty now is to minimise the suffering of the people of Iraq during the conflict and to ensure that humanitarian relief and support for reconstruction
38
is in place. That requires the healing of international divisions, as the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) said, and I hope that a united effort to provide humanitarian relief for the people of Iraq and to support them in reconstructing their country will help to bring that about.
Last, I make it clear that I shall keep the House regularly updated on the humanitarian situation in Iraq. We have provided a response to the International Development Committee report. Hon. Members must understand that i1 has been difficult to provide full information to the House before now because so many international agencies were unwilling to be seen as preparing for conflict and for their plans to be publicly available, although we were in touch with them and knew what was going on. That constraint has now been removed and the House will be kept fully informed. Reports on the humanitarian situation will be placed in the Library of the House on each weekday morning.
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I thank the right hon. Lady for coming to the House and for giving me advance sight of her statement. At this time, I do not intend to dwell on the personal difficulties that she has faced over the past few days.
We accept the Secretary of State's apology for her inability to answer our urgent question last week, but why did the Government decide to field a Foreign Office Minister to answer questions on the work of the Department for International Development? It was not an edifying sight when the Secretary of State's deputy had to whisper answers to the hapless Foreign Office Minister.
Will the Secretary of State give an assurance to hon. Members on both sides of the House that she will give us opportunities to debate these issues, as well as placing statements in the Library, and, for those of us who enjoy information technology, posting them regularly on the departmental website? We share a sense of disappointment that more progress was not achieved during the meetings in New York, and I would like to ask the Secretary of State how much she attributes the continued difficulty in getting resolutions out of the United Nations to the intransigence of France and to the loss of confidence of the US Administration in the capacity of the United Nations to perform its role. Why has not the Prime Minister persuaded President Bush that there must be a UN resolution authorising the reconstruction of Iraq? What would be the legal position of the Army and our armed forces if no such resolution were passed?
In the absence of a UN lead in co-ordinating the humanitarian relief effort and the plans for post-conflict Iraq, does the Secretary of State accept that it will be the military that delivers the humanitarian aid in the first instance? Is her Department now giving every assistance to our armed forces? Now that she has confirmed that the oil-for-food programme has been suspended, will she tell us how long we have in which to avert a serious crisis? She referred to two months' worth of rations, but, within that, will she make it clear whether we have days or weeks? Given the sheer scale of the relief required, and her news that the coalition forces will not be able to use the oil-for-food programme distribution network, how long will it take to get agreement on this issue? Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether sufficient

39
quantities of food and supplies have been pre-positioned on Iraq's borders for this purpose? It is one thing to have humanitarian stocks on ships moored in the Gulf; it is another to have them where they can easily be brought into the country.
The Secretary of State will be aware of the predicted exodus of refugees from Iraq. Is there any sign of large-scale movement of people to the borders? There are reports that Kurds are fleeing towns in the Kurdish region of northern Iraq and heading north. Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a danger that a large number of Kurdish refugees heading for the Turkish border could push the region into serious ethnic conflict? What is the Government's strategy for preventing such a humanitarian disaster? Is the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees running refugee camps in the region? If so, do they have sufficient supplies of food and shelter?
Different amounts of money have been bandied around in terms of our contribution to the humanitarian relief effort in Iraq. Has the Department for International Development been given any new money? If so, how much? Will the Secretary of State also tell us about the £30 million given to the Ministry of Defence for humanitarian relief? When she says that we will make an appropriate contribution to the United Nations, over and above the £13 million, how much will that be?
If the military strategy is to avoid destroying the infrastructure of Iraq, to enable reconstruction to take place when the war is over, the disruption to the water and electricity supplies in Basra needs a prompt humanitarian response. Do the Government have plans to create humanitarian aid corridors in Basra and across Iraq, or will the International Committee of the Red Cross be allowed through our coalition lines?
We warmly welcome the Secretary of State's restated commitment to the Government's intention to press for the publication of the road map for peace in the middle east. Following what the Prime Minister has said, will she confirm that that will happen in a matter of days, once the new Palestinian Cabinet has been formed?
So much is at stake in this conflict; the credibility of not only the Secretary of State but our country is on the line. Will she give us an assurance that she will put all her personal concerns to one side, in her effort to do everything possible to get aid through to the needy people of Iraq? Our allied forces have now advanced well into Iraqi territory, and I wish them well as they continue to face great dangers. The fate of the people of Iraq depends on a speedy victory by the allied coalition over Saddam Hussein, and on the quality of our humanitarian response.
Clare Short: I would like to tell the hon. Lady that I have absolutely no personal difficulties. I had some concerns about the run-up to the crisis and about the divisions in the international community, but now we are clear that we want the conflict to be over as rapidly as possible with the minimum of civilian casualties, a good humanitarian effort and a rapid reconstruction of the country. There is no difference between us; there is no problem about that.
40
The fielding of a Foreign Office Minister was my decision; he had been recently involved in humanitarian issues. I am sorry, as I have said, that the briefing was inadequate and that the House was inadequately answered, but my visit to New York and Washington was important: it just simply had to be.
On the question of debates in the House, as the hon. Lady knows, that is a matter for the usual channels. I see her right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean) sitting there, and I would be more than happy for us to debate these issues more frequently.
Progress in New York was very good; I do not know from where the hon. Lady got the idea that it was not. After all the bitterness and division—the bitterness became very great—the first priority was to get the work moving forward on passing a resolution on oil for food, so to do so in such a way is extremely good indeed. It is likely to be passed shortly, and talks are taking place about the possibility of the resolution for reconstruction. I had constructive talks throughout and I am hopeful of progress.
The hon. Lady seems to be under a misapprehension. There is no need for any UN resolution for the UN system to be involved in humanitarian relief—that is a duty everywhere at any time. The UN is not there because of the conflict, but it is ready and poised with people and supplies in the region. It will move in as soon as it is possible for it to do so. That answers her question significantly on the possibility of averting a crisis.
The oil-for-food programme has no engagement with coalition forces. It brings enormous supplies into the country—$10 billion-worth a year—and there is an Iraqi system for distributing it, but the head of that system will be taken off that role. However, the UN will be working to maintain the system so that people continue to be supplied. The military will have no part in that.
On refugees, different projections are bandied about, but, obviously, we have to prepare for a series of eventualities, because depending on what happens there will be smaller or larger numbers of refugees. At the moment, there are not large-scale movements of people. Kurdish people are moving up, but not to the border, and going to stay with family. They are moving out of areas where they think they might be vulnerable because of history, but we have to ensure that supplies are in place for them.
Yes, the UNHCR has pre-positioned supplies. As I said in the statement—I gave the hon. Lady a copy—the MOD £30 million has come directly from the Treasury. The money that has been disbursed by my Department up to now has all come out of its contingency reserve. I am talking with the Treasury, as I am sure Members can imagine, and I am expecting some help in order to make a generous contribution to the UN flash appeal and the Red Cross flash appeal.
On Basra, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, the Red Cross, in the wonderful role that it still fulfils even in times of conflict, is in there and has already restored more than 40 per cent. of the water supplies to people. It is still working, and our military is preparing further arrangements for water supplies if there is any future difficulty.

41
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, President Bush is committed to taking the road map forward. The new Palestinian Prime Minister wants to form his Government before it is received, and we hope that all that will be done shortly and the road map published.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: The military action so far appears to have captured an awful lot of desert and to be bypassing many towns and cities of southern Iraq. The port of Umm Qasr is still blocked and a humanitarian crisis is developing in Basra. How is humanitarian aid to be delivered to the people of southern Iraq, alongside the military action occurring now, as promised?
How soon will the middle east road map be published? Will it be subject to amendment by Israel, or will it stand as published? We have heard that £30 million is being provided for humanitarian relief, but what contribution will be made to reconstruction? Will it come from donor countries or the proposed trust fund to be set up for Iraqi oil reserves? That is an important issue.
Following the total failure of diplomacy in respect of the second resolution, how long does the Secretary of State think it will take to stop blaming the French and secure consensus in the United Nations for a reconstruction resolution to heal the rift in the international community?
Clare Short: The hon. Lady says that the military campaign is taking desert, but the plan is to get to Baghdad quickly and take the top off the regime. The people will then feel safe and will soon be able to emerge, and it will be possible to deliver humanitarian supplies throughout the country.
I have already answered the question about the road map, as has my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The new Palestinian Prime Minister wants to form his Government before it has been received: it is his choice not to receive it yet. It will be delivered shortly after that, and we must all then make the progress that is essential.
Members are understandably confused about the amount of money involved because there are so many different pockets. The £30 million went directly from the Treasury to our military so that they could fulfil their obligations under the Geneva and Hague conventions. I have made £70 million available from my Department's contingency reserve, much of which we are already deploying. The UN flash appeal will put the UN back in quickly with humanitarian supplies, and I am discussing a possible contribution with the Treasury.
The trust fund is oil for food. It has been going for a long time. All the profits from the sale of Iraq's oil go into a trust fund held at the UN, and provide supplies worth $10 billion a year. That is an enormous amount. The country almost lives on handouts—there is very little economic activity—and that will require reform later. We shall need a Security Council resolution giving the Secretary-General full authority to deploy the funds, and we hope to have it within days. Some $4 billion is in the trust fund.
The hon. Lady asked how soon we could stop blaming the French. As I said in my statement, we need everyone to come together and stop blaming each other.
42
I think that blame lies with all the parties that are permanent members of the Security Council—we could have tried to do better—but the job now is to bring the international community together for the reconstruction of Iraq and care for its people. That is what we should all work for.
Jeremy Corbyn: Over the past 10 years the Secretary of State's Department must have gained a great deal of experience of the effects of depleted uranium weapons on Iraq and, more recently, on Afghanistan. What evidence has the Department of a link between the use of such weapons and cancers in southern Iraq and other parts of the world, and what advice has it shared with the Department of Defence in the United States or the Ministry of Defence here on the continued use of those carcinogenic weapons?
Clare Short: I am not an expert on the subject, but I know that UNEP, the United Nations environmental programme, carried out a study in Kosovo after the conflict there. I think it concluded that there was not a considerable problem, but I will look at the report and tell my hon. Friend the findings. I will also see whether we have any evidence from any of the other conflicts.
Sir Teddy Taylor: The Secretary of State has wisely said that the implementation of the road map is essential in providing the good will that will help to solve the problems of the middle east. Will she seek to establish from President Bush whether he intends British and American troops to be sent in to implement the road map if either of the parties concerned is unhelpful and refuses to accept it?
Clare Short: I think I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that is not the intention. It is possible that the international community will need to deploy observers, military or otherwise, when it is implemented, to enable the people of the two countries to feel secure in the knowledge that there will be an end to terrorism, killing and suicide bombers and to give us a chance to give the two states a decent future. There will not, however, be the kind of forces to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will my right hon. Friend give a little more detail about the way in which the humanitarian food aid will be delivered while fighting continues? In many cities there are no-go areas for our troops, who might have to deliver that aid.
Clare Short: It is a phased process. In the first phase, as in all conflicts, the military has a duty to take care of the civilian population, and the MOD and our forces have taken that duty extremely seriously. Advisers from my Department are deployed alongside them, and the Treasury has provided them with special resources. The forces are bringing in supplies, and we have smaller, emergency supplies in the region. The forces are highly organised so that pockets of people can move where they need to. As soon as the conflict moves out of any part of the territory, the UN humanitarian system will be deployed, and as soon as there is peace the oil-for-food programme will be up and running.
In the meantime, the ICRC is out there. My hon. Friend will be aware of the quality of that organisation. It is now working in Basra, despite the difficulties, to

43
reconnect the water supply. I think that we will cope, but obviously we all want the conflict to be over as rapidly as possible, and our priority is to look after the people of Iraq and help them to restore their country.
Sir Patrick Cormack: In wishing the Secretary of State well, may I ask her to give the House an undertaking that she will seek to fulfil her extremely onerous responsibilities with the same calm, measured determination that the Prime Minister has shown throughout this crisis?
Clare Short: I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. My personality is rather different from that of the Prime Minister, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that all the passion that I have will be dedicated to this purpose.
Joan Ruddock: My right hon. Friend will know of the great concern expressed by the International Committee of the Red Cross, Landmine Action and others about the humanitarian effects of unexploded munitions. What co-ordination exists between her Department and the Ministry of Defence to map the areas where cluster bombs will be dropped in the war? Will she undertake to ensure that money is provided for those who will clear up afterwards?
Clare Short: Throughout the events in Sierra Leone, Kosovo, Bosnia, Afghanistan and now Iraq, the relationships between my Department and the Ministry of Defence have become ever closer. The nature of conflict in this disorderly post-cold war era, in which one finds humanitarian crisis and military action side by side, is becoming a pattern, and it means that we must find new ways of organising ourselves. Those relationships are strong and growing ever stronger.
There are absolute duties under the Ottawa convention to record any use of munitions that may damage civilians, and the British military fully adheres to all international treaties and humanitarian obligations. Our troops always de-mine in the first instance, as they are trying to do in the waterways of Iraq now, so that they can bring in humanitarian supplies. Thereafter, we will probably bring in UNMAS, the UN body that looks for mines, because Iraq will have to be de-mined if it is to be reconstructed.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: The Secretary of State told us:
"It has been difficult up to now to provide full information to the House because so many international agencies were unwilling to be seen to be preparing for conflict."
Is not the truth that the Government have known at least since last summer that conflict was at least possible, if not probable, given Saddam Hussein's record of non-co-operation, with the MOD actively preparing for possible conflict, while absolutely nothing ha .s been happening in the right hon. Lady's Department or the Department of Trade and Industry, which will be involved in reconstruction? Is that joined-up government on this most serious of issues?
Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong, unusually for him; clearly he has not been
44
listening. My Department has been organising and working with the Ministry of Defence. We have also had a debate, which was initiated by the Opposition, and we have given evidence to the Select Committee. We have been in close contact with the UN, but it was keeping all its preparations private. It did not want them to be published because some of the member states would have attacked it for preparing for a conflict. My Department said throughout that we were preparing for every contingency, including the most attractive one—the possibility that the threat of military force would cause the regime to co-operate, in which case humanitarian aid and reconstruction would still have been necessary.
Similarly, the IMF and the World Bank—I am closer to the World Bank because I am its UK governor—made fuller preparations than I knew. Both kept quiet because of the problem of being seen to prepare for conflict.
I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman whether the DTI has been preparing for reconstruction, but I can say that it will not be a major force in reconstruction. The Department will need to facilitate the involvement of any UK commercial companies in making their contribution, after the IMF and the World Bank have put in place their arrangements for reform and ensured transparency in the letting of any contracts. There is probably a little time before that happens, but I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
Glenda Jackson: Can the Secretary of State clarify the position in Basra? I know that water and electricity have been restored to 40 per cent. of the population, but my understanding is that 60 per cent. have been without both for almost five days. Are the Red Cross or the Red Crescent in Basra now, attempting to restore these supplies, or will they have to wait until the bombardment of Basra has finished?
Clare Short: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that the situation is much better than she fears. By Sunday, 40 per cent. had been restored, and the Red Crescent is still working. It is a wonderful organisation that operates around the world in some of the most conflict-pro ne places. It is honoured by the international community, so it can often get co-operation, but its staff do take risks. It brought the emergency to international attention, and it has been working to put things right. I will find out how far we have got today, but on Sunday the figure was 40 per cent.
Mr. John Redwood: Can the Secretary of State tell us what was reckless about the Government's strategy towards Iraq at the time of her famous interview, but no longer reckless two days' later? Was that a case of her being reckless with her own career, perhaps, rather than a comment on the state of the Government's policy?
Clare Short: All of that is a matter of record, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has not had time to look at it.
Mr. Barry Gardiner: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the work in this country of Iraqi

45
professionals—many of whom are now British citizens—such as Emad al-Ebadi, a constituent of mine, in forming the Iraqi reconstruction group? Will she undertake that officials in her Department will meet that group, so that professionals in this country with Iraqi backgrounds can be involved in reconstruction work in Iraq post-conflict?
Clare Short: Certainly, but my officials are working enormously hard and I want to protect their time; however, I am sure that we can facilitate such a meeting. There was a parallel in Afghanistan. Of course, in countries that are so misgoverned, skilled and educated people tend to leave. They are an enormous resource for the country concerned if they can get back quickly to help with reconstruction. In the case of Afghanistan, through the International Organisation for Migration—a UN body—we quickly arranged for professionals in the diaspora to be able to go back for, say, a short time. I think that we could look to doing something else in Iraq, but let me be clear about the commercial phase. There is hardly an economy in Iraq: it is a handout economy built on oil reserves, so it will need reconstructing. Of course, everyone with abilities must engage and help, and we will facilitate Iraqi engagement. However, all contracts will be transparently and properly let. There will be no misuse of any influence on the part of the UK or, I am sure, of the US. The IMF and the World Bank will be crucial to this reconstruction, and they would not permit it.
Dr. Vincent Cable: Since relief and reconstruction depend on oil revenue, will the Secretary of State say who will own and operate the newly liberated oilfields, and what will happen to the several billion dollars in oil revenue that is currently sitting in accounts in the Kuwait compensation fund?
Clare Short: The first stage will be to get the oil-for-food programme up and running. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Iraqi state-owned companies—which are kept running by some very capable engineers—export the oil that is currently producing the $10 billion a year that is used to bring in supplies under the programme. I would imagine that some of that leaks out into the purchasing of military equipment, and so on. The programme will be run, under the authority of the Secretary-General of the UN, by Benon Sevan—an enormously impressive man who has kept that programme running for some time, and who knows how it works.
So stage one is simply to keep the handouts going; then, there will have to be the reform phase. After we have secured the UN reconstruction resolution, the IMF and the World Bank will look at economic reform. The entire currency needs reforming, as do the Ministry of Finance and the various regulations. Expert advice will have to be sought on the oil sector, which relies on very old technology and needs new investment, but that will be properly done later. Stage one is to keep the oil-for-food programme running; the next is to introduce the reform agenda, rebuild a modern economy and give proper consideration to how the oil industry should be reorganised.
Mr. Shaun Woodward: Given the importance of healing divisions in the international
46
community, and the likely importance and scale of reconstruction—it will probably be as big as the Marshall plan after the second world war—will the Secretary of State comment on reports in US newspapers this weekend that only US corporations are being invited to bid for the first round of contracts for reconstruction?
Clare Short: There is confusion on this question, I am happy to say. Many countries, the US included, tie their aid. We got rid of that, because otherwise everything has to be sourced back to the donor country, which creates costs and inefficiencies. Our money goes into the system and the best possible and most efficient way of deploying it is used. The US ties its aid, and USAID has a big budget and has given contracts to several US companies to help to provide US supplies in the emergency humanitarian phase. I do not like tying aid, but that is what is happening in that case and not the granting of contracts more broadly, such as for the restructuring of the oil industry, which the US would not have the authority to do—I am happy to say.
I forgot to respond to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on the important question of reparations. Iraq has high levels of debt and significant reparation bills related to Iran and Kuwait. That will all have to be restructured or Iraq would be in the same position as Germany at the end of the first world war, with such a massive burden that the country could not grow. That is an important issue, and we will have to prepare for it.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: The Secretary of State will be aware that it is the duty of the House—especially Opposition Members—to assess the confidence that we can have in her plans for contingencies in humanitarian aid and reconstruction in Iraq. Against the background of the Government's record of failure on contingency planning for foot and mouth, the continuing concerns about civil contingency planning in this country and the ambivalence she has displayed in the past week, can she improve the confidence of the House in the plans that she has for contingencies in Iraq by publishing them in detail in the coming week?
Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman should know, because he takes some interest in such matters, that the international community sees my Department as the most effective development organisation in the world. He knows me well enough—I hope that he does—to know that if I say that we have been making preparations, that is the truth. The UK cannot do it alone and we will have to mobilise the whole international system to do its job properly, but the hon. Gentleman can have full confidence that the contingency plans are in place. We have also provided a response to the Select Committee's report and that will be publicly available. I can assure him that my Department is the best development organisation in the international system, and it will be so in this crisis as much as in previous ones.
Mike Gapes: Will the Secretary of State say more about the role of international oil companies in relation to the oil-for-food programme?

47
Will she clarify the position, in a democratic and liberated Iraq, of those companies that have cosy concessions from Saddam's regime—especially the French company, TotalFinaElf, and the Russian company, Lukoil? Will they receive benefits from their support for that dictator, or will they be punished?
Clare Short: I have tried to make the point that step one will be to get the oil-for-food programme running. I am not an expert on the Iraqi oil industry, but I understand that it is mostly state owned. There will be contracts for export in place, and I see the point that my hon. Friend makes. However, my focus, and that of the UN, on getting oil-for-food running will mean carrying on with existing arrangements for a time, just to keep people supplied. Then the system will need restructuring, because it is old-fashioned and badly run, with old technology. Benon Sevan says that the Iraqis who keep such old technology running are wonderful engineers. The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank will be involved and we will need a proper, transparent process for any arrangements for reorganisation, modernisation and reform of the Iraqi oil industry.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: As we are talking about future reconstruction needs, may I press the Secretary of State on an urgent problem? As of two hours ago, the Red Cross had not yet received a response from either the US or Iraq to its request to interview prisoners of war. What is she doing to ensure that the coalition sends an immediate and positive response to the Red Cross to give it access to prisoners of war, even if we cannot get the reciprocal agreement from Saddam Hussein?
Clare Short: I am not aware of that request or of what has been done, but I take seriously what the hon. Lady says. I will look into it and get back to her.
Chris McCafferty: Given that the UN co-ordinator Ross Mountain gave evidence to the Select Committee on International Development suggesting that it would take four to six weeks to obtain the necessary resolution to restart the oil-for-food programme, and that last week the Foreign Office Minister was not sure whether it would take days or weeks to restart the programme, can the Secretary of State tell the House exactly when the UN Security Council will vote to restart the oil-for-food programme?
Clare Short: I can tell my hon. Friend, that Ross Mountain is a fine humanitarian, but he does not work around the Security Council. He has now gone to New York because the liaison between Geneva, Larnaca and New York was getting too complicated, so he is in place and working. I have never heard the four to six weeks' time scale for the resolution. That must be a guess, and it was a judgment about the bitterness and division that existed in New York and in the international community. Things are proceeding much better. I think it will be days—I do not think it is reckless to suggest that it will be days.
Sandra Gidley: What lessons have been learned from post-conflict Afghanistan and Kosovo,
48
and what steps is the Department taking to ensure that in post-conflict Iraq there is full recognition of UN resolution 1325?
Clare Short: I am sorry—I do not carry in my head a list of all the UN resolutions, so I do not know what 1325 is about.
Sandra Gidley: Women.
Clare Short: Thank you very much. On post-conflict Afghanistan, I think that progress has been better than is generally thought in the international community, but it is a desperately poor, wrecked country that has also had years of drought. As the International Development Committee said, the big push that we need now is order outside Kabul so that the country can move forward. A big effort is under way in Afghanistan on equality for women in the constitution, as well as getting girls back to school. Obviously, it is not easy, but the UN is standing by that and brings its authority; similarly, it does so in Kosovo. It is essential that we do the same in Iraq and I assure the hon. Lady that I will do everything in my power to make sure that we do.
Ann Clwyd: As my right hon. Friend knows, Human Rights Watch issued a strong statement today criticising the situation in Iraqi Kurdistan. It says that the UN has left local authorities with the keys to buildings and no means of transporting two months' worth of food supplies, tents or whatever it may be, and that the Kurdish local authorities are unable to cope. There are 800,000 displaced people already inside the country, as my right hon. Friend knows, and thousands of people have crossed the borders in the past few weeks from the south of Iraq to the north of Iraq. Will she pay particular attention to the situation there? I do not understand why the UN walked away from there in the first place. There is no conflict with Iraqi Kurdistan, so why should the UN just pack up and go home? It has had months to organise for this eventuality.
Clare Short: I understand my hon. Friend's concerns. According to the figures that I have, 300,000 people have been displaced, and they are largely going to families. It is urgent that more supplies come into the area, because families who take in family members will need more food and supplies. I understand that there is not a crisis at present, but that there would be if we did not act quickly. We are looking into the situation. I will come back to my hon. Friend with full details. I take her point about the UN system. I know that in the preparations to return, the UN will look for areas that are safe and go there first, and I hope it will go to Kurdistan early. I will make fuller inquiries and get back to my hon. Friend.
Mr. David Heath: Once it is made safe, is it the intention that Basra and southern Iraq should have the capacity to take in a large number of displaced people, in addition to the indigenous population? Apart from the Sir Galahad, which is welcome but of limited capacity, what other ships of the royal fleet auxiliary does the Secretary of State have at her disposal? Does she have bulk supply ships?
Clare Short: There is no intention that Basra should take large numbers of displaced people. Let me repeat:

49
the UN is preparing various contingencies for movements of people, possibly to the borders of all the surrounding countries, and has pre-positioned supplies, but the numbers of people who move would depend on how the conflict develops. We hope that it will be over so quickly and cause so little disruption to civilians that there will be very limited movement of people, but we have to be ready for all eventualities and all possible movements. There was not ever a suggestion that people would move into the cities, so much as a fear that they would move to the borders. Food and supplies have been pre-positioned around the country by the UN system in order that they can be delivered to wherever the people move or to their homes if they remain there.
Supplies are on HMS Sir Galahad in order that in very early stages our military forces adhere to their duties under the Geneva and Hague conventions to ensure that any people in the areas that they are protecting are fully supplied and equipped. I hope that there will shortly be more peace across the territory and that the UN will return. The military will then no longer be in the lead in providing humanitarian supplies.
My Department will not operate separately. We will put resources and people and effort into getting the UN system to work efficiently right across the territory. I will not then need ships. The oil-for-food programme ships in enormous quantities of food all the time, and I know that it is preparing to keep its orders coming, although it will have to pay higher insurance, and so on. The quantities of supplies will be very large, but once the port is secure we should be able to cope.
Alan Howarth: Has my right hon. Friend explained with her characteristic passion to the European Commission that the humanitarian needs will be no less whatever views may be taken of the legality of the conflict, and that a contribution will be expected commensurate with the wealth of the European Union?
Clare Short: Poul Nielson, the Development and Humanitarian Aid Commissioner, has already proposed a contribution of €20 million, which he is able immediately to deploy on his own authority. Speaking
50
from memory, he is also able to ask for the authority to make available another €100 million from the budget. There was general support at the EU summit on this matter. Of course, the UK provides 20 per cent. of such funds. Despite the differences, he is moving on that question.
Pete Wishart: What we on this Bench want is to be shocked and awed by the scale of the humanitarian effort. We will be satisfied only when the humanitarian effort starts to equal the military one. Will the right hon. Lady say something more to assure us that the Kurds in northern Iraq will not be overlooked and that they will get the humanitarian aid that they require? What discussions has she had with the Turkish authorities to ensure that the human rights of Kurdish people will be maintained and secured by the 30,000 or so Turkish troops on the Iraqi border?
Clare Short: I can say honestly to the hon. Gentleman that the carefulness of the targeting is greater than in any previous conflict of which I am aware, and I am proud to say that the humanitarian preparations—certainly for our armed forces—are greater than ever before. The UN system is well organised, but that has not been publicised. I hope that there is a reasonable response to the appeal that is about to be made. That will be very important, and I shall try to mobilise an international effort to ensure that countries do not hold back owing to differences over how we got to this point. Of course the Kurds must not be overlooked, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd). We are watching what is going on there and will ensure that supplies continue to flow, as they were also dependent on the oil-for-food programme.
I have not personally been in touch with the Turkish authorities, but my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has been repeatedly, and the United States Administration are in pretty continuous communication with them in order to try to ensure that all remains calm in Kurdistan, so that people can prepare for maintaining their level of autonomy and for taking forward their Government in that part of a liberated Iraq.

Orders of the Day

  Licensing Bill [Lords]
  5.8 pm
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This Bill has plenty of potential for controversy because it encroaches on how we live our lives. It is concerned with the central issue for all of us: the quality of our lives; the peace and contentment of our communities; and how we as individuals and as a nation use our leisure time—the choices available to us. The four broad objectives of the new licensing policy are to reduce crime and disorder, to encourage tourism, to reduce alcohol misuse and to encourage self-sufficient rural communities.
  To put that in context, nine in 10 of the adult population consume alcohol; there are more than 150,000 licensed premises in England and Wales; and the alcohol industry is worth a massive £30 billion a year. Pubs and clubs are at the heart of our nation's social life. It is probably no accident that Britain's two most popular soaps are both centred on a pub.
  The Bill proposes a modern framework for regulating that industry, but getting the regulation right is just one of the many social issues thrown up by the use and abuse of alcohol. Alcohol-related disease is a growing problem, which puts huge strains on our health services. The cost of alcohol-related accident and emergency attendances has been estimated at more than £300 million annually. Alcohol-related violence can blight neighbourhoods and spoil a good night out.
  Mr. Andy Reed: My right hon. Friend will understand the concerns expressed by many people who live near public houses: while they enjoy their local amenities, they are also afraid that extended licensing hours would mean greater disturbance in their locality. What assurance can my right hon. Friend give those residents that the measure will take into consideration the need both to extend hours and also to maintain local order?
  Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I know that he has campaigned to ensure that the voices of his constituents are heard on such matters. The big difference under the Bill is that local residents—the constituents of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House—will for the first time be able to have their voices heard when licensing decisions are made.
  Pub and club closing times are closely linked to increases in assaults and other offences. Home Office statistics show a strong correlation between violent offences and closing times; for example, more than 40 per cent. of assaults happen just after closing time. We intend to use the Bill to address that grave problem.
  Over and above what the Bill does to tackle late night, drink-related disorder, there are real concerns about the marketing of alcohol to young people and the rise in binge drinking, especially among young girls, all of which the Government need to address. The Bill can
  52
  play an important part in doing that—but only a part. It is just one piece in a larger mosaic, which includes initiatives such as the White Paper on antisocial behaviour published recently by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the national alcohol harm reduction strategy. We need to acknowledge the interdependence of various elements of Government policy; the Licensing Bill alone cannot solve all our more general concerns about alcohol. Nor must we use its passage through the House to overload the regulatory or statutory framework that it sets out to deliver.
  What the Bill must do, however, is to walk the tightrope between liberalisation and laissez-faire. The legislation must be able to address these key questions. How can we increase choice without harming the peace of residents and communities? How can we keep red tape to a minimum? How can we keep important industries competitive? How can we avoid well-meaning interference in people's private choices? But—and this is the crux—how can we do all that while protecting the vulnerable, the young and the wider public interest?
  Jim Knight: I agree with my right hon. Friend that there is a fine line to be drawn to find that balance. Will she consider whether it would be appropriate to include in the Bill the explicit provision that licensing committees should safeguard the cultural life of their community, so that it is clear that they must achieve that fine balance when they interpret the legislation?
  Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend has raised that matter with me before, and it may arise again in the course of the Bill's progress through Committee and subsequently. I caution him against seeking to overload local authorities in respect of their licensing responsibilities.
  Mr. Frank Field: My right hon. Friend says that it would be sensible not to overload local authorities. She may be aware that a body that I chair, the Churches Conservation Trust, and one that is chaired by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), the Historic Chapels Trust, are concerned that the new licensing system may make it more difficult for people to use our churches for entertainment, or even just to visit them. Will she give her blessing to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed and I coming to talk more with her officials about whether we can get an exemption included in the Bill?
  Tessa Jowell: My right hon. Friend will know that as a result of debate in another place we exempted churches from the need to secure an entertainment licence. Certainly, if there are other instances—for example, churches that are closed for much of the time—I would be delighted for my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman to come to discuss the matter with me further.
  Kate Hoey: Small voluntary sports clubs, which do not use lawyers, are likely to be affected by the Bill in that it will cost them a great deal of extra money and add to bureaucracy. Will the Secretary of State consider an exemption for them?
  Tessa Jowell: I would dispute my hon. Friend's assertion that the new regime will cost them considerably more money, because that denies the complexity, fragmentation and cost of the existing regime. I am absolutely determined to ensure that when the Bill receives Royal Assent it will be welcomed by sports clubs, large and small, and by other private clubs.
  Peter Bottomley: I am in the habit of having a party once a year for the local church with local parishioners, who pay £5 or £10 to come and buy a drink, and we sing songs. Sometimes we have professional musicians; sometimes we do not. It would be welcome to those in the informal entertainment sector to know whether I would have to apply for a temporary entertainments licence. The Secretary of State may not have the answer now, but when the Bill reaches Committee will she or her colleagues ensure that such people do not have to apply, because it would be unnecessary bureaucracy?
  Tessa Jowell: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the event that he described would be exempt under the new regime. We announced in another place that garden fetes would be exempt. This series of interventions has raised the matter that is of most concern to hon. Members and their constituents—namely, the impact that a broadly deregulatory new framework for licensing will have on the myriad events that make up our community life. My hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting, who will take the Bill through Committee—he has very broad shoulders—and I will be happy to examine such instances to ensure that the Bill, as progressive legislation, does not have perverse and unintended effects.
  Mr. Anthony Steen rose—
  Alan Howarth rose—
  Tessa Jowell: If right hon. and hon. Members will forgive me, I shall make a little progress before taking further interventions.
  Squaring the circle of the inherent dilemmas of the licensing regime is never easy. My Department has grappled with that already and our approach is similar to the approach that we took to broadcasting regulation and that we will take in our forthcoming reform of gambling law. Being able to take such an approach goes to the heart of the question—which is, what is the role of Government in shaping the wider choices? Achieving the right, publicly acceptable balance between the nanny state and an enabling state is absolutely essential.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the Secretary of State comment on venues that do not offer alcohol, such as internet cafes, which do not believe that they have to apply for a licence if they have entertainment on the premises? On the same subject, Scottish country dancing clubs in my constituency—which, again, do not have alcohol on the premises—are worried that they will have to pay a lot of money for licensing their premises.
  Tessa Jowell: Clause 1 of the Bill defines licensable activity. I would have to discuss the issue with my hon. Friend a little longer in order to establish the precise
  54
  nature of the entertainment that the internet cafe was offering. As for my hon. Friend's constituents who are devotees of Scottish country dancing and who do that as a means of personal enjoyment—
  Mr. Chris Bryant: Or purgatory.
  Tessa. Jowell: I am pretty confident that that would not be a licensable activity if my hon. Friend's constituents were not selling tickets or serving alcohol as part of the evening of fun—or purgatory, as one of my hon. Friends suggested.
  Mr. Steen: I was not fast enough on my feet to ask this question a moment ago. Will the Secretary of State say something about wassailing, which is the art of storytelling and a big business in the west country? [HON. MEMBERS: "It is pronounced 'wosseling'!"] I pronounce it "wa-sailing"; there are different pronunciations. Some of the storytellers have a repertoire of 400 tales and they go to public houses to tell wonderful stories, which has a wonderful effect on tourism in the west country. However, they are afraid that their storytelling will now be subject to licensing. Will the Secretary of State confirm that they can go on telling stories without a licence?
  Tessa Jowell: For practical reasons that I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand, the answer will depend on the size of the event. The Bill is not seeking—I hope that no one will suggest that it is—to affect the kind of occasion where wassailers turn up at the local pub and tell their stories so that everyone has an extremely good time.
  Mr. Bryant: Or not.
  Tessa Jowell: Or not, as the case may be. People will be free to listen to the stories and the event will not carry any new licensing obligation.
  I welcome the scrutiny that this Bill has received in the other place and will now receive in this House. The interventions so far have shown that this is not a Bill that divides people on conventional party lines. It will raise many moral and ethical issues, as well as having community and commercial impact. It would have been highly desirable for this Bill to have pre-legislative scrutiny to expose such issues to greater examination at an earlier stage in the parliamentary process. However, we are where we are, and the amendments from the other place do, in some cases, improve the Bill. We do not intend to seek to overturn all of them.
  Ross Cranston: The House of Lords has introduced an amendment to the objectives in the Bill and has also sought to introduce an amenity provision in clause 5. Will she say more about that? I acknowledge what my right hon. Friend has said about balancing crime arid disorder concerns with other concerns, and I welcome the draft guidance that she has published.
  Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that intervention. No, we do not intend to accept that amendment, which I accept was well intentioned and not mischievous, for a very simple reason. I have taken

  55
  very careful advice about its impact, and it would constrain the ability to address precisely the problem of public nuisance in a way that the existing objective does not. That amendment uses the term "amenity", which has a different connotation in planning terms, focusing much more on the aesthetic and visual appearance of a place, rather than on the activities that go on there. I have already made it clear that we are keen to ensure that public nuisance, which can arise from licensed premises, is kept under control.
  Mr. Graham Brady: I wrote to the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting raising a concern on behalf of some of my constituents who hold a small number of concerts every year in their own homes and raise a considerable amount of money for the Children's Society. He wrote back to me to confirm that their circumstances would be covered by the Bill's licensing provisions because the activity was intended to make a profit. May I put it to the right hon. Lady that raising money for charitable purposes is not most people's ordinary understanding of profitable activities? Will she consider the possibility of exempting even a limited number of concerts or activities from the Bill if their purpose is charitable?
  Tessa Jowell: I would be very happy to consider the specific case that the hon. Gentleman raises and he may seek to do so again in Committee. An amendment was carried in another place that sought to exempt entertainment in public places that involved fewer than 250 people. Again, those who supported that amendment intended it to be a further deregulatory measure, but for reasons that I will set out in a moment, it would have a perverse effect, possibly exposing children to greater risk and denying the expectation of proper protection that people in public places should be able to take for granted. However, I would be very happy to give the hon. Gentleman a considered reply to the specific question that he asks.
  Mr. Don Foster: On whether to reverse amendments passed in another place, does the right hon. Lady agree that, if local authorities are to have a new role as licensing authorities, it is vital that they are given the powers to do the job? Can she therefore assure the House that the Government will not attempt to overturn the amendment passed in another place that will enable local authorities to refuse a licence in the absence of objections where the local authority itself believes that granting that licence would not be in the best interests of the local community?
  Tessa Jowell: No, we do not agree with that. That amendment cuts right at the heart of the intention of the Bill. Remember that the statutory consultees who will be consulted on licence applications include a number of local authority departments or agencies, so the local authority will not be out of the consultation loop, but decisions on licensing should be made on the strength of representations, rather than being taken by the local authority without receipt of representations.
  Alan Howarth rose—
  Tessa Jowell: I will give way to my right hon. Friend, and then I shall make progress.
  Alan Howarth: Of course my right hon. Friend will be aware that many arts organisations are charities. That includes, for example, a number of brass bands. Will she acknowledge the important contribution that brass bands make to our national life? Does she recognise that many of them are in a precarious financial position, particularly those that do not enjoy the benefit of industrial sponsorship? Will she assure me and the brass band movement that the Government will not legislate in the Bill, or at any other time, to add to its difficulties? Indeed, will she undertake also to advise the arts funders that she expects them to make available to brass bands a proper share of the funds that they have to distribute?
  Tessa Jowell: I remind my right hon. Friend that this Government stand up for many things, and brass bands are one of the great institutions among them. I know that he will welcome announcements to be made tomorrow by the Arts Council of England on funding for the arts, which, as a result of this Government's commitment to funding the arts up and down the country at the level that people want, is at its highest rate ever.
  Mr. Mark Field: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Tessa Jowell: No. I will make some progress.
  There is a broad consensus from the responses to consultation on this Bill that the licensing regime is in need of overhaul. It is an inconsistent mish-mash going back to the time of Henry III. For example, it currently allows a five-year-old to drink spirits in a beer garden. It does not require a licence to be held to sell alcohol on a boat but it does insist on one to offer home-made wine on a tombola at a village fete. Current law allows licensing applications to be granted without the voice of local residents being heard, which was the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed). Fixed closing times mean that, in parts of our towns and cities, hundreds of drinkers spill on to the streets at precisely the same time, all of them competing for transport and takeaways. The regime goes from the sublime to the ridiculous: for example, when it requires a policeman to cover his uniform to go into an off-licence.
  The process that led to this Bill being presented began with a two-year licensing review, which worked with a full range of interested parties. That review delivered the April 2000 White Paper "Time for Reform". More than 1,200 organisations and individuals responded to it, showing strong support for its proposals. We have continued to work closely with local authorities, the police, people who run licensed premises, performers, children's groups and many others to develop and improve those proposals. The Bill currently before the House enshrines the main principles that emerged from that consultation: the prevention of crime and disorder; public safety; the prevention of public nuisance; and not least the protection of children from harm. Those four aims will provide the yardstick against which licensing judgments will be made.

  57
  The deregulatory objective is to strip away unnecessary red tape by amalgamating six existing licensing regimes into a single unified system. For example, it will cut the number of forms that licensed premises in England and Wales currently have to fill in from more than 120 to just a handful.
  The Bill is in nine parts. Its key proposals include, first, the transfer of alcohol licensing from magistrates to local authorities, bringing it into line with the other five licensing schemes covered by the Bill, which are already run by local authorities. That will allow the licensing authority to weigh the interests of the local community and of industry. For the first time, and not before time, the Bill gives a powerful voice to local residents and businesses: they will have the right to complain to the licensing authority about new licence applications. They will be able to call for reviews that could lead to existing licences being revised or revoked. All applications for premises and personal licences will have to be advertised to local residents and businesses.
  Just as residents get a new voice on local licences, the police will get increased powers to tackle troublemakers. The Bill allows senior police officers to close any licensed premises on the spot for 24 hours when it is, or likely to become the focus of disorder or noise nuisance. They can ask magistrates to extend the closure, which would result in a review of the licence and possibly revocation. That existing, narrower power has only been used four times since its introduction in December 2001, but that low level of use is a testament to its powerful value as a deterrent. Under our new provisions, police could follow that up with on-the-spot action with an extension of the closure of up to 24 hours. To prevent disorder, the Bill provides powers to close down all licensed premises in a particular area where disorder is occurring or expected to occur—around football matches, for example. It also gives the police stronger powers to confiscate alcohol. Abolishing arbitrarily fixed closing times means that the incentive to drink as much as possible before closing time at 11 pm will go. Disorder and nuisance will be reduced as the concentration of people on the street at closing time will fall.
  Mr. Steen: As the Secretary of State is making good progress, can I ask her a question about farmers' markets? In my constituency, I have vineyards and cider makers. In Europe, people can sell wine and cider without any licences—they just go to market and sell. Can the Secretary of State assure me that that will be allowed under the Bill?
  Tessa Jowell: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman, who should be praised for taking the main chance, that assurance. One of the Bill's fundamental provisions requires people selling alcohol to have a licence. However, we want to support the continuing flourishing development of farmers' markets, and the Bill aims to ensure that the responsibility for applying for a licence will not be unduly onerous on the hon. Gentleman's cider or wine makers
  To address the disorder that results from fixed closing times, we have looked at the experience of other countries, and have concluded that they have taken the right direction, as there is far less disturbance at their respective closing times. The abolition of fixed closing times and its effect on binge drinking ties the Bill very
  58
  closely to the national alcohol harm reduction strategy. The Bill also introduces a new degree of personal accountability, as the holder of a premises licence will be personally responsible for complying with its conditions. The new personal licence to supply alcohol will mean that bad landlords will carry their records with them and good landlords will be able to move more easily, delivering greater management flexibility.
  Paddy Tipping: The Secretary of State has made it clear that personal licences are essential for good management of the industry. Does she believe that those personal licences should be registered and held centrally?
  Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend has made an important point, which was also made in an amendment tabled in another place. We need to make a clear distinction between a national licensing authority and a national licensing database. It is certainly our intention to establish a national licensing database for precisely the reasons suggested by my hon. Friend.
  We agree that local authorities should take into account the effect that a concentration of licensed premises in a particular area may have on levels of crime, disorder and public nuisance. They need to be able to do so to minimise disruption to local communities. In that respect, I thank and pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who is not in the Chamber at the moment because he has another commitment, for his tenacious pursuit of this issue.
  In the light of our examination of that issue, we have added local authority planning committees to the named bodies that will scrutinise applications. We have also made it clear in guidance that licensing authorities will be able to take into account cumulative effect, as it is known, in setting the framework of their local policy. They will be able to make it clear in their statements of licensing policy that, for certain areas, there is a presumption against granting any more licences for premises of a particular type. That will help us to achieve the first three of our social objectives.
  Andy King: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. Until now, it has been very difficult for towns such as mine to have a say in what happens in and around our town centres. We have ended up being saturated by big warehouses moving in and threatening all the traditional outlets. How robust will the power be in enabling local authorities to stand up and say, "Enough is enough"?
  Tessa Jowell: As I am sure my hon. Friend will recognise in terms of his constituency experience, what people want in town and city centres is a mix of facilities rather than a single kind of licensed premises. I hope that the more flexible approach that I have outlined—which will have statutory force as it will be set out in the guidance which local authorities will reinforce through their statement of licensing policy—will give effect to that greater flexibility and allow our towns and cities to attract a greater diversity of licensed premises.
  The protection of children is the fourth of the key principles against which licensing decisions will be judged. Many people mistakenly believe that we are

  59
  actively introducing new provisions to make it possible for any child to enter any licensed premises unsupervised. What few people realize—I think that this is due to the impenetrable inconsistency of existing licensing provisions on children—is that children already have unsupervised access to pubs and clubs at the licensee's discretion. It is now legal for any child over 14 to enter any part of licensed premises without adult supervision as long as they do not go into the bar area.
  Claire Ward: Will my right hon. Friend clarify that she is proposing that children of any age, including those under 14, will now have unsupervised access to licensed premises?
  Tessa Jowell: I shall answer my hon. Friend's question by developing the point that I had just begun to make. I think that that will give her the answer that she is seeking.
  A child as young as five can already enter a pub or club unsupervised as long as they stay away from the bar area. It would be perfectly legal under the current system for a seven-year-old to go into a night club unsupervised at 2 am. The reason why they do not is a very important principle that will also be an important factor under the new regime—they can do so only at the discretion of the licensee. We are not changing that. Children will continue to be admitted only at the licensee's discretion, as is currently the case.
  The Bill contains many tough protections for children. In order to ensure that we get them right, we are working closely with the police, child protection groups and children's charities to ensure that they are tough and rigorous enough. We are working with the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the Children's Society, Turning Point, the Methodist Church, the Salvation Army, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Directors of Social Services. All those organisations have provided advice to us about the right approach to protecting children. With their help, we have developed a package of measures including clear guidance about supervision levels. We propose that, in addition to the existing statutory consultees in relation to licensing decisions, the local area child protection committee should be added to the list of responsible authorities that must be consulted on every application. If a place is unsuitable for children, the committee will be able to object. Representations will lead to a hearing that will allow conditions to be placed on a licence that will regulate access by children or exclude them from premises altogether, if necessary. Local people—obviously including parents and teachers—will also be able to make representations.
  I have agreed with those whom I have consulted four clear supervision levels that will be set out in my statutory guidance to local authorities. The first level covers premises to which children should not be allowed access at all because they might be exposed to drugs, gambling or adult entertainment. The second covers premises in respect of which the presumption is that those aged under 18 will not normally be allowed access except in specific circumstances, such as when a night
  60
  club hosts an under-18s disco. The third covers premises that children aged under 14 should access only when supervised by an adult—some pubs might fall into that category. The last—I hope that this addresses the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Claire Ward)—covers premises to which unsupervised children aged under 14 will be permitted access, such as most cinemas, theatres, restaurants and cafés. Amendments made in another place would have meant that children aged under 14 would need to be accompanied in any licensed premises, and the charities made it clear that that would be too restrictive given the protections that the Bill already provides.
  Our combination of a flexible Bill and clear guidance will ensure that children will always be afforded the necessary protection for their circumstances. We do not want to require children to be accompanied to cinemas or theatres, but it would be highly undesirable to give them unfettered access to all licensed premises.
  Claire Ward: For most people, the issue is not unaccompanied children's access to cinemas or theatres. Most people to whom I have talked about the issue are concerned about unaccompanied children's access to licensed establishments that are mainly for adults and have the main purpose of serving alcohol. Why did my right hon. Friend not take the opportunity to use the Bill to introduce a consistent approach on the access of children to such premises, rather than allowing a decision simply to be up to a licensee's discretion?
  Tessa Jowell: Because we are trying to achieve flexibility and to reflect the wide range of premises that will be subject to licensing. The four levels that we have defined for children's access show that we have addressed my hon. Friend's point and will ensure that there will be a presumption that children will not be admitted to premises that are unsuitable for them whether or not they have adult supervision. That will be set out in my statutory guidance and it will be incumbent on local authorities to apply the framework of the guidance when it takes licensing decisions.
  Mr. Mark Field: Will the right hon. Lady clarify how many of the nine amendments made in the other place will be brought into play? I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on the proposals for the licensing objectives and I am sorry that she has not seen fit to ensure that those amendments, at least, will be reflected in the final Bill.
  Tessa Jowell: We propose to uphold several of the amendments, and especially the amendment on the exemption of schools. We also intend to accept the amendment on incidental live music. In relation to the other amendments, we shall seek either to overturn or to amend them. In particular, I have said that, for no other reason than to meet the intentions of the Bill, we seek to overturn the amendment that proposed public amenity as an alternative to public nuisance.
  Jim Knight: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Tessa Jowell: I want to make some progress, because I know that many people wish to speak on the Bill.

  61
  The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting and I are very grateful to the groups that have helped us to reach what I think is a good conclusion on the proposed policy on accompanied and unaccompanied children in licensed premises. Today, Liz Atkins, the head of the policy and public affairs unit at the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, said:
  "The NSPCC welcomes the aims and intentions of the proposed new Licensing Bill. Clarification on the sale of alcohol and access of children to licensed premises has been long overdue. The NSPCC supports the principle of access for children while keeping in place the necessary safeguards to protect them from harm. This is a perfect opportunity to make public spaces more child-friendly while protecting children from the less salubrious side of drinking."
  I hope that that will provide reassurance to hon. Members who are rightly concerned to ensure that the right balance is struck in relation to this issue.
  I turn now to another area of contention, which is music. At this point, I would like to pay tribute to the Musicians Union, which has certainly won the Oscar for the best spin on this matter. I say that with unbounded admiration, rather than acrimony. The union has misrepresented the position with great success, and, in doing so, greatly raised the profile of live music. In reality, amalgamating the licence systems will make it much easier and cheaper to get an entertainment licence in future. In addition, we propose a range of measures to promote live music, a number of which arose from the deliberations on the Bill in another place. Those measures include exempting places of public religious worship; amending the Bill to make it clear that entertainers who do no more than simply perform at what turns out to be an unlicensed venue will not themselves be committing an offence; and exempting church halls, village halls and other community buildings from fees. I can announce today that we will similarly exempt schools and sixth form colleges when they use their premises. That decision also follows the debate in another place.
  Mr. David Cameron: I apologise to the right hon. Lady for missing the start of her speech, but she has now reached the part of the Bill about which I care a great deal. Is she aware that the morris dancers at Bampton in my constituency have been dancing in the pubs there for 600 years—without a break, as they tell me? The Secretary of State says that it will be easier to get an entertainment licence. Is she aware that, because the dancers have only two musicians accompanying them, they have never had to have a licence before, but that in future they will have to have one? That is going to cost the pubs a lot of money and time. Is it really necessary?
  Tessa Jowell: I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the morris dancers of Bampton will be able to continue to dance and to entertain the people of Bampton for another 600 years.
  Andy King: The Bilton silver band brings a great deal of joy to people in and around the midlands, and twice a year—including at Christmas—it has a street collection to pay for some of its instruments. Voluntary contributions meet just a fraction of its costs. Will it be
  62
  required to pay for a licence, or will it be able to continue to do what it has done for many years, which is to bring joy to many?
  Tessa Jowell: From what my hon. Friend has just said, I think it unlikely that the band would need a licence. In exactly the same way, I would not expect the licensing requirement in relation to the Bampton morris dancers to be altered by the provisions of the Bill.
  Judy Mallaber: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Tessa Jowell: I want to conclude my remarks, because I know that many h on. Members wish to speak.
  I give the House the assurance that we will use the accompanying guidance to ensure that only necessary and proportionate conditions are attached to licences. I can also announce that we will preserve the spirit of amendments made in another place that would exempt incidental live music. In addition to giving hon. Members reassurance on the future of morris dancing, let me assure them that, contrary to certain well-circulated myths, people will not be arrested for singing "Happy Birthday" in a restaurant, and that postmen will not need a licence to whistle on their rounds, although the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—who is not in his place at the moment—will, I am afraid, continue to need a licence for his ties. The Bill will encourage live music and entertainment.
  The thorough and invaluable examination of the Bill in another place has identified areas of concern where, frankly. we have had to think again. I am grateful for the degree of scrutiny that the Bill has already undergone. I know that hon. Members will give the Bill their full attention. The Bill is a balanced package. It will provide licensing authorities with effective tools that they currently lack, enabling them to come down hard on problems that cause disturbance, when they arise. For the first time, it gives communities a democratic voice in licensing, and expands police powers to close down premises that are the source of disorder, or are excessively noisy. It will also provide more choice for consumers, in terms of the time, place and range of entertainment on offer. The law should always keep pace with changing society and preserve the best of our national traditions. It should always protect the vulnerable and allow adults their harmless pleasures. This Bill will fulfil all those aspirations and I commend it to the House.
  5.57 pm
  Mr. John Whittingdale: Given the limited time available and the number of hon. Members who I know wish to speak, I will try to keep my remarks relatively brief. Let me make it clear that we welcome the Government's intention to reform our licensing laws. No one would disagree that the existing laws are arcane and badly in need of updating. In many cases, they now preserve restrictions, the need for which has long since gone, and which can act as a disincentive for the development of tourism and an unnecessary obstacle to people's enjoyment.
  In the original White Paper setting out the Government's proposals, the need to provide greater freedom and flexibility was stressed. We certainly

  63
  support that objective. It has, however, become steadily clearer that, in many cases, the Government's proposals—certainly as originally phrased—would have resulted not in less regulation but in more. They would not have reduced the burden of bureaucracy on those wishing to provide alcohol or entertainment; instead, they would have increased it, and they would have led not to more opportunities to enjoy live music but to fewer.
  In some cases, that was due to a failure by the Government to consult properly with those who were going to be affected by the Bill or to them not properly understanding the full consequences of what they were proposing. That failure has led to the Government being defeated nine times in the House of Lords during the consideration of the Bill, and being forced to make a further seven major concessions. As a result of the work done in the other place, the Bill is now much improved. However. I have to say that I agree with the Secretary of State, who admitted that putting the Bill out for pre-legislative scrutiny, as the Government did with the Communications Bill, would have saved them an enormous amount of trouble.
  Let me turn to the detailed provisions and, in particular, the changes to the licensing of alcohol sales. We agree with the greater flexibility in opening hours, which the Bill will allow. There is no doubt that the uniform pub closing hour can act as a barrier to tourism and may also contribute to public order problems as a result of large numbers of people being ejected on to the street at the same time, but the Government's claim that longer and more flexible opening hours may reduce binge drinking, crime, disorder and public nuisance is disputed by many. In particular, some international evidence does not support it, and it is not the view of a number of police officers or, indeed, local authorities.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: I have experience not internationally, but in the city of Newcastle, as we held an experiment with 24-hour licensing on millennium eve and during Euro 96 Fewer people were arrested on those evenings than on the average Friday and Saturday night, and Northumbria constabulary recognises that a more flexible approach to licensing reduced the violence on the streets.
  Mr. Whittingdale: I can see that there may be a case that more flexible opening hours will make it easier to preserve order on the streets in that that may remove the "bulge" caused by every drinking establishment having to close at the same time, but a number of local authorities and police officers have expressed a contrary view. The Government have not yet provided robust evidence to support their claims, and they have a job to do to persuade many residents and local communities that that will indeed be the effect.
  In particular, there is great concern in areas where a number of late-night drinking establishments already exist. Recently, I spent a Friday night out in the west end with Westminster city council licensing officers and councillors. We visited several large clubs, each of which was packed with upwards of 1,000 people, all of whom appeared to be there with the sole purpose of drinking as much as possible in the time available.
  64
  Such a huge concentration obviously has a damaging effect on the quality of life of local residents. Indeed, I witnessed an example of that when I emerged from visiting one Soho resident to find that somebody had vomited on his doorstep. I was told by that resident that that is a pretty regular occurrence on Saturday nights. So, it is important that proper account is taken of the interests and concerns of local residents.
  In areas such as Westminster and other inner-city areas, account also needs to be taken of the cumulative impact of a large number of licensed establishments in terms of noise, nuisance and disturbance, not just in the area of the specific premises, but in the area as a whole. That was flagged up only last week by the Select Committee that scrutinises the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. We welcome the limited recognition in the guidance being issued to local authorities of the fact that saturation is an issue, but we may wish to examine it further in Committee to see whether stronger safeguards are required.
  Another major plank of the Bill, which is generating considerable opposition, as the Secretary of State knows, is the proposed transfer of responsibility for alcohol licensing from magistrates to local authorities. The existing system of licensing magistrates has worked reasonably well, with magistrates providing a good balance between, on the one hand, knowledge of and involvement with their local communities and, on the other, being seen as impartial and free from political interests. Given that, many see no case for change and have considerable anxieties about what may result.
  The Secretary of State may be aware of a poll showing that 94 per cent. of licensees oppose giving local authorities responsibility for licensing. That is borne out by my experience and conversations with local licensees through the Maldon licensed victuallers.
  Mr. Eric Illsley: The hon. Gentleman says that he agrees with the Bill on cumulative impact and trying to prevent saturation, but he is talking about leaving the licensing authority with the magistrates. Will he address the situation in my constituency? The magistrates have not refused a licence on the question of need. In fact, they will not entertain objections on the basis that my area has too many licensed outlets of a particular type. That, in turn, has led to a proliferation of those establishments. For them to tap into a limited market—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he has gone on a little too long in that intervention.
  Mr. Whittingdale: There are separate matters here: the general issue of the various factors that are examined during consideration of a licence application and the question of who should be responsible for taking that decision. I am not saying that we believe that the Government are absolutely wrong to make that transfer, but we are saying that we have not properly seen evidence to support the transfer being made or to meet the concerns, which are widely felt among licensees, that the transfer of responsibility from magistrates to local authorities will lead to increased costs, greater delay, more bureaucracy and less objectivity.

  65
  A variety of claims are being made about the cost of one system against the other. The Government have said that there is likely to be a saving of nearly £2 billion over 10 years, but major operators such as JD Wetherspoon and Shepherd Neame estimate that costs will increase by more than £1 billion over 10 years. There is a genuine argument about the existing and future costs, yet the Minister has refused to address the industry's representations and says that he sees little point in arguing about them. The Government have a great deal more to do to make the case for the transfer and to justify the figures that they are quoting.
  The new system whereby the premises licence is separated from the personal licence has much to recommend it, but it is in large part undermined by the requirement to name a designated premises supervisor on the licence. That was not specified in the original White Paper and it is causing considerable concern throughout the industry. The effect is that a new licence application will have to be made each time a manager changes, which, one would have thought, rather destroys the point of separating the person from the premises in the first place.
  The personal licence holder may change frequently, resulting in all the additional cost and bureaucracy involved in issuing a new licence. If the Government are serious about reducing red tape, it would be far simpler to require notification of the relevant authority when a change is made.
  I hope that the Government also accept the amendment passed in the House of Lords to establish a central licensing register for the administration of personal licences. I hear what the Secretary of State said to the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) and we will want to look closely to see precisely how the Government intend to meet the force of the argument made in the House of Lords. It seems absurd that they propose that responsibility for issuing a personal licence to an individual should stay with the local authority to which he first applied, no matter where that individual may have since moved.
  If the Government want the personal licence system to have any meaning, it cannot be left to 400 different local authorities to carry out checks on applicants who might have moved to the other end of the country decades ago. I welcome the fact that there appears to be some Government movement in that area, but we shall want to look closely to see precisely what they now propose.
  Whether or not responsibility for administering personal licences rests with local authorities, the proposals will place a considerable extra burden on them and it is essential that they be properly resourced to deal with it. As well as the cost of administration, there may be knock-on effects as a result of the development of a late-night economy, which could vary considerably between areas, yet the Bill takes no account of that. Many also regard the proposed 12-month transition period as wholly unrealistic, and the limiting of the number of councillors on a licensing authority to 15 could prove grossly inadequate in some cases.
  The changes to the system of licensing arrangements for the sale of alcohol give rise to many concerns, which we shall want to mention in Committee; but it is in the
  66
  area of entertainments licensing that the Government's original proposals have caused the most anxiety. In many instances, it appears that the Government have almost been taken unawares by the deep unpopularity of their proposals. We are glad that sense has now prevailed in some cases. I am thinking particularly of their belated acceptance that requiring churches outside London, for the first time, to have licences for secular entertainment would be hugely damaging, hitting events from festivals in our cathedrals to performances in parish churches. That recognition constitutes a dramatic step, as does the Government's acceptance of the argument that garden fetes and private charity fundraising events should be exempted and that there should be no fee for applications from village halls and schools.
  We hope that the Minister will also accept the force of such arguments in relation to small premises in general, as suggested by the House of Lords —although I understand from the Secretary of State's remarks that the Government currently seek to overturn the Lords amendment. I also hope that the Minister and the Secretary of State will recognise that, despite assurances to the contrary, fears remain that the Bill may well cover many events such as wedding receptions, private parties, the demonstration of musical instruments, the provision of rehearsal rooms, even carol singing—and, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), wassailing.
  The Minister has sought to dismiss such claims as scaremongering and a "pernicious lying campaign" by the Musicians Union. I am glad to note that he recognises his own words. But while he may give assurances that the Bill does not cover such events, a large body of legal opinion has advised the Musicians Union and others that it will have exactly those effects. We are pleased that the Government have now said that they are prepared to sit down with the Musicians Union and others whom the Bill will affect and look at it again. I hope that that will lead to further Government amendments to prevent any possible doubt that the Minister's assurances are supported by the Bill, but if they are not forthcoming, we will not hesitate to table our own amendments.
  Our main point of disagreement with the Government, however, remains the abolition of the so-called two-in-a-bar rule. It has long been an objective of musicians and performers to get rid of the law that allows one or two performers to perform without a licence, but insists that three or more obtain one. I seem to recall Members from all parts of the House supporting that campaign by wearing gags to illustrate the absurdity of the present law. No one, I suspect, imagined that the Government's response would be to deal with the existing anomaly by extending the licensing requirement to cover every live performance, however many performers were involved. The result is an extension of the requirement for a licence to thousands of pubs and other venues that currently host performances without one. It is hardly surprising that musicians throughout the land fear that many venues for live performances will consequently be lost.
  The Minister has claimed that music in pubs will not be harmed by the Bill, but under the Government's proposals more than 100,000 licensed premises that do not currently have public entertainment licences and

  67
  regularly offer music performed by one or two people will lose that right, and will have to obtain licences from their local authorities to permit even one unamplified musician to perform.
  Jim Knight: The two-in-a-bar rule was nonsense because it referred to the number of performers. The public safety and noise issues involve the number of people attending a performance. There should be a safeguard related to that, rather than to the number of performers, and the Government are trying to provide one. We may discuss in Committee whether there should be an exemption for a gathering of 250, 50 or 10, but the issue must be the number attending.
  Mr. Whittingdale: I agree that the existing rule is nonsense, and that it is difficult to produce any justification for it. I also agree that much of the current concern relates to noise and to public safety, which is endangered by overcrowding. Ample legislation already exists to deal with those factors, however: there are strict rules governing health and safety issues and noise and disturbance. We see no reason why such matters need be dealt with through a licence requirement for all public performances. In some parts of the United Kingdom there is no such requirement, and existing legislation is used.
  Mr. Hugo Swire: Is there not a danger that smaller pubs, especially in rural areas such as mine in the west country, will be unwilling or unable to apply for licences? That would mean the death of live music in many remote areas, although it is an integral part of the community and of our way of life in the west country.
  Mr. Whittingdale: My hon. Friend is right. The Minister says that no additional cost will be involved in seeking a public entertainments licence on top of the existing licence, but the fear—a fear with some justification—is that considerable extra burdens will be placed on a pub or other applicant for a public entertainments licence in the form of numerous provisions relating to health and safety, the fitting of double glazing and fire exits and so forth. There have been plenty of examples of that, and many licensees will be deterred from applying for public entertainments licences.
  When I asked a selection of about 30 publicans in my constituency how many would tick the box for a public entertainments licence, not one said that they would. The result is bound to be fewer opportunities for live music to be heard in both rural and urban pubs.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: Is the hon. Gentleman not misunderstanding the Bill? If a publican applies for a licence to sell alcohol, part of that licence will allow him to provide entertainment. He will no longer need to apply for a separate public entertainments licence. The idea that this will drive pubs not to provide music is nonsense.
  Mr. Whittingdale: The Bill requires applicants for a premises licence to specify whether they want an additional public entertainments licence. They must tick
  68
  the appropriate box. It is feared that before granting such a licence local authorities will impose all sorts of extra requirements, and that people will therefore be deterred from ticking the box. I do not believe Ministers' assurances that that will not happen, and publicans throughout the country certainly do not believe it. That is why thousands have already made it clear that they will not apply for public entertainments licences, which means that the thousands of performances that currently take place with no requirement for a licence can no longer happen.
  Diana Organ: Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that, with the transition of the granting of licences from magistrates courts to local authorities, those authorities that want to sustain cultural and tourist activities by allowing singers in pubs to continue to perform can do so by not imposing the conditions that he describes?
  Mr. Whittingdale: I do not think that licensees will be willing simply to take that on trust. Thousands of them have already made it clear that they will not apply for public entertainments licences. The effect will be that the huge numbers of performances that take place without a licence as a result of the two-in-a-bar rule will not be able to continue.
  Mr. David Heath: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He has dealt with the anomaly that in Scotland there is no need for a public entertainment licence, whereas in puritan England there is. Will he deal too with the anomaly that if 20 or 30 people want to listen to a single acoustic performer in a pub, the pub will have to be licensed for entertainment, but if 300 people want to watch a televised football match on a large screen, the pub will not need such a licence?
  Mr. Whittingdale: The hon. Gentleman pre-empts me; he is entirely right. The Bill is riddled with anomalies. There appears to be a perfectly acceptable and successful system in Scotland, where all concerns are met through other legislative means, without any requirement for a licence of this kind. As the hon. Gentleman says, the broadcasting of recorded music will not require a licence under the terms of the Bill, even though it could be far louder and far more intrusive, and attract a much bigger audience, than a couple of people strumming guitars in a corner.
  There is not only the question of musical entertainment; the Bill originally stated that darts matches in pubs which are watched by wives and friends would require a licence, as would the provision of a piano for public use in a bar or restaurant. My hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) has already drawn attention to the deep concern of folk musicians who go from pub to pub to hold singarounds that those may become licensable if there is any danger that anybody in the pub is listening to and enjoying the performance.
  On the point that the Government seem to consider that live performance poses such dangers that it requires a licence, whereas the televised screening of a soccer match or a concert poses no dangers, the Minister said on Radio 1 a couple of months ago that in 14 years as an MP he had never received a complaint about a folk

  69
  group or anybody else playing acoustic music, but that he had had lots of complaints about loud televisions and loud piped music. It therefore seems extraordinary that he proposes to regulate the former but to exempt the latter.
  Happily, the House of Lords has removed many of the absurdities from the Bill. Amendments passed to exempt unamplified music and to restrict the licensing requirement to events attracting more than 250 people or those continuing after 11.30 at night go a long way to making the Bill genuinely deregulatory, as the Government originally claimed they wanted it to be.
  Of course there will be concerns about health and safety and noise, but those can be addressed using existing legislation. In addition, the argument that a small premises exemption will make it impossible to prevent children from seeing adult movies hardly seems to us to be justification for requiring a licence for every venue offering a live music performance. I therefore hope that the Government will listen to the House of Lords and to the 80,000 people who have now signed our early-day motion, which was posted on the internet. If not, and if they seek to reverse the Lords amendment, we will resist them both here and in the other place.
  There are also concerns about many other aspects of the new licensing regime, which the Government have failed to address. The Central Council of Physical Recreation estimates that increased licence fees may cost voluntary sports clubs up to £4 million a year. Activities organised for their members by private clubs such as the Caravan Club, which holds rallies in different places every week of the year, will not be able to use the club premises certificate, nor will they necessarily fit the criteria for a temporary event notice.
  Mr. Illsley: I declare an interest in that I am the parliamentary adviser to the Caravan Club. There will be no problem whatsoever with Caravan Club rallies; they are outside the scope of the Bill.
  Mr. Whittingdale: The hon. Gentleman and I had an enjoyable occasion about two weeks ago at a meeting organised by the Caravan Club, and the club told me that it would be covered by the Bill and that it was extremely concerned. Its adviser has sent me a detailed note setting out exactly what are the club's concerns. Maybe that adviser was rather better informed than the hon. Gentleman.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes made clear, many wine growers and cider makers are extremely worried that the farmers markets through which they market their produce will need to be licensed, which may result in them being unable to sell their products there. There are also concerns among those involved in distant selling, who think that warehouses and delivery premises may require a licence, even though the owners have no involvement in selling whatsoever.
  At the time of its introduction the Bill was badly thought through and badly drafted. In many areas it would have massively increased the burden of regulation rather than reducing it. As it originally stood, it managed to unite churches, charities, publicans, musicians and morris dancers in opposition to its key provisions. Happily, since then it has been much
  70
  improved in the House of Lords, so that it is now at least closer to being deregulatory. We do not therefore intend to oppose it tonight, but we will be pressing the Government to accept the changes that have been made and to take further steps to address many of the remaining concerns Whether or not we support the Bill in its final form will depend very much on the outcome of the next few weeks.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must remind the House that the 12-minute limit on Back-Benchers' speeches begins now.
  6.26 pm
  Claire Ward: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak early in the debate, which has been very interesting so far.
  I welcome the Bill as an opportunity to revise and update some of our most outdated legislation, which goes back many centuries. This is a chance for us to put into a modern perspective the licensing of alcohol and entertainment and to ensure that there is flexibility to reflect the changing lifestyles that many of us now lead.
  For many Members and their constituents, the opportunity to travel abroad and enjoy the entertainment and licensing hours in many other countries has made them realise how outdated we in this country are. That has had a significant effect on tourism in this country, and the Bill offers us an opportunity to ensure that tourists who visit this country can enjoy our entertainment, our late-night cafes and all our licensed premises in the same way as they enjoy such facilities in their own countries.
  Mr. Mark Field: Does the hon. Lady accept that the concern of many Conservative Members is that the way in which alcohol is consumed in our society is fundamentally different from that on much of the continent? That factor underlines many of the problems that residents have highlighted, such as the prospect of 24-hour or much-extended licensing.
  Claire Ward: I accept that there is a very different culture in this country, and I believe that the Bill will help to change that by removing the opportunities for binge drinking. When the pubs of Watford close at 11, 12 or 12.30 at night, many young people move, all at once, to the nightclubs, which will then turn them out at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning. It would be far more sensible to have a staged throwing-out time, making it easier for residents and communities to cope with problems such as antisocial behaviour and helping the police to deal more effectively with such problems. So I welcome the Bill for that reason, but there are a few issues on which I seek some clarification.
  In general, I welcome the proposal to change the decision-making process by allowing local authorities to make licensing decisions, but I do have some concerns. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State confirm that additional funding will be provided to local authorities to enable them to deal with their new responsibilities when the Bill becomes law? As she is undoubtedly aware, local authorities are already concerned about funding, and I would not want Watford, which already has a significant number of

  71
  entertainment and licensed establishments, to have to bear the burden of additional costs taken over from the magistrates courts committee.
  Mr. Swire: The hon. Lady says that most people welcome the idea that licensing arrangements should be changed. However, I wonder whether, like me, she has received forms from licensees stating categorically that 94 per cent. of licensees want licensing to be controlled by magistrates. In doing so, they cited the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) in his opening remarks.
  Claire Ward: I should point out that I have discussed this issue with Tim Martin of J.D. Wetherspoon, which is based in my constituency, and I fundamentally disagree with him. Residents in my area would greatly appreciate the opportunity for their views to be heard. Residents in the upper part of Watford town centre, near the nightclubs and the highly populated music establishments and drinking areas, constantly have to put up with antisocial behaviour and problems associated with young people leaving the town centre and going to the train station. Those residents feel that magistrates courts committees do not listen to their views; however, they will be able to hold accountable their locally elected councillors when they make such decisions.
  In addition to funding, I am concerned about the timing of the decision-making process. We know that under planning legislation local authorities are required to determine an application within eight weeks. However, very few of them manage to achieve that, and in some cases it takes months for local planning committees to make a decision. I hope that my right hon. Friend will ensure, under the guidelines that she will issue to local authorities, that, in taking on these powers, committees must determine a licence application within a reasonable time; that she will establish what that time is; and that there will be a proper appeals process. Residents should have the opportunity to appeal to their locally elected council representatives, and, should the decision not go in their favour, they should also have the right to appeal to a magistrates courts committee.
  I am also concerned about the requirement for churches and village halls to have a licence, although I accept that the Government have decided, through the other place, that a fee should not be payable. I hope that my right hon. Friend will clarify whether a person who privately hires a village hall that may not provide a permanent bar service will have to have a licence. At the moment, many village and community halls are hired out to members of the community who wish to hold a birthday party or some other function. They bring in an off-licence in order to provide bar services, which are paid for by the people attending that function. Will such an individual be required to have a licence, and will the terms and conditions be changed? Will the number of times that such a hall can be used for those purposes be restricted if it is not paying a fee? Will she also clarify whether it will it make a difference if such a hall is hired by a charitable group or a not-for-profit organisation,
  72
  so that we can ensure that there are no problems for community groups that organise events for local charities or good causes?
  My right hon. Friend has already dealt with the question of children entering such premises. Young children regarding licensed establishments as appropriate places to hang out and have a drink, even a non-alcoholic one, is a matter of concern. It is not just a question of such places being adult environments in which people are drinking, in which they are therefore likely to be less aware that children are around, and in which behaviour occurs that is perhaps not suitable for children; I am also concerned that in licensed establishments, particularly pubs and clubs, it is more likely that the environment will be smokey. My great worry is that this legislation will encourage licensees to allow children into smoking environments, and I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has considered placing a condition on a licence whereby a no-smoking area must be provided within a pub or a club if the licensee determines that a child will be allowed into the premises.
  People these days are genuinely concerned that children might enter a pub or club in which adults are smoking around them, and that that might encourage more young people to smoke. [Interruption.] I hope that my right hon. Friend has given some consideration to that issue. [Interruption.] My poor hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) is choking purely at the prospect that he might be banned from smoking in such environments, but I suspect that the Government have not quite reached that stage yet.
  In general, I welcome the provisions of the Bill, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to clarify some of the issues that I have raised. I hope, too, that she can give some comfort to those who have raised the abolition of the two-in-a-bar rule by pointing out that new opportunities for entertainment will be opened up, and that she will enable more entertainment in pubs, clubs and licensed venues, not less.
  6.37 pm
  Nick Harvey: I welcome the Government's decision to introduce the Licensing Bill. There is no doubt that a comprehensive overhaul of the legislation in this area is long overdue, and that the current regime is archaic and complex. It is often said—correctly or apocryphally—that the current laws were designed to keep munitions factory workers sober in wartime, and that they have remained in place ever since. Certainly, examining what schedule 7 will repeal shows the age of some of the existing laws. Such legislation includes the Universities (Wine Licences) Act 1743, the Sunday Observance Act 1780, the Inebriates Act 1898, and—for a reason that is not entirely clear—the Hypnotism Act 1952.
  As the hon. Member for Watford (Claire Ward) has said, our laws have been badly out of kilter not only with the rest of Europe, but with the rest of the world. When foreign visitors come to the UK and run up against our licensing laws, some of them scratch their heads in complete bemusement and wonder, and cannot for the life of them make out what they are about. It is certainly time that we reviewed them.
  The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells): In case the hon. Gentleman is going to develop the argument about hypnotism, I should tell him that I am reliably informed that we are not doing away with the Hypnotism Act 1952.
  Nick Harvey: I apologise to the Minister—it is section 1 (2) of the 1952 Act that is being done away with, rather than the Act in its entirety.
  There are clear reasons for reform. We need a new regime for social reasons, to control antisocial and binge drinking. We need to give the police the opportunity to tackle the issue of chucking-out times more satisfactorily. I accept the point that the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) made that research from different countries is contradictory on that issue, but it is certainly the case that the balance of all lobbying by the police that I have experienced, in the 11 years that I have been a Member of Parliament, has been in favour of abolishing a common chucking-out time and enabling them to tackle problems in town centres more flexibly.
  We also need a new regime for reasons of better government. It cannot be right for the Government to sustain arbitrarily imposed limits on when people can enter, and must leave, premises established to serve alcohol. In this day and age, it is not right to take a one-size-fits-all approach that allows exceptions only in the most unusual circumstances. It is right, therefore, that local communities should have a say in the licensing regime in their area.
  Having said that I welcome legislation on licensing, I see significant problems in this Bill. I welcomed the honest assessment from the Secretary of State that, with the benefit of hindsight, she wished that the Bill had been subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny. If it had, some of the problems would have been smoked out earlier and Ministers and officials would have had a chance to address them. I invite the Secretary of State to go further and acknowledge that it was also a mistake to introduce legislation that will have many of its key characteristics defined in guidelines without publishing the draft of the guidelines at the same time. It was that mistake that gave rise to much of the campaigning outside Parliament that she mentioned. Many of the groups involved started their campaigns because when they read the Bill without the benefit of any draft guidelines they were left to make worst-case assumptions. When the rough draft of the guidelines was eventually published, it allayed some of the fears that had been raised. In conjunction with some useful amendments made in the House of Lords, that took some of the momentum out of the campaigns. It is all very well to accuse people of scaremongering, but if they did not know what the guidelines would say—and how the seemingly limitless powers in the Bill would be curtailed through the application of common sense—it was understandable that they would jump to conclusions.
  It makes sense to combine liquor and entertainment licensing, if we feel that entertainment licensing is necessary. Factors that affect both have much in common, and it makes sense to address them at the same time. However, as the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford said, the existing system—for all its frailties—is well understood and reasonably well accepted. Magistrates have done their important and
  74
  potentially controversial job well, and I subscribe to the adage, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." However, as the Government have decided to put on the agenda the issue of moving the task from magistrates to local authorities, one is compelled to reach a judgment in principle about whether that is the right thing to do. If the question is whether the function of licensing is an executive or judicial task, the Government are right to say that it is an executive task. If changing the present system is the Government's wish, that is fair enough. Magistrates will hear appeals against local authorities' decisions, which will provide a sensible balance between the two.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: Why is licensing pubs and places of entertainment an executive function, but licensing hackney carriages and taxis a quasi-judicial function?
  Nick Harvey: Local authorities license hackney cabs, so the Government are bringing the licensing systems into line. It may be quasi-judicial but it is not primarily a judicial task carried out by the courts. The Government are beginning to introduce consistency to the licensing functions. The transfer should strengthen the hand of local communities and give them more power over decisions that affect them. It should also democratise the process. The hon. Member for Watford (Claire Ward) may have a slightly rose-tinted view of how local democracy works, but the change will certainly provide greater accountability.
  Claire Ward: I can only assume that the hon. Gentleman is talking about Liberal Democrat councillors in Watford if he believes that local representatives will not listen to local residents.
  Nick Harvey: That is not what I said. My point is whether licensing of premises will escalate into an election issue, in the American fashion of all sorts of extraordinary issues becoming caught up in elections. I hope that we will never go as far as they do in their more extreme examples. 'We must take a reasonable view of local authorities acting, in the words of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), in a quasi-judicial role and of ward members going about their normal democratic business. The two are not the same.
  Jim Knight: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman supports local authorities performing their quasi-judicial role in respect of planning, which also has an appeal process. All that is being proposed is a similar process that will provide the safeguards that the licensed industry has requested.
  Nick Harvey: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman said that, because I see a fundamental difference. We should be replicating the planning function, but when my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) asked the Secretary of State about that issue—the same point was made by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field)—her reply established a fundamental difference between the licensing function and the planning function. We will ask local authorities to establish licensing policies for their area, just as we ask them to establish planning policies. However, a planning authority is entitled to refuse a planning

  75
  application on the simple ground that it contradicts its planning policy. Under the system in the Bill, the licensing body will be allowed to refuse applications only if a specific objection is made, even if the application would directly contradict its licensing policy. That provokes the spectre of licensing bodies sending out busybodies to drum up objections to provide the opportunity to turn down applications.
  The situation has not been improved by an amendment by the peers—bless them—to the effect that Members of Parliament should be included among those who can make objections. Thanks a bunch for that responsibility! I do not know what attitude the Government have taken to that amendment, but I am sorely tempted to table one that would delete the words "Member of Parliament" and insert "any peer of the realm living in the district in question."
  Jim Knight: Did the hon. Gentleman not listen to the answer that the Secretary of State gave to the intervention from the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster)? She clarified that the policy would be informed by, for example, the environmental health department of a local authority. The environmental health department could object, but not the licensing committee itself. That preserves its neutrality and allows it to perform its quasi-judicial function.
  Nick Harvey: I welcomed the Secretary of State's reply, insofar as she said exactly what the hon. Gentleman has just described, but, unless the objection falls within one of the neat definitions, the authority might still be forced to grant a licence that it did not want to grant and that conflicted with its licensing policy. For the system to work, it is essential for the council officers who support the licensing committee to be able to make a recommendation on the same basis as they do for planning applications. As the Bill stands, they would not be able to do so.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman envisage a mythical situation in which a licence is so controversial in terms of the local authority's policy that no local people object, including Liberal Democrat councillors?
  Nick Harvey: The application need not have caused controversy or even awareness. If the authority can see, even though nobody else has spotted it, that the application will conflict with its licensing policy, it makes a mockery of the authority having been given the power to establish such a policy if it cannot turn down the application on those grounds, given that it will be possible, as we know, for the applicants to take an appeal to the magistrates, which is a reasonable safeguard to put in place.
  Of the 28,000 magistrates, some 3,000 or 4,000 specialise in licensing. How will we keep that specialist knowledge going? Will there be a continuation of the specialist Bench? How will it be paid for? There is no mention of that in the Courts Bill. If many of the staff who currently support the specialist magistrates go off to work for local authorities under the new regime, the capacity of magistrates to perform the appeal function will require some attention, if they are to do what I think will be a tricky job.
  76
  Magistrates currently deal with alcohol licensing on the basis of a set fee, whereas local authorities are much freer to set their own fees for entertainment licensing. In some cases, there has been considerable abuse of that freedom. The Government are right to propose a tariff, although it would be useful to know a little more about how that will be set, and whether there will be scales, grades and bands within the tariff system.
  In my conversations with publicans and landlords, they have expressed considerable worries about what the system will cost. On the basis of what the Government have said so far about the cost of licences, although that will probably be somewhat more expensive than at present, it will not necessarily be hugely so. However, it is the hidden costs that lie beyond that worry landlords a great deal. The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford pointed out that that would be particularly true where landlords tick the entertainments box. That is an issue to which we will have to return. If ticking the entertainment box brings down on the head of the landlord a great deal more vigorous regulation than would otherwise be the case, whether that relates to health and safety, fire, electricity or anything else, the impact that was described—a reduction in the number of pubs that provide live entertainment or live music—will become a problem.
  There was some comment from Ministers to the effect that that was an unnecessary fear. If they are confident of that, will they ensure in the guidance and the regulations that it is not possible to add such extra burdens if the entertainment box is ticked? That is the only way in which they will allay landlords' fears and assumptions. It has been my experience of talking to landlords that, exactly as was described, most of them would be fearful of daring to tick that box.
  Mr. David Heath: My hon. Friend is on to an important point, which causes concern both to landlords and to musicians. Does he agree that it is also important to limit the cost of a variation subsequent to the initial licence being granted—for example, if there is a new landlord or a change of policy and the landlord wants to put on live musical entertainment he may incur all the costs that have been described?
  Nick Harvey: Indeed. If a fee must be paid every time the business operating plan is amended, that will become extremely costly, and if landlords have to pay a fee every time they want to change their list of designated premises supervisors the costs will mount up further. We would welcome some assurance from the Government, so that we can allay those fears.
  The creative industries in this country are worth a great deal. The music industry is worth many millions of pounds a year to the UK and makes a cultural contribution. If music and entertainment at grassroots level is curbed or inhibited, there will he problems right the way up through those industries. Although everyone is pleased to see an end to the nonsensical two-in-a-bar rule, it is being replaced with a none-in-the-bar rule. If that does not limit the number of premises providing entertainment as some of us fear, let us hear from the Government why not, and let them nail some of the fears out there. Ministers described this as a deregulatory Bill, and I dearly hope that they are right, but it has at least the potential to increase regulation.

  77
  I welcome the fact that the Government conceded on some of the changes made in the House of Lords. During her speech, the Secretary of State referred to the amendment that had been passed in the Lords regarding small premises. She said that the intention of the Lords in making that change had been good, but she went on to comment on the amendment and why she did not find it acceptable. Some of the points that she made were sensible and well argued. She said that the Government would repudiate some of the amendments, and try to change others. If she thinks that their lordships had a noble intent when they addressed themselves to small premises, will she consider ways in which that could be fine-tuned to have an effect that she would consider acceptable, rather than throwing it out altogether?
  It is right that local communities should have the greater say that the Bill will give them. That is welcome. I am concerned, however, that the people who are allowed to register an objection are specified in the Bill. That is not necessary. There are fears that some categories of people who might have a perfectly good reason for objecting may be excluded. I wonder why it is necessary to have a list of people who are allowed to make objections. Why should not anybody be allowed to object? The licensing authority could then take as much or as little notice of that objection as it saw fit, depending on whether the objector had managed to establish proper grounds for the objection. Many residents would sleep easier in their beds if that were the case.
  One of the aspects of the current regime that we might regret allowing to go by the wayside are the undertakings that magistrates have extracted from landlords over a period of time clarifying how particular matters operate in particular cases. If they all go as part of the transition, the entire system might be considerably weaker for it.
  There a number of other issues that we will have to examine in Committee—for example, farmers' markets and mail orders. I do not see why sports clubs should not be given the same sort of exemption, at least from the fee, as village halls and community halls are to be given.
  Mr. Adrian Sanders: May I add small vessels to my hon. Friend's list?
  Nick Harvey: Vessels, small or large, are a problem of which the Minister is already aware, and which he flagged in his earlier comment. We will get to these issues in Committee and do what we can to tie them down. We hope that in the end the Bill will have the deregulatory impact that the Government claim for it, but for this evening we will be happy to support it.
  6.58 pm
  Mr. Harold Best: I broadly welcome the Government's proposals, and I warm to some of them. From other contributions tonight, it seems that I do not belong to the same school of thought as some hon. Members. Anything that reduces the amount of crime, disorder and antisocial behaviour in my constituency that I can fairly ascribe to the abuse of alcohol is to be encouraged. Anything that can encourage tourism in my constituency, with the beautiful lower Wharfedale area, is to be welcomed.
  78
  Anything that we might do to reduce alcohol abuse is to be encouraged. The self-sufficiency of which the proposals speak is also to be encouraged. Anybody who disagreed with that would not be found in the Chamber tonight.
  I have, however, found it interesting that some present seem to hold a view that in some way deprecates local government. The idea, for example, that local government is incapable of making intelligent and sensitive decisions about the appropriateness or otherwise of the granting of a licence to sell alcohol is less than objective and kindly towards that honourable democratic tradition, which is of great value.
  The suggestion that Members of Parliament might have a role to play has considerable merit. I do not have difficulty saying that, as I have received what I suppose now runs to hundreds of letters from constituents about the problems associated with alcohol abuse. They expect me to be able to do something. Like most Members, I have written a large number of letters to various Ministers, to the chief constable, to the chair of the police authority, to magistrates and to magistrates clerks, but to no avail.
  Licences granted in one area of my constituency have led to considerable antisocial behaviour—I refer to Headingley. Some may know that part of north-west Leeds because of its cricket ground, its rugby league grounds or because they went to one of the two universities there. Of the population in Headingley, 50 per cent. are students, passing through, and there is no continuity of concern among that body that would express itself as one might expect in a permanent resident community, but we have a permanent resident community none the less.
  Another thing that has changed in certainly less than 10 years has been the number of pubs in the area, which has doubled. Anybody who knew Headingley from a cricket or rugby match or went to university there would be surprised to see twice as many pubs in the area and a huge increase in the number of off-licences, which are responsible for one avenue of alcohol supply and alcohol abuse that we should have addressed more powerfully. Then there are the number of licensed premises in the area.
  All that leads to antisocial behaviour in what is known as the evening economy, which has its attractions to those who seek to make vast sums of money from the alcohol industry—and they certainly do. Any investment in Headingley has been made merely to increase the efficiency of the rate of extraction of money from the community rather than to add to the value of the local buildings. By and large, I find the Government's policies as outlined so far, and the amendments carried in the House of Lords, appropriate to the need to ensure that we deal with antisocial behaviour and promote the responsible use of alcohol as an important part of anyone's cultural make-up and, for some, learning process.
  People in Headingley, perhaps early on a weekday morning—let us say taking their children to school at 8 o'clock—can be met with scenes of vomit all over the place and, worse still, in shop doorways, and scenes of litter and discarded fast food, which is all associated with speedy satisfaction of short-term needs and an abandonment of community consciousness. The

  79
  proposed licensing regime and the body to be entrusted with it are more likely to reflect the needs of the local people.
  The idea of the evening economy should be considered carefully. I have seen people become distressed, not to say distraught, when they have not been able to sleep at night. An evening economy is fine, unless one works during the day. I am alarmed by an evening economy that stops those who have to work and take care of children's needs during the day fulfilling those commitments because they are not allowed to sleep at night-time.
  Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I am interested in what my hon. Friend is saying. Can he square his comments with the Government's noble and well-intentioned objective of creating an urban renaissance, as a result of which more people live in towns, as they do on the continent of Europe? How can the disorder in his constituency be squared with that urban renaissance?
  Mr. Best: There is another reason why that objective might not fit too well: the dramatic reduction in the number of families in the area as a result of an increase in houses of multiple occupation. Following promises made six or seven years ago, I hope that the Government will address that crucial issue speedily.
  The idea that licensed premises are somehow neutral and do not contribute to disorder in the streets is given the lie when we see standing in doorways people who are now referred to as doorkeepers. Bouncers was their traditional title. Their presence acknowledges the fact that such places can be visited by people who do not know how to maintain order on the premises. If such people are kept out, the off-licence shop becomes the alternative source of supply. Off-licences are thick on the ground in certain areas.
  I would be the last person to say that the alcohol trade does not have its benefits; I think that it is wonderful. My favourite beer, if anyone wants to know, is Taylor's Landlord. It is the finest beer ever brewed anywhere in the world, but I drink it carefully and in the company of friends. Even as a young person, I noted that there were certain less than beneficial things to be gained from alcohol. Local licensing might help to encourage such maturity. I would like the industry and those granted a licence to be given further guidance in order to ensure that the abuse of alcohol is understood. We have warning messages on cigarette packets, for example, and we ought to express to young people how damaging alcohol can be. It is a dangerous substance that must be attended to.
  Anyone who thinks that I am alarmist should have been in my constituency on three recent occasions. In 2000, in excess of 1,000 people spilled on to the main highway that runs through my constituency. The A660 was blocked for nearly two hours. Having enjoyed a football match, young people who were much the worse for alcohol poured out of pubs. When certain applications for licences for similar premises on the same road were made to magistrates, I and local community groups objected. We showed the video of the events in 2000, but magistrates granted the licences.
  80
  Hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that the historic event of 2000 was repeated in 2002 as well, when the road was blocked twice. On that third occasion, the police finally decided, under pressure from me, to use their new powers to close the offending pubs—and it worked. Suddenly, landlords got the message that what matters is not whether they keep orderly premises, but whether they ensure that people leaving them do so in an orderly fashion. I think that the Government are proposing such caring legislation. Yes, I would like some things to be changed. I would like some additions to he made, too, and I shall be pressing for some of them in Committee. In general terms, however, I thank the Minister for the proposals, and I look forward to peace and tranquillity returning to my constituency.
  7.9 pm
  Miss Julie Kirkbride: As many Members have said, there is much to he commended in the Bill, not least that it simplifies codifying legislation that goes back for centuries and is clearly out of date and anomalous for the way that we live nowadays. Although I have some sympathy with the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best), people no longer live a nine-to-five life in the way that most of us were brought up. We have to recognise that people want to live differently. People work shifts, and even though drinking in the middle of the night would make me feel ill, we have to accept that other people might want to do it. The Government rightly recognise that change is appropriate in that regard.
  I realise that many Members still want to speak so I shall concentrate my comments as tightly as possible on the aspects of the measure on which I share the reservations expressed by our Front-Bench spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), and by other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Watford (Claire Ward). She rightly pointed out that it is not entirely clear why the Government want to allow young people to enter pubs without being escorted by an adult. I realise that there is a proviso that it should be at the landlord's discretion, but one can imagine circumstances in which a landlord would not really mind young people coming into the pub. As we all know, now that drink-driving is rightly abhorred, the mark-up on soft drinks is as great as that on alcoholic drinks, so there is an incentive for landlords to encourage unaccompanied minors on to their premises—it could boost their profits. That concerns me because pubs are not the right place for young people. We should not be encouraging them to drink; we would much rather that they were doing other things.
  I share the concerns raised in the letter circulated by the Children's Society. The society asks why the Government want to criminalise children who try to obtain alcoholic drinks. The onus should be, as it is at present, on those serving alcoholic drinks to a young person. They should be the ones who commit the offence, not the young person trying to obtain the drink. It would be inappropriate for young people to end up with a criminal record for something that the measure may encourage by making it easier for them to go into pubs.

  81
  The Government have not entirely made their case for the changeover in licensing controls from magistrates courts to the local authority. That could cause significant problems, not least because even though local authorities might have greater powers to consult the local community and listen to people's views, they might not actually use those powers, especially if the matter involved closing down business premises. I am not sure that handing over such powers to local authorities will make much difference, although it could change the operation of the law.
  I have concerns on both sides of the coin. I am sure that, like me, all Members have been approached by landlords in their constituency who are deeply worried about how bureaucratic and expensive the new process might be. To inject a slightly party political note, it has to be said that the Government are not remarkable for their willingness to cut bureaucracy, red tape and expense, so landlords have every reason to be worried about the amount of regulation and expense. As other Members have pointed out, we have not received clarification from the Government on that matter.
  I am equally worried on behalf of my district council. On another party political note, local authorities have been given a huge range of responsibilities that they did not have formerly. My local authority struggles to perform those new activities, especially as they do not always come with funding from central Government. That means terribly unpopular increases in local rates. I am worried from the point of view both of landlords and pub operators and of district councils that we shall end up with a much worse system and that the democratic accountability arguments for the transfer of power will not add up to much.
  When the Secretary of State was speaking, many hon. Members raised specific points about wassailing, garden parties, farmers' markets and other individual circumstances. Which of those activities will require a licence and which will not? We shall be creating a wonderful scenario for solicitors and lawyers to argue about that, instead of the transparency and clarity that we need. The provisions are inconsistent and that is worrying for the future.
  Why do the Government want to require farmers who take wine or cider to farmers' markets to obtain a licence to sell their produce? Farmers' markets are hugely successful throughout the country. It seems ridiculous suddenly to require them to be licensed; it would be a retrograde step. The markets provide additional outlets for farmers who are already struggling so there is no point in giving them extra requirements.
  Finally, I turn to the points raised so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford. He made a strong case about the inconsistency of the provisions for live music and recorded music or recorded noise of any description. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said, a football match is likely to be noisier and to attract more people to a pub than live music. If it is a World cup match it is also likely to be held at an extraordinary time. When World cup matches are being broadcast from Japan, there could be a lot of noise from the pub next door at breakfast-time.
  I cannot understand the Government's argument that recorded music or recorded noise—in fact, television noise—should not be a licensable activity, whereas the
  82
  strumming of a guitar or a little light singing should be. The arguments seem inconsistent. In case my remarks should be misinterpreted. I am not suggesting that televisions in pubs should be licensed—that is certainly not my argument. I very much favour the point made by the Musicians Union: why are the Government licensing live music in the first place? Surely, it could be restricted to certain times of the day and regulated under existing provisions on health and safety and noise pollution, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford said. There is no need to license it because if it causes a nuisance it can be dealt with by other pieces of legislation.
  I hope that we can get the Government to see sense in Committee and that they will see the measure as an opportunity to deregulate those markets—the tourism, pub and entertainment industries that are such a thriving part of our economy. We should not overburden that sector and cause confusion, and put many of our country's musicians and others out of a job.
  7.18 pm
  Jane Griffiths: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this important debate. It is interesting to follow the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) who is one of the first to speak about the difficulties suffered by local authorities in fulfilling their existing functions. I shall return to that point.
  Before I was elected to this place, I represented the Abbey ward of Reading borough council, which is in the town centre and has by far the largest number of pubs and clubs of any ward. I was a member of both the licensing and planning committees of the council, which is where my interest in the measure comes from and is why I am speaking in the debate.
  At present, planning permission for new licensed premises is the responsibility of the local authority, while decisions about the standard liquor licence are made by magistrates. Permission for anything more than the standard licence is granted by the local authority. There are more than 40 different licences. The whole system is regulated by the Licensing Act 1964, although the first licence was introduced in 1495 as a measure aimed at ensuring good behaviour in ale houses and controlling their numbers, which was administered by the local justices. There has been wide agreement that the 11 o'clock and 2 o'clock finishing hours have encouraged a binge-drinking culture. I accept that other reasons and other social factors have been responsible for the increase in the "drinking to get drunk" culture, but it is true that the appearance of so many people on the streets at the same time has encouraged disorder. It became clear to me several years ago, through my own personal experience as a councillor, that there had to be change.
  When I was elected to this House in 1997, my local Transport and General Workers Union official, representing the Berkshire Brewery, asked me to join what was then the parliamentary beer club. Hon. Members may not know this, but if they drink a pint of lager in the UK they have a one in eight chance of drinking a pint that has been brewed by constituents of mine. I was happy to be asked to join the then beer club as a consequence of my interest in and experience of the matter, and I am proud now to be vice-chair of the

  83
  all-party beer group, the first woman to have done so. In 1998, that group set up a panel to investigate and take evidence on the need for reform of the licensing system and, if there were to be reform, what shape it should take. My hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), who is in his place, was a leader of that panel. A visit to Brussels took place during which there was conversation with Members of the European Parliament from six countries about their systems and their experiences of operating them. Hearings were held in Westminster, attended by 35 people representing a range of interests, including the trade, unions, the police, magistrates and town centre managers. The panel visited Scotland, where it took evidence from 10 more people, and Denmark, where evidence was taken from another five. The panel's report was published on 9 October 1999. The report prefigured the publication by the Government of the White Paper in April 2000, but made some very similar proposals. The main difference was that the panel sought a completely new body to decide on applications, whereas the White Paper opted for all decisions being made by local authorities. I think that the Government got it right.
  I was pleased during the licensing reform panel's work to be able to give them the benefit of the experience of Danny Friafeld and Greg Muden from the Purple Turtle bar in Reading. The Purple Turtle opened until 2 am for almost all of the past decade, and it still does. Nowadays, more bars in Reading are run along those lines, but when it first opened it was the only one of its kind. Danny and Greg have practical experience of running a business selling alcohol until 2 am, and their experience shows that people who are regulars are less likely to indulge in binge drinking. As the pressure to finish drinking at 11 pm has diminished, people have become less likely to seek to drink as much as they can in the knowledge that they have another three hours if they so choose. I am not saying that there is no binge drinking whatever, but experience shows that where the pressure is removed there are fewer of the problems associated with binge drinking of which we see too much in our town and city centres.
  Mr. Mark Field: I must confess that Reading was my home town, although well before the time of the Purple Turtle.
  Does the hon. Lady think that the core concern as regards binge drinking and premises staying open until 2 am and beyond is the lack of infrastructure, whether it be policing or transport, to get away from a central city area, which exacerbates the problems?
  Jane Griffiths: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I was not aware that Reading was his home town. I would welcome him if he returned to visit, when he would be able to see our wonderful fleet of night buses, which get people home quickly no matter what time of night it is.
  I hope that, when the Bill has completed its passage, licensees who have the opportunity to opt for flexible opening hours will take it. There will be little benefit from the Bill if licensees decide that they will continue to close at 11 pm. Nothing in the Bill places an obligation on them—they can stay as they are or opt for other
  84
  hours. As a councillor, I had the experience of serving on a licensing committee. That brought it home to me that if someone wanted to serve alcoholic beverages after 11 pm but did not want to serve food at the same time, they had to make a noise. If one wants a late drink, one has to be in a noisy place. That is nonsensical. If I want to go out late in the evening, I prefer to go to a quiet place.
  Before coming to this place, as well as being a councillor, I worked at BBC Monitoring in Reading, which, like many workplaces, works 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Many people work shifts, and I used to wonder why someone whose shift finishes at 10.30 pm or 11 pm should not be able to go to have a quiet drink with friends and colleagues after work. Yet that is impossible.
  I mentioned the work in which I have been involved to try to secure changes to our licensing system. On the whole, I am pleased with the proposals in the Bill and support them, and I regret the misinformation that has been spread, wittingly or unwittingly, about its consequences, some of which has been truly amazing. One of my constituents, who is well known in Reading as a frequent contributor to the letters pages of local newspapers, and whose blushes I will spare by not naming her, asserted that the Bill will prevent her from singing in her car; it will not. She also asserted that it will make carol singing illegal; it will not. I am pleased that morris dancing has been mentioned, because I have constituents who engage in it. It may interest hon. Members to know that the first public performance by John Lennon and Paul McCartney took place in my constituency at the Fox and Hounds pub in Caversham, which is sadly now closed. That shows the influence that music in pubs has on the development of what go on to be highly illustrious careers.
  Concerns have been expressed about the impact of the Bill on the centre of Reading and the council's ability to manage the centre for the safety and amenity of all, as the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) suggested in relation to her area. Reading is known throughout the world for its music festival on the August bank holiday weekend. In the 30-plus years for which that festival has been held, the council has worked with the promoters, the police and others to ensure that people visiting the festival have the safest possible time. The festival does not detain the licensing committee too much, but it requires a lot of time from the officers of the council. There are meetings of the safety team and liaisons between the various agencies to ensure that safety measures are in place. We have seen elsewhere the consequences that follow when something goes wrong at pop festivals. The costs in terms of death and injury are too important for the matter to be treated lightly or for a local authority not to do a full job because the level of the fee does not allow them to cover the costs involved in doing a proper job. Music festivals are a multi-million pound business. It is important that they happen safely and that the promoters pay for the costs involved in doing the job properly. I hope that the Minister will give an undertaking that when national rates are agreed, local authorities which have large music festivals in their area are consulted before those fees are set, to ensure that proper measures are in place and people attending large-scale music festivals can do so in safety.
  During the debate that has taken place over the past few years about reforming the licensing system, the issue of fee level has been one that has concerned the licensed

  85
  trade. There have been scares to the effect that if local authorities were able to take over the licensing role, fees would rise. As a result, the Government have undertaken to introduce national fees. The advantage of that is that it gives the trade certainty about costs and removes the differences in application costs as between licensing authorities. To some extent, that is what enables the Government to say how much will be saved by the trade as a result of the reduction in red tape that the Bill will introduce. However, Reading borough council is seriously concerned about the consequences for providing an effective licensing function—and especially about its ability to carry out any enforcement.
  At present, the level of fees in Reading for public entertainment licences and the other licences that the council issues covers the cost to the council of providing the service. The fees cover the cost of the application, of giving advice to applicants, and so on. They also cover the cost of the meeting of the licensing committee and the cost of any enforcement. Enforcement action can help to ensure that businesses meet the conditions of their licence and do not put their continued trading at risk. Enforcement action is very important in ensuring that people can enjoy places such as Reading town centre in safety. However, Reading borough council has worked out—using information that has been made public on the likely level of fees—that, from the money available, it would be able to fund such work up until a decision on the licence application was made, but that it would then run out of money for enforcement action. I find that worrying. I am aware of the lethal cost when things go wrong in licensed premises. It is important that the council is able to ensure that places are safe and that people are carrying out their duties properly. I hope that there will be full and proper consultation before the proposed fee levels are decided.
  Tomorrow night, at its regular meeting, Reading borough council will receive a report on the outcome of consultations on its interim licensing policy. It will also approve the final draft of the interim policy, "A safe night out". The Local Government Association has advised, and this Bill requires, local councils to develop formal licensing policies in consultation with residents and stakeholders. As the report to the council says, such a policy will assist the council in discharging its licensing responsibilitya—not to mention demonstrating community leadership. Reading borough council is far ahead of the game in having done as much as it has done. The council has already thought long and hard about the consequences of the measures that are contained in this legislation. Tonight, I have highlighted some of the concerns that have emerged from the council's work. The council has said to me that it is willing to offer itself as a case study—for the Government to work in partnership with a council with a lot of experience in licensing; for them to work together through the consequences of the proposals in the Bill; and for them to see what the impact will be so that the proposals—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  7.32 pm
  Mr. Mark Simmonds: My interest in this Bill emanates primarily from the job that I do in this House in representing Skegness, the
  86
  economy of which is based fundamentally on tourism. Skegness has an accurate reputation as a family resort that caters for all ages. Its reputation is that of a town that provides fun and perpetual sunshine. I will leave hon. Members to make up their own minds as to which part of that statement was wholly and which part partially accurate.
  I approve of any legislation that attempts to modernise, deregulate and consolidate myriad previous Acts of Parliament. The Liberal Democrat spokesman pointed out that such legislation dates back to the 18th century. There followed 19th century Acts and then one of the last Acts of the last Liberal Government—an Act of 1915 that was for the purpose of creating more efficient munitions construction. Then there was the Licensing Act 1964. I approve of the fact that this Bill facilitates the reduction of six licensing schemes down to one.
  However, I am sceptical about whether this is a deregulatory Bill. The Government performed a U-turn in the other place when places of public worship were excluded from the Bill. Such a measure should never have been in the draft Bill in the first place. However, there are still thousands more venues than before that will have to be licensed for live music if this Bill becomes an Act. I am sure that the Minister will understand the scepticism of the public and of hon. Members on the Conservative Benches. Almost everything that the Government do is bureaucratic and increases rather than reduces the regulatory burden on businesses and individuals.
  The House should not forget the genesis of this Bill. It was put together more than 30 years ago by Lord Errol of Hale. Much of our discussion today emanates from his far-reaching report and it is a great shame that it has taken 30 years for this Bill to come to the House. I concur with the proposals to allow local residents the power to request that the licensing authority review a licence if problems arise—leading potentially to licence revocation. It is right for licensing authorities to act on behalf of, and in favour of, residents—if those residents exercise that power—in reducing hours and removing music. What about fines? Has the Minister considered fining licensees who fail to comply? Has the Minister considered giving powers to local authorities so that they, if they are to take on this responsibility, can insist on the soundproofing of premises and on certain decibel levels being adhered to? As I understand it, such conditions are in place in some parts of the United States of America. I approve of powers that will protect the young and the vulnerable and that will clamp down on antisocial behaviour; and I completely approve of powers to close licensed premises—or, indeed, whole areas—for 24 hours. Such powers could have been used to great effect in Skegness only a few years ago when travellers descended on the town and caused absolute chaos.
  I support the liberalisation of licensing hours and the extension of consumer choice. In Skegness, the experience has been that the extension of licensing hours has allowed people, if they so wished, to remain in licensed premises all afternoon. That has completely removed the loutish and yob culture that used to exist, with people jumping into boating lakes and disturbing innocent families who were enjoying their summer holidays. Such problems have now been pushed into the

  87
  evening hours, to closing time. Different, or staggered, closing times will not eradicate the problems of drunkenness or tangential violence, but they will go some way towards mitigating the problem.
  I do not wish to see one local authority having a more libertarian view than an adjacent one, so that, for example, at 2 am, a caravan of taxis transports revellers from one town to another to carry on their drinking and cause problems in a town with extended hours. I am sure the House will understand the concerns of residents of Skegness and other UK tourism towns and destinations where that problem may be exacerbated. Who would pay for the extra policing costs in those towns? Would it be the licensees or the council tax payers?
  The main issue that I have with the Bill as it currently stands amended by the other place is that I remain to be convinced of the necessity of switching the responsibility for licensing premises from magistrates to local authorities—despite the retention of the magistrates in the appeals procedure. The Government have not made the case for the switch. The Secretary of State, in her remarks earlier this afternoon, failed to address the severity of the proposed changes. There is no evidence that the magistrates courts have not worked, and there is no evidence that the local authorities would offer a cheaper, quicker and more efficient system. The advantages of using the magistrates courts is that they are apolitical, do not have an electorate to pander to, and are normally local. In addition—and this very pertinent point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale)—94 per cent. of licensees are against the move.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is difficult for local people, when they wish to object to a licence, to make representations to licensing magistrates? There are two reasons for that: they are not informed in the first place, and many are intimidated by licensing magistrates and the applicants' solicitors.
  Mr. Simmonds: I accept part of what the hon. Gentleman says. There is a procedure in place whereby residents or other interested parties can object to licences being given. It is not easy for them to do so, but I do not think that the existing process could not be altered to make it easier for objections to be considered. That could be considered.
  I am concerned that the local authority could be slower and more costly, and that there would be more appeals. Will the Minister tell us whether the speed of considering applications will be the same—that is, 30 days—as in the Licensing Act 1964? Local authorities will be subject to electoral pressure that cannot be put on the independent judiciary. In a large rural area such that covered by East Lindsey district council, which includes Skegness, the members of the licensing committee could come from miles away from Skegness. They would have no particular expertise or understanding of the particular needs of specific locations, economies or, indeed, residents. That problem would be exacerbated by the limit on the number of councillors that would be allowed to sit on the committee. I have great doubts about the transition period. Is it long enough? There
  88
  seems to be a great deal of confusion about who will be responsible for what and about exactly which premises will require licensing.
  Many other hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall ask the Minister a few specific questions. How does the Bill fit with the future gaming Bill that will probably be included in the next Queen's Speech? If that Bill includes licensing for casinos and bingo halls, will the measures in this Bill be temporary? If so, why are casinos and bingo halls not exempt from the Bill? Will the premises' licence charge be fixed nationally, or will it vary between local authorities? If so, will there be a national cap? Presumably, local authorities will not be allowed to use the Bill as an opportunity to generate revenue that can be used elsewhere.
  Clause 177, which refers to Government guidance to local authorities, very much appears to centralise power rather than devolving responsibility. Surely, the Minister needs to confirm that the local licensing statement must have primacy. It needs to be a light-touch regulation, setting the general framework and architecture to allow local authorities to make the final decisions.
  Is it true that new pubs will be allowed to apply for licences only when they have been built? Surely, it would be more sensible to get those licences before construction, by wrapping them up with the planning permission process; otherwise we could end up with the ludicrous situation of a developer building a pub, but not being able to get a licence to enable it to trade.
  Are the rumours true that the Government propose to introduce policing levies to make pub, restaurant and club owners pay for the extra policing and additional resources required to resolve some of the problems that may occur throughout the night, rather than at a certain time?
  In general, I support the Bill, as I hope I have implied, but much needs to be resolved in the detail. I was slightly dismayed by the Secretary of State, who seemed to imply that seven of the nine amendments that succeeded in the other place would be overturned. I hope that that will not be the case, but we shall see in the Bill's final detail.
  7.41 pm
  John Cryer: My concerns about the Bill basically relate to the possibility of 24-hour, seven-daya-week licensing. The constituency that I represent is in the London borough of Havering, and Romford neighbours my constituency. Romford has a nightclub capacity of about 12,000 to 14,000—the biggest in the south-east outside the west end of London. The idea that we should move from the present licensing system of permitted hours, which has two peaks during the night at about half-past 11 and 2 or 3 in the morning to 24-hour licensing, does not bear thinking about, given the associated law and order implications, especially where the police have to cope with the consequences of such a massive nightclub capacity.
  I have been on patrol around Romford with the police crime and disorder unit, and I have seen the way that the police struggle to cope with the two peaks during the night—but there could now be a constant 24-hour peak,

  89
  and things would get even worse during the hours of darkness, which will have an obvious impact on the police.
  Jim Knight: I went out with my local police between 1 am and 3 am on a Saturday morning 10 days ago, to witness the peak at 2 am as people were chucked out of nightclubs and someone had chucked up on the pavement. I witnessed the disorder that results from that peak, but the police I was with welcomed the possibility of staggered closing times, so that they could keep on top of the situation without trying to have a peak in their own resources between 2 am and 3 am, when some officers may be taking prisoners to custody suites and so on, leaving the town centre vulnerable.
  John Cryer: The police I was with said just the opposite, so there we are.
  It is worth looking at a report carried out by the Cranfield school of management, called "Licensing Law Liberalisation: The Scottish Experience", which draws on similar experiences from a few years ago in Scotland, where deregulation led, in effect, to 24-hour licensing. The report said:
  "The consequence of the liberalisation in Edinburgh was, for example, that the policing of the city became more, not less, difficult, as the lack of a uniform closing time resulted in numbers of people wandering homewards through the city centre streets throughout the night. The random incidents that occurred in consequence meant that police resources became over stretched, regularly having to be diverted from the dedicated 'high visibility' patrolling … intended to maintain public order."
  My worry is that those consequences will follow for England, particularly the borough that I represent. What happens in Havering is that police resources, particularly during the two peaks on Friday and Saturday nights, are drawn from the rest of the borough, including my constituency—Hornchurch, Elm Park and Rainham—to be poured into Romford to deal with the law and order consequences there. That would get worse if we were to move to deregulation.
  When the Bill was published originally, the Department issued a press release saying that it would lead to a more civilised and responsible culture and that it would be a key plank in the Government's drive to cut crime. Those who have drafted the Bill, for entirely understandable reasons, would like certain elements of the cultures in, for example, France, Italy or other European countries to be imported into Britain. The problem is that we are not starting from a point over there; we are starting from where we are. This country's culture is very much set around timed drinking, and getting away from that will be immensely difficult.
  Mr. Hopkins: I do not know whether my hon. Friend is aware that alcohol consumption in those Mediterranean countries, which we romanticise, is still considerably higher than in Britain.
  John Cryer: Yes, there is some truth in that.
  It is true that the premises licence will incorporate operating conditions limited to considerations such as crime and order, public safety and nuisance factors and would be set locally on the basis of a balance of the operator's requirements and the views of residents, police and fire authorities. However, there is real
  90
  concern that the powers in the Bill could be insufficient when dealing with a legal onslaught from the big breweries, which will go hell for leather to get the licences that they want.
  Many councillors will be told by council officers—I can see it happening—"Well, you could reject this licence application, but it will go to a higher court, which may well overturn the decision and you could face personal surcharging by the court." Although I have never been a councillor, I have dealt with local authorities for many years and I have seen that happen. When it does, councillors run scared and accept licence applications, rather than face real financial difficulties.
  Mr. Mark Field: I entirely endorse what the hon. Gentleman says about the pressures that can be put on local councils, particularly by large alcohol and entertainment industry combines. However, what does he think about the earlier point about fees? Does he not feel that one of the safeguards would be to lift the cap on fees, not with the fear that local authorities will make money, but to ensure that they have the very best advice against the high-profile legal advice on which many large firms in the alcohol and entertainment industry will be able to rely?
  John Cryer: The answer would be to give local authorities proper, concrete powers to stand up to the big breweries because we have seen such things in the past.
  I wish to draw on the sixth report from the Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, which said:
  "The Licensing Bill fails to make any improvement to residents' right to object. Indeed, their opportunities for input are actually reduced under the draft Guidance in two respects. Only residents living 'in the vicinity' will be able to object, and residents will not be allowed to make a repeat objection at the review of the licence."
  The point about the ability to make a repeat objection is in some doubt given the recent draft guidance, but nevertheless the first objection stands. The quote goes on:
  "We recommend that licensing authorities are given powers to accept residents' sworn evidence of nuisance, and we further recommend that, (as in certain European cities) licensing authorities are given powers to set an overall terminal hour".
  That sensible recommendation would give local authorities a bit more power and punch to set the agendas for their own communities. After all, we hope that those in local government know their communities pretty well.
  The report also includes a recommendation on upper capacity limits, which also makes a lot of sense:
  "all local authorities are required within their licensing strategies to define upper capacity limits in terms of the number of people with which particular areas, identified by their economic role within the district can reasonably cope at given times of day. Overall capacity could be identified in relation to the fire regulation standards for individual premises".
  Again, that seems pretty sensible because it would provide a lever for local accountability to resist the descent into night-time anarchy that has affected places such as Romford and other towns in Essex.
  I want to make two other points that are not directly in the Bill but have been discussed. The Government have examined the possibility of introducing special

  91
  payments for nightclubs to cope with the extra policing demanded by the increase in such premises. My noble Friend Lord Harris of Haringey made such a suggestion in the other place. Again, it seems eminently sensible that nightclubs should have to pay a special premium to fund extra officers in their area. That has happened in Manchester where, as I understand from reports that I have read, such an experiment has been very successful. Extra officers in Manchester have covered the particular areas where there has been an explosion in the number of licensed premises and nightclubs in particular. It has also been suggested that a power should exist to take away licences from troublesome nightclubs, which could be included in the Bill. The first recommendation that I mentioned is very much a Home Office measure. Taking away licences temporarily from nightclubs where there has been a particular cause of disorder or even crime, however, seems sensible, and it could be contained in the guidance attached to the Bill. That could be done in Committee.
  In my constituency, there is a pub called The Good Intent, which has been there for a long time. During the war, when RAF Hornchurch existed—it closed in the 1960s—it was an RAF pub, and it has a rich history. An application has been made, however, for an extended hours licence. There are fears among local residents, as the pub is in a residential area—that was not the case many years ago, but there has been a great deal of house building in the borough—that the extended hours licence is intended to turn it into a night club. That is meeting with objections. I have written objecting to it, as have many residents, and something of a local campaign is going on. My fear is that were the Bill implemented in its present form, an application such as the one being made by the owners of The Good Intent could be successful more easily, and people living in what is clearly a residential area could suddenly find that there is a night club virtually on their door step.
  There are some things in the Bill that are laudable: for example, the attempt to clear up the plethora of regulations and complexities that go back many hundreds of years. There should be an attempt to make the position much clearer, but I am worried that if the Bill is implemented in its present form, all it will do is hand greater powers to the big breweries, which will lead to greater problems, especially for law and order.
  7.52 pm
  Hywel Williams: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this significant debate. At the outset, I must say that, like the Minister, I come from a country where, as the old song goes,
  "if you want a drink on Sunday, You will have to wait till Monday".
  At least, that is how it used to be. It is no longer the case in hotels, restaurants and pubs in my constituency and throughout Wales, which are able to offer hospitality to visitors and tourists all week.
  With all the certainty and with the gleam in the eye of a new Member, may I say that we often do not pay enough attention to the historical context of what we are doing? It would be remiss of me not to note that with this Bill we see
  92
  the passing of the Welsh Sunday opening polls, which led to the closing of pubs in various areas in Wales on Sunday. My area of Dwyfor was one of the last where the pubs all closed on Sunday and many people went over the Cob to Porthmadog for a drink in the green pastures of Meirionnydd. I notice that none of the Liberal Democrat Members have mentioned that the Welsh polls were one of the triumphs of the last Liberal Government and of Welsh liberalism in the last century, along with the disestablishment of the Church in Wales. Now that the polls are disappearing perhaps their progenitors will do so too, in the forthcoming election.
  I have no doubt, however, that the measures in the Bill will be very popular. However, I must sound a caution to the Minister. I stood in the Welsh Assembly election in 1999 and one of my opponents represented the Socialist Alliance. Clearly, as he was a member of the Socialist Alliance, he was not a member of the Labour party. One of the Socialist Alliance's leaflets in Welsh called for more tai cyhoeddus, which is public sector housing. It translated public sector housing wrongly, however, as public houses, so it called for more public houses. Despite that and the probable popularity of the Bill, I must warn the Minister that the candidate from the Socialist Alliance came last in the election. That is a warning to us all.
  On some more serious points, I welcome the fact that the Government have signalled their intention to exempt the provision of entertainment in places of religious worship from the requirements to obtain a licence. Musical performances have a central place in Welsh social life and are a normal part of the life of our communities, whether in concerts or in various types of local eisteddfodau. Those are essentially noncommercial events: certainly, if there are any profits, they are not the main object, and they usually go to charity. In many rural communities in Wales, the only suitable venues for such performances would be the chapel or the church. People in Wales are therefore very glad that the requirement for such places to obtain a licence has been withdrawn. The other type of venue often used in Wales is the village hall. I note that the Government have already said that licences for those premises will be free of charge. That still leaves the perceived burden of application for the organisers: the application might be straightforward but organisers may not see it that way.
  The provision of alcoholic drinks is not usually a feature of such events in community halls—not in Wales at least—so the provision of one licence on the back of the other does not apply in most cases. Indeed, we do not have a bar on the field of the national eisteddfod, which is the biggest cultural event of its kind in Europe with between 160,000 and 200,000 people coming for the week—not yet at least, although I presume that there wild be licensing conditions. If the eisteddfod were to decide to have a bar, the point made by the hon. Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) would be pertinent, in that the eisteddfod is a peripatetic festival, and will therefore have to submit applications to various licensing authorities as the Bill comes into force.
  Music performed in Wales is often amateur in the proper sense: it is performed to a high standard by music lovers who are not normally employed as professional musicians. Those people do not have access to the management resources or even the hard cash that

  93
  orchestras, pop groups and opera companies have. That is particularly so in respect of vocal music performed in Welsh. That is why the fear of the burden of applying for a licence is particularly strong. We have much amateur choral and classical vocal music in Wales performed in Welsh. Indeed, one of my constituents, Bryn Terfel, who now sings in the great opera houses of the world, started out as a schoolboy singing in local concerts and local eisteddfods. There is a fear that those festivals would be affected by the proposals in the Bill.
  We also have a very active folk music scene in Wales, and many young pop and rock groups. Much of that music is not performed in pubs but in village and community halls and other less formal venues. Some of those groups have gone on to be very successful and even world famous, but they started out playing in local gigs, and it is feared that those will be curtailed. Well-resourced and famous groups that apply have management and money: it is no problem for, say, the Super Furry Animals, who started out singing in Welsh in small local venues. That is not the case, however, for the popular vocal combo known as the Cacen Wy Experience, and Monswn, who are essentially amateurs trying to get on. As I said, the Super Furries started singing in Welsh in small venues for not a lot of money, although that is not the case now. However, small local rock groups in Wales are concerned that the burden of application will be heavier for the organisers of amateur and community events in Wales than for commercial profit-making performances, which will have an effect on informal performances as well as younger and Welsh-language performers.
  Turning briefly to public order issues arising from extending opening hours, we have problems in Wales as elsewhere arising from unruly and sometimes violent behaviour, often fuelled by drink. Regardless of the value to the tourist industry of more relaxed opening hours, staggered closing hours will help to reduce the number of intoxicated people spilling onto the streets from licensed premises and the public order difficulties that then arise. However, there is a more profound effect that we should seek—a changed public attitude to drink and to drunkenness—and the Bill may be very useful in that respect. We should follow the example of European countries where moderation in the rate of consumption is the norm, not the exception. Many hon. Members will agree that alcohol abuse far outweighs other forms of substance abuse both in importance and in the severity of its consequences. We need to harness education and the mass media to encourage young people in particular to change their attitudes. As I have said, the Bill will be useful in achieving that.
  There is also a particular responsibility on broadcasters. Television executives are all too happy to put on fly-on-the-wall programmes in which they take young people away to exotic destinations with money in their pockets, then film the inevitable results. At the same time, they are happy to film disturbances in towns and cities throughout Wales and the UK, and to condemn the very behaviour that their colleagues encourage. Broadcasters have a responsibility to put things in proportion and to show the social and medical consequences of alcohol abuse, as well as the misery of crime and violence that so often come in its wake. Their productions must be realistic and should not single out particular groups or communities either because they
  94
  are conveniently located, which has certainly happened in television coverage of problems arising from alcohol abuse in Wales, or because they provide a ready source of fluent participants.
  In so far as the Bill takes some of the harsh mystique out of alcohol consumption and makes it a more normalised activity, thereby reducing consumption and encouraging more reasonable social norms around consumption, it is very much to be welcomed. Indeed, many hon. Members have said that they look forward to detailed discussion in Committee, and so do I.
  8.3 pm
  Mr. David Crausby: I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words in general support of the Bill—a measure that, in my view, is long overdue.
  I should begin by registering my interest, as I am the unpaid political secretary of the National Union of Labour and Socialist Clubs, an organisation that represents members' clubs across the country. I represent that body on CORCA—the committee of registered clubs associations. I can tell the House that there is a general welcome for this liberalising Bill from people who run and manage clubs. They welcome the reduction in unnecessary administration for club committee members who are almost all poorly paid volunteers. They will be relieved at the removal of so much red tape, but they are still extremely concerned about the increase in violent crime in recent times and look forward to legislation that will protect their employees against violence in their clubs.
  Times are hard in the licensing trade these days, with so much competition elsewhere. The public can, and do, drink in their own homes much more, and there are countless outlets where they can buy drink, socialise and be entertained. Anything that simplifies the archaic labyrinth of the law will inevitably be supported, and can only be in the public interest. We must, however, ensure that the Bill provides an opportunity to free up the law—it should not complicate it in the hands of local government, especially when it comes to fees.
  I have heard worries about the eventual cost of the issuing of licences by local authorities. CORCA, for example, tells me that estimates of fees from the regulatory impact assessment are as follows: an application for a club premises certificate will cost between £100 and £500, and annual fees for such a certificate will cost from £50 to £150. Current fees under the Licensing Act 1964 amount to £16 for initial registration and £16 for renewal. CORCA's other major concern is about temporary events attended by nonmembers, such as weddings, anniversary parties, birthdays and so on. The five events per year rule will leave many clubs worse off. Members' clubs are often the centre of the community, and may well be the only place to accommodate such events. They would therefore like to continue to enjoy at least the current normal limitation of 12 events a year.
  I am convinced that a single integrated scheme for licensing premises that sell alcohol and provide public entertainment is the way to go.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that many working men's clubs are concerned that, as it is

  95
  phrased, the Bill will restrict their off-licence sales, from which they have benefited for the past 60 years? Does he agree that the Government need to look at that?
  Mr. Crausby: I understand that an assurance was given in another place that that would be looked at seriously. I think that members' clubs very much appreciate the fact that the Government are giving serious consideration to continuing the right to take a bottle of Guinness home for the partner, as one might say.
  Bringing together six existing licensing regimes and sweeping away red tape can only be good, and make the system more efficient for everyone concerned. We must ensure, however, that costs are kept to a minimum and insist that local authorities do not over-formalise the process. I am sure that we all very much welcome the exemptions that have been built into the Bill for charitable fundraising events, for example, but I still have concerns about the question of a small events exemption, as proposed in another place. It is vital that the Government find a way to ensure that the Bill will be a means of encouraging live entertainment. Small, one-off folk and jazz performances, for example, must be encouraged, as they are often the first step on the live music ladder for young performers. Such performers are often virtually unpaid, and we should seek ways in which to support them.
  I am enthusiastic about making pubs family friendly places. The members-only social clubs, which I support, often fulfil that role superbly. I must confess, however, that I have doubts about unaccompanied children being allowed into licensed premises. I accept that children over 14 can already enter the bar area of public houses, but that does not make it okay. I do not want to ban children from certain places, but we must make sure that we protect young people from the temptations that alcohol and public houses present. Quite honestly, I do not believe that it is in the interest of unsupervised children to be in the company of intoxicated drinkers.
  No doubt I have those reservations because I was brought up, as we all were, in a British culture that, as a result of the traditional licensing process, has made many of our pubs unsuitable for children. Of course, much of the rest of the world is different. There is more integration of food, snacks and soft drinks in the typical continental bar than in the typical English pub, but it will take time for things to change arid our children must be protected in the meantime.
  I note that one of the stated objectives of the Bill is the protection of children from harm. I very much welcome the provisions that strengthen the law on the consumption of alcohol by children on licensed premises, but the Minister can be assured that many of us will closely scrutinise the Bill's effects on children, as I am sure he will.
  Flexible opening hours and the potential for 24-hour drinking are long overdue. The end of the madhouse that surrounds closing time will generally be welcomed by the police and the law-abiding public alike. It is about time that we treated the adult population of this country with some respect and allowed them to make up their own minds about when they should drink alcohol. We simply do not live in a 9 to 5, six-days-a-week society any more.
  96
  I accept that the problems created by alcohol in our country are serious, but I do not believe that flexible hours will make alcoholics drink more. Heavy and compulsive drinkers who want a drink can already find one 24 hours a day, seven days a week, if they need it. Our present laws do nothing to prevent the abuse of alcohol. It is only social, moderate drinkers who are inconvenienced by the current law, and we should legislate in the interests of the reasonable majority. We expect services to be on tap 24 hours a day, so we should allow those who have to work unsociable hours the right to enjoy their leisure at different times of day.
  The Bill is a sensible measure overall that proposes radical change. I welcome it with enthusiasm.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. Before I call the next speaker, I should say that a considerable number of hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, and that unless they take considerably less than their allotted 12 minutes a number of them will be disappointed.
  8.12 pm
  John Thurso: May I draw to the attention of the House my entry in the Register of Members' Interests and, in particular, the fact that I am a former president of the Society of Licensed Victuallers and have been involved with a number of the organisations that have been briefing on the Bill? I have also taken a considerable interest for many years in various debates in another place on licensing law of one kind or another. May I say how delighted I am that we finally have such a Bill before us?
  I should like to give the Bill a broad welcome. I believe that it is a very timely measure, but I want to speak about two specific concerns. As I know from having held a licence in two counties in England, the current legislation is confusing and has built up over many years. It is also complex and is certainly not administered equally throughout the country. I therefore welcome the Bill's general objectives, although, as always, the road from the White Paper to the Bill seems to have added to its complexity. Notwithstanding those issues, after so many years, the Bill is welcome.
  I particularly welcome the central thrust of the Bill—separation of the licensing of premises from that of people. That is a fundamental part of the Bill's purpose. Indeed, I was a part of the industry consultation that took place some three or four years ago, and that issue was the critical point that the industry took on board. I have heard hon. Members say that 94 per cent. of publicans—they have also referred to various other figures—disagree with the concept of moving responsibility for licensing from magistrates to local authorities. The five organisations that were involved in getting together a uniform voice from the industry in making representations to the Government—they included the British Institute of Innkeeping, the British Hospitality Association and the British Institute of Sport and Leisure, but I cannot remember the other two—clearly understood from the outset that that was

  97
  part of the deal and supported it, so I believe that there is a considerable welcome for the measure in other parts of the industry.
  One of the critical aspects of divorcing licensing of premises from that of people is the fact that a quality and qualification-based system is needed for people. I very much welcome such an arrangement, which reflects what we are seeking to do in the tourism industry in employing people with better qualifications who can not only better deliver for their customers, but better attend to health and safety and all the other things that we want them to do. Obviously, for a qualification to work, it must be uniform and accepted throughout the country, so it is critical that the person-based licence is uniform in that way.
  By contrast, the point of such a divorce in terms of the licensing of premises is to enable local concerns to be taken into account in each area, according to the desires of the local people and authorities. It is therefore wholly appropriate for responsibility for the licensing of premises to be moved from magistrates to local authorities, where the democratic process involved in that aspect of licensing can now be dealt with. I remind hon. Members who have expressed concern about that matter that local authorities in Scotland have looked after licensing for many years and that that arrangement has worked perfectly happily. I see no reason in principle why local authorities cannot perfectly happily undertake that task and I think that a principle of democratic accountability is well served in that regard.
  Having given the Bill a strong welcome, I should like now to come to my two points of concern. The first is the question of who may hold a premises licence, which is slightly unclear, so perhaps the Minister can provide some clarification. Clause 17(1) sets out the person or persons undertaking the trade who can apply for a premises licence, but nowhere does it say that a company can apply for and have such a licence. I may have got that wrong and I would be delighted to know if that is the case. Having divorced the accountability of the people involved from the premises in which they will operate, it seems wholly appropriate to allow a company to hold a licence for premises. In particular, it seems wholly reasonable that large companies running hotels or restaurants that own a considerable number of premises should be allowed to own a licence, one of whose conditions will be that a properly registered person must operate it. Perhaps the Minister can deal with that point.
  Dr. Howells: I should certainly like to confirm that it is entirely possible for a pub chain, for example, to own more than one premises licence and, indeed, to own the licences for all its premises.
  John Thurso: I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that point, which was not completely obvious from the drafting.
  May I also draw the Minister's attention to the provision allowing for the removal of a licence? Clause 27 provides that when a company goes into administration, the licence can be removed. That seems unnecessarily harsh on those doing the work, as a company can go into administration but be perfectly viable. Will he be kind enough to consider that issue at a later stage?
  98
  My second concern relates to the licensing of the people themselves. The drafting of the Bill seems unnecessarily to complicate the process. So many things have to be done to get and hold a licence. For example, clause 125 covers notification of a change of address. That involves fees and the possibility of committing a criminal offence if one does not provide the new address. It is a bit harsh if a person who holds a centrally registered licence and leaves the industry for two or three years to do an MBA at Cranfield before returning to run a pub finds that he has committed a criminal offence and has the licence removed simply for failing to register a change of address while inactive. I wonder whether that is the proper way to proceed.
  Furthermore, the first application for a premises licence requires a person to be conjoined to it. Indeed, four clauses allow for circumstances in which someone builds a new property but has not yet found a manager. Clauses 29, 30, 31 and 32 allow for provisional circumstances. If the person and the premises did not have to be conjoined, those four clauses could be omitted. I hope that those who serve on the Committee that considers the Bill will examine that because some refinement could be introduced.
  I believe that the industry will warmly welcome the Bill. It will allow those of us who like to enjoy moderate social drinking at slightly different hours to do so. It will allow us to offer a better product to visitors from abroad and people in this country. It deserves our support.
  8.21 pm
  Diana Organ: I, too, welcome the Bill. It is brave of the Government to introduce it because, as was said earlier, it reforms many old measures and is the first major change to the system for 40 years. However, it has caused controversy and I believe that it should have been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. We might not then have received large mailbags from our constituents, reflecting anxieties that were often unfounded or based on misleading information.
  It is good that the Bill tries to bring the licensing of the sale of alcohol under the control of a single system. It also deals with other forms of licensing—for music, dancing, theatre and cinema. Indeed, it covers all the fun bits of life. The measure licenses what we all enjoy as part of our social life.
  I have one or two anxieties. Magistrates in the Forest of Dean have been especially worried that their expertise in licensing will be lost. The local authority is concerned about receiving yet another statutory burden, possibly without extra moneys to cope with it. However, many people in the area welcome the accountability that the change will introduce into the licensing system.
  Many myths have surrounded the Bill. Like other hon. Members, I have heard people suggest that the measure makes carol singing, bell ringing, singing "Happy Birthday" in a pub illegal, and provides that music tuition and rehearsals must be licensed. I am glad to say that that is all unfounded nonsense.
  The Government have made it clear that they will agree to some Lords amendments but that they cannot accept others. I understand their reasons for not agreeing with Lords amendments that would provide

  99
  for not licensing an event of 250 or fewer people. That is a matter of public safety and misuse of alcohol. It is right to examine all places where alcohol is sold and not simply base decisions on numbers. We would all be severely worried by a dangerous or disorderly incident involving 200 people in a village hall going on the rampage, especially if the event were unlicensed.
  I would be interested in other amendments that the Government tabled to allay many fears of constituents. I am glad that the exemption on churches and village halls has been lifted but I wonder about educational establishments. I have received many letters that express concern about that.
  I would welcome some clarification. The Bill provides for protecting children. For the first time, legislation will provide that under-18s may not drink alcohol in a pub. The Minister said on a previous occasion that an old measure meant that children as young as five or six could drink alcohol in a beer garden or at a specific distance from a bar. The Bill strengthens the restriction but is also flexible. It provides that 16 and 17-year-olds may drink alcohol of less than spirit strength with a meal if accompanied by an adult. I am a little worried about what constitutes a meal. Let us consider circumstances in which an 18-year-old young man is in a pub with five 16-year-old friends. He buys one round of sandwiches, shares them among his friends, does not buy more food but can continue purchasing drinks for the 16-year-olds.
  Dr. Howells: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way because I appreciate that she does not have much time. According to the Licensing Act 1964, the definition is
  "a meal eaten by a person seated at a table, or at a counter or other structure which serves the purpose of a table and is not used for the service of refreshments for consumption by persons not seated at a table or structure serving the purpose of a table".
  In 1965, case law provided that a substantial sandwich accompanied by pickles and beetroot was a table meal.
  Diana Organ: Let us hope that a substantial sandwich does not have to be shared between too many under-age drinkers.
  The Forest of Dean is a rural area, which has many village halls. They can currently have 12 temporary notices, with the licensee being a committee member or the head of an organisation that holds an event. Although it is good news that village halls will be exempt from the fee, the five events a year for which the Bill provides are not enough for many halls. They use the income from events that might involve alcohol, such as weddings, birthday parties, the annual general meeting of the marrow growers association and Weight Watchers. Five events are not enough and village halls have asked for the number of events to be restored to 12 or even increased, if the Minister could be so generous to the halls, which are an important part of rural communities.
  The third issue has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), among others. It was also raised by Alison Childs, the co-ordinator of the Forest of Dean farmers' market project. As a result of foot and mouth disease in the Forest of Dean,
  100
  Countryside Agency money was made available to help us. to establish farmers' markets, of which there are now three. In fact, they have just had their first birthday. When I went to visit the market in Lydney last Friday, the matter was raised with me again. It relates to the problem of alcohol licensing for stalls, which provide a new market for small providers, and can be viewed as a developmental and promotional stage for small producers and businesses hoping to supply to local retailers.
  In my area, we have a small local brewery, a small cider maker and various wine producers. In the wake of foot and mouth, the farmers' markets have meant the difference between survival and bankruptcy for those producers. The problem that they have raised with me is that the Bill could make it very difficult and expensive for farmers' markets to arrange a licence if they were going to meet 50 times a year or more, or if a producer was going to go to more than one farmers' market or to local shows. This would be an expense and a bureaucratic problem, and it would make it difficult for us to build up a wide variety of stalls in our farmers' markets and to make them successful. I hope that it will be possible to examine this issue in Committee and to bring assistance to this much-needed activity in our areas.
  I welcome the Bill, but it must implement a single integrated scheme to make licensing accountable for local residents. It is important that, for the first time, the Government are taking really tough measures to tackle alcohol-related disorders and crime. It is also important that we have recognised that alcohol abuse is a problem in society and that we should protect our children in that regard. I therefore welcome the Bill.
  8.30 pm
  Gregory Barker: Deliberating on the liberalisation of the licensing laws while our troops are in combat in a foreign war could seem frivolous to some people looking in from the outside. I certainly paused for thought before considering trying to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. But however serious the events unfolding in the Gulf may be, the work of Parliament must clearly continue and this Bill has profound implications for the everyday lives of thousands of my constituents.
  I would like to start by taking the opportunity to recognise the hard work of many peers in the other place to amend the Bill to remove many of its over-zealous regulatory—and occasionally plain silly—provisions. I recognise, however, the Government's willingness to show a degree of flexibility in accepting reasonable amendments, and I welcome many elements of the Bill.
  The alarm that the Bill originally caused in the many villages and small communities in my constituency was very real and extremely vocal. For them, it represented a clear and direct threat to our local churches and village halls. The anger engendered by the original proposals to license and effectively restrict or curtail performances in parish churches—the like of which have taken place uninterrupted for centuries—gave voice to many people who would normally never think of writing to their MP or lobbying the Government. I wholeheartedly shared their sense of outrage that such an extraordinary intrusion into the lives of ordinary people should ever

  101
  find its way into draft legislation. I am particularly grateful to the rectors of Peasmarsh in my constituency and St. Augustine's in Bexhill for drawing to my attention the calamitous effect on our churches and church halls that the earlier provisions in the Bill would have had.
  In total, the Government have suffered nine defeats and been forced to make seven further significant concessions. This is a result not only of Conservative pressure but of pressure from many people and groups of all political persuasions throughout the country. As a result, among the many welcome changes, churches have now been exempted from licensing, and village halls will at least not have to pay fees. I also want to highlight another welcome change—the removal altogether of the requirement for a licence from smaller premises offering entertainment before 11.30 pm. This is a truly deregulatory measure that deserves support from both sides of the House.
  As originally drafted, the Licensing Bill would have resulted in a huge extra burden of costs and bureaucracy. Much of this has been removed by the amendments made in the House of Lords. Like others in the Conservative party, I believe that if the Government are genuine in their claim that they wish to reduce the burden of regulation, they must accept these constructive changes and not seek to overturn them in this House. I was, therefore, encouraged by the Secretary of State's earlier comments that she was minded to accept many of the amendments, but clearly we shall want to see what that means in practice. The Government must listen to the thousands of musicians, churchgoers and others up and down the country who support the amendments that have been made. Throwing out just some of those amendments would make the Bill a poorer piece of legislation.
  Despite promising a Bill to amend the licensing laws before the last general election, the Government did not include such a Bill in the 2001–02 parliamentary Session. Most 18-year-olds will remember receiving a text message on general election day in 2001 promising 24-hour drinking if they voted Labour. I suspect that they would have expected the Government to deliver that novel election pledge rather sooner.
  During the last Session, the Government introduced a number of minor changes to the licensing laws by increasing police powers to deal with disturbances, making it an offence for anyone knowingly to serve alcohol to a minor or to buy alcohol on their behalf, allowing the extension of opening hours on Sundays and on new year's eve 2001, and allowing premises to charge entry for dance events on Sundays.
  In April 2002, the Government published a consultation document, which proposed continuous opening hours on new year's eve through to new year's day. The Bill was finally published in November, and it followed all the proposals anticipated from the White Paper and related media reports. However, a closer look at its substance showed that it did not quite live up to the Government's claims. Indeed, it contained a number of significant defects.
  First, I suspect that the proposed system would lead to higher costs and more regulation rather than the reverse. A founding principle of the Bill is the split licence—one personal and one for the premises—but
  102
  that sound structure is threatened by the requirement to name the licensee on the premises licence. The effect of that will be to require a new licence application to be made every time that a manager changes, imposing unnecessary burdens on licensing authorities and business. A licensee simply registering with the authorities, as envisaged in the White Paper, would achieve the same result while significantly reducing the required paperwork by sweeping away four clauses and 14 subsections.
  Secondly, I agree with the widespread concern, expressed most notably by the Magistrates Association as well as by other Members who have spoken, that the case has not been sufficiently made to transfer responsibility for issuing licences from magistrates courts to local authorities. Indeed, according to the association, the evidence on public entertainment licences, which were transferred to local authorities in 1983, appears to be to the contrary.
  Although the Local Government Association broadly supports that transfer of responsibility, I have my doubts, and those are shared, to some extent, by the leaders of Rother and Wealden district councils, which, between them, are responsible for my constituency of Bexhill and Battle. Although deferring local powers to local people is indeed to be welcomed, my conversations with district councils have highlighted very real concerns.
  Following recent central Government local authority funding cuts, the leader of Rother district council noted the strains that the Bill will place on the already overstretched resources of local authorities. The bureaucratic and training requirements involved in setting up new licensing systems will stretch their budgets. Likewise, the leader of Wealden district council has predicted funding difficulties for local authorities as there are no provisions for the costs of setting up the new system. Perhaps the Minister will elucidate on that in his winding-up speech.
  Thirdly, on entering the Lords, the Bill was also deficient in terms of the powers to be conferred on local authorities to manage an extended night-time economy. I am concerned about whether there will be sufficient safeguards for local residents—my constituents have referred to that in correspondence—particularly in areas where there will be a high concentration of late-night drinking establishments. However, that could also lead to the unnecessary politicisation of every single licence application, which could lead to numerous unwelcome anomalies in how the new regime is implemented.
  I greatly welcome the staggered licensing hours proposals, and I do not share some of the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale). My support for staggered closing is a direct result of my experience of patrolling local town centres with Sussex police to observe emptying-out time and all the associated antisocial behaviour at first hand.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: My hon. Friend makes a good case for staggered closing, but how would he ensure that

  103
  it followed from the Bill? Surely publicans will continue to remain open until the market determines that they close.
  Gregory Barker: No. The ideal system would be for local magistrates to ensure that the licences in a particular area were staggered: one pub would close at 11.15, the pub across the road would close at 11.45 and the other pub would close at 12.30 so that everyone did not rush out into the shopping centre or the pedestrian area at the same time.
  Mr. Turner: They would rush from pub to pub.
  Gregory Barker: They may do that, but when I was out with the police the single biggest problem that I saw was customers leaving two pubs at the same time, facing up to each other across a street and not just engaging in antisocial behaviour, but starting fights as a direct result.
  The Bill may result in people going on to nightclubs rather than being chucked out of pubs at 11 pm or 12 midnight. They may then stop drinking alcohol, chill out, start to relax and stagger home contented at about 5 am rather than going home pumped up with alcohol and testosterone at about midnight.
  I am concerned about an unrelated matter—the possible impact on farmers' markets. Numerous people go to Battle farmers' market to sell fantastic organic cider and similar vineyard products. I am worried that the imposition of additional licences will prevent that.
  Licensing reform will always attract criticism, and that rightly applies to many parts of the Bill, but there is much common ground. I hope that, given the wide-ranging effects the Bill will have on our popular culture, the Government will continue to listen to voices throughout the country and not just accept the well-argued and responsible amendments from the other place but, in so doing, set a clear course to establish the greatest possible consensus in framing a relevant and dynamic licensing system for a new century.
  8.41 pm
  Ms Julia Drown: A number of constituents have written to me about the Bill, fearing that it will reduce the availability of music for charitable events. However, it is clear to me from correspondence with Ministers that that is not the intention. I hope the Minister will assure us today that in Committee he will continue discussions with Members and relevant organisations. I was pleased to hear from the Secretary of State that she is keen to continue the debate with the Musicians Union, which is a key element. I certainly want our constituents to go on enjoying good music and charitable events throughout the year.
  My constituents are eager to have more input in licensing issues, especially in areas that already contain many clubs and other drinking establishments. In the old town in central Swindon there is already a significant amount of antisocial behaviour associated with the clubs, which poses a real challenge to the local police.
  Having said that, I want to concentrate on an issue that is not covered by the Bill and ought to be. A sport that is not currently licensed, and should be, is
  104
  motocross. For some years the village of Wanborough has suffered from severe antisocial behaviour, which could be controlled if motocross events were licensable. There have been too many instances of thousands of people descending on a village that has no infrastructure to deal with that.
  In 1998 we hosted the world championships. About 28,000 people converged on a single village, arriving on country roads that were not equipped to cope with such a large volume of traffic. There were jams, illegal parking and so on. The villagers also had to cope with drunkenness, fighting and noise. Residents returning after the event had started found that their back gardens were being used as car parks, their front gardens were being used for barbecues, and bus shelters were being used as urinals. They found windows smashed, verges cut up and fences broken. Throughout the village we saw the destruction of hedges to provide firewood. The borough council had to deal with tons of mud that had been dumped on to the public roads. That was not only a major headache; it made a substantial dent in the council's budget.
  Proper regulation could have avoided a number of those problems. It could have been decided that the event was not suitable for the village, or that it could go ahead only with the appropriate infrastructure. I know that the Government do not want to regulate further, and I am in favour of deregulation when it is appropriate, but good regulation is not anti-business.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am anxious not to cut the hon. Lady off, but she prefaced her remarks by saying that she wanted to deal with matters that were not in the Bill. We are discussing the Second Reading of the Bill before us, and I think the hon. Lady has made her point and should draw these remarks to a close.
  Ms Drown: I appreciate your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Bill covers similar activities, and with a slight amendment it could include motocross, just as boxing is included, logically solving the problems experienced by my constituents. This is the obvious Bill for that purpose, so if I may I will finish these comments, as you suggest.
  The lack of regulation caused a more responsible business to leave the site because of the many complaints, and because the complaints had a questionable legal basis, no certainty could be given about future events. That business suffered a financial penalty, yet the lack of regulation leaves the community in the hands of irresponsible businesses, which take advantage of the situation to ride roughshod over the wishes and rights of villagers.
  There seem to be inconsistencies in the Bill. In schedule 1 entertainment is defined as, among other things, "an indoor sporting event" and "boxing or wrestling entertainment", whether inside or outside. Why is boxing singled out? A simple amendment adding motocross would enable south Swindon to avoid the huge problems that it has experienced. A more logical, wider amendment would include in the definition outside public leisure events attended by more than 500 people, perhaps with the additional specification concerning whether people have to pay to see those events. That would comfort people experiencing problems similar to those in my constituency.

  105
  I accept that such an amendment would introduce extra regulation, but regulation can be good for business, for communities and for entertainment.
  Gregory Barker: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Drown: No, I am afraid I do not have much time.
  I can balance the additional regulation requested by my constituents by offering two possibilities for deregulation. First, the Bill may mean that someone who applies for a licence or for a change in their licence conditions has to place two adverts in local newspapers. At around £400 per application, that would be a heavy burden for small businesses, and it may not be the most effective way of letting local people know of the application. Notices outside the premises, which cost very little, could be more effective, and I hope that the Government will consider that.
  My second suggestion relates to delegation of licensing functions to local authority officers. Clause 11 suggests that decisions cannot be delegated to officers in many circumstances, in particular where representations have been made. Elsewhere in the Bill the term "relevant representations" is used, and that would seem to make more sense. Without the word "relevant", the clause does not allow decisions to be delegated, even if all the representations concerning a particular licence or licence change are totally in support of the application, and that seems unnecessarily bureaucratic. Given that the Government want to ensure that the time of councillors and officers is well spent, I hope that the matter can be considered.
  Finally, schedule 1, paragraph 2 says that references to an audience include a reference to spectators. There is a potential problem in that a spectator could be someone who is just wandering past, rather than someone attending a specific event. Clarification of those definitions would be useful.
  I hope that the Bill will help local people to have a bigger say in the events in their neighbourhood. I urge the Government to consider taking the opportunity to help villagers in my constituency and others in a similar position who have suffered from antisocial behaviour associated with the lack of regulation of major outdoor sporting events such as motocross. They suffer serious and unnecessary disruption, and it should be stopped.
  8.48 pm
  Mr. Mark Field: My constituency contains the largest number of licensed premises in the UK. Despite all the Government's rhetoric of empowerment, the Bill is fundamentally centralising. I have a great fear that we are sleepwalking into acceptance of the measures, which will have damaging effects wherever there is a large late-night entertainment and alcohol industry.
  Given the way that things turn out, I suspect that I may yet end up serving on the Standing Committee, at which point I will have a chance to conduct a little more scrutiny. I appreciate that time is tight and that many other Members want to speak. I hope that we will be voting against the programme motion, although we will not vote against the Bill's Second Reading, partly because we hope that the amendments made in the other
  106
  place will remain in the Bill. Many of those amendments were sensible and reflected the active interest of a number of residents' associations in central London.
  My constituency contains most of the west end of London, including Soho and a chunk of Covent Garden. I will not claim all of the latter for myself, as I see that the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) is in his place. He has worked very hard for many years with the Covent Garden residents' association, which I, too, now represent in part. Some deep and meaningful concerns exist in central London. For example, there are 850 licensed premises in Soho and Leicester Square are alone, and we need in part to rein back some of the powers that this very centralising Bill could put in place.
  I want to stress to Members who have spent time in Soho—I hope that they were doing the right things, rather than the wrong things—and who perhaps take the view that it is a totally commercial area that nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, Soho has some 5,000 residents. It is often pointed out that people who buy in Soho—indeed, the hon. Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) and her husband had a house in a Soho street—know what they are letting themselves in for, and to an extent that is true. As a local councillor, I represented constituents who had homes near a football ground or a pub, but the reality is that in places such as Soho—the same applies in Covent Garden—some 70 per cent. of residents are either social tenants or council tenants. They have no say about where they live, so it is incumbent on all individuals, whether in Parliament or in the local authorities, to do their bit to ensure that the interests of some of the most vulnerable in our society are looked after.
  Life in the central London metropolis has a traditional village feel to it and there is no doubt that community values still exist; indeed, Covent Garden and Soho have some 300 to 350 years of history. We should aspire to building up civic society within our cities—this point applies not just to London—and that requires a healthy and growing residential population. We also need to focus on fundamental civilities, rather than on the utter selfishness demonstrated by so many of those who are on our streets in the early hours of the morning. I want us to look back in 50 years' time on thriving places such as Soho, Covent Garden or even the City of London, and reflect on the fact that they are not totally commercial areas, but remain vibrant places in which to live. Many of my constituents have lived in these parts of London for generations, and they understandably feel threatened at the idea of an industry that goes on not only all day, but all night. Indeed, for the first time in 200 years, the residential population of the City of London—the other part of my constituency—has begun to rise again. At the time of the first census, in 1801, the residential population was about 170,000, and it diminished with every subsequent census, until the most recent one. It is important to encourage such thriving inner-city populations.
  There has been a rising tide of antisocial behaviour, particularly in the early hours of Saturday and Sunday mornings, throughout much of central London. As several Members have pointed out, the key issue is saturation and the effect of ambient noise in a particular district, which can be cumulative. Members will perhaps be surprised to learn that Westminster city council

  107
  provides some 583 late-night licences, 144 of which apply beyond 3 am; of those, 86 apply beyond 4 am. So the idea of binge drinking resulting from a single closing time, and of the so-called benefits of staggered times, do not really hold sway in central London.
  It is clear from my discussions with the local police that a great increase in the number of licensed premises, or an extension to opening hours, would lead to a commensurate rise in disorder. The notion that abolishing fixed closing times will somehow transform the drinking culture in this country and end alcohol-fuelled violence is in my view optimistic, to put it mildly. However, we should note the inadequacy of public transport and of policing, especially in London. For example, all the tube trains wind up at barely midnight every night. The bus service has improved beyond recognition in recent years, but it does not provide adequate transport from the centre for the many people who need it in the early hours of Saturday and Sunday. It must in part be the responsibility of the huge entertainment industry, because without improvements in that infrastructure there should be no extension to licensing hours.
  Several hon. Members have mentioned the confusion in the Government's thinking and objectives. How will allowing all-night drinking achieve many of their other, laudable objectives, such as a reduction in alcohol abuse or in general disorder? We will have to discuss that in great detail in Committee to ensure that we get the legislation right, although I was a little depressed to hear the Secretary of State say that some seven of the nine amendments made by the Lords would be overturned here. I hope that serious consideration will be given to the great work done in the other place, and the contributions made by many local residents associations to the amendments made.
  The removal of licensing powers from residents will make the system far less flexible and will undermine the deregulation goal. Discretion is the key and I hope that local authorities will retain their eligibility in their own right to object to applications, and will not have to do so only through their environmental health departments. Otherwise, the risk is that the proposed changes will benefit only large operators in the alcohol and entertainment industries, at the expense of some of the smaller, family-owned restaurants, bars and clubs, many of which still exist, even in my constituency. Many of those establishments have a long-term, traditional stake in their community, and I fear that if they are all taken over by larger operators we will see a pandering to the lowest common denominator.
  8.57 pm
  Mr. Kevan Jones: I welcome the Bill, which will update our archaic licensing laws and address some of the serious antisocial behaviour problems that we all experience in our constituencies. During the passage of the Bill in the other place, I was disappointed that such progressive legislation was dogged by silly stories, such as claims that the spontaneous singing of "Happy Birthday" would be banned, as would church singing. We have seen that continued tonight by the Conservative party, a once great party now desperate for votes from folk singers, morris dancers and
  108
  wassailers. Such stories have raised serious concern among constituents. Like other hon. Members, I have received many letters prompted by the scare stories. I urge the Minister, when he replies, to try to nail some of the misleading claims and downright lies that have been put around about the Bill's effects.
  In framing legislation to cover such a wide variety of activities, the Government faced problems. However, the key consideration was public safety. The Bill is not the result of the bureaucratic whims of civil servants but an attempt to ensure public safety. As a former chair of the public health committee in Newcastle, responsible for public entertainment licences and involved in the city's millennium celebrations, I know the hard work that is done to ensure safety at public events. The tragedies in the United States recently, in which fire ripped through two night clubs, showed the results when we do not get the safeguards right. In framing legislation, our job is to ensure that the public can enjoy themselves, and to ensure that those responsible for organising events have the powers to do so safely. If we get it wrong, the same voices that have accused the Government of excessive bureaucracy will ask why tragedies have been allowed to happen.
  I welcome the transfer of licensing authority to local councils. That will bring an element of democratic accountability to the system, and the transparency that has been sadly lacking. With no disrespect to hardworking local magistrates, I can say that it will give people an understanding at local level of how and why licences are granted. From my experience, the present system excludes local people. If they object to a licence, their ability to influence magistrates is limited. Many people are intimidated by the magistrates courts and, as I have seen at first hand, by the threat of the applicant's lawyers to recover the legal costs from local residents. A licensing procedure that is simpler and more responsive to local people and which allows them more easily to make representations to local licensing authorities will be widely welcomed.
  I know that there are those who argue strongly against the transfer of responsibility to local authorities. The main argument, as I understand it, is that local councillors will come under undue influence from local people. I do not accept that. Local councils already deal with a range of licensing functions and quasi-judicial matters from public entertainment licences and taxi licences through to the granting of planning permission. Again, in my experience, councillors carry out those functions in a professional way, in accordance with the guidance issued by Ministers. Framing the guidance for the new system will be extremely important. Will my hon. Friend the Minister consider ensuring that there is a mandatory duty on local councillors to undergo formal training for their new responsibility?
  With reference to the draft guidance that has been issued, the sufficiency argument has been mentioned—the idea that we should cap the number of licences granted in a certain area. I do not agree that that is a simple way of restricting licensing in an area. The overall policy must take into account types of licence and the amount of enforcement that the local authority will carry out. Simply capping the number of licences in a particular area will not work. A few years ago in Newcastle licensing magistrates and t he police imposed

  109
  a ban on all new on licences in the city centre on the ground of sufficiency. All that that did was artificially to increase the value of premises in the city centre. It did not encourage diversity, but led to vertical drinking establishments, as I called them in a debate earlier this year, whose sole aim was to dispense as much alcohol as possible. It did nothing to encourage café bars, restaurants and other establishments.
  As part of the guidance, local councils should be encouraged to include an element of diversity in their licensing policy. It is important that local licensing authorities deal with individual applications on their merit. They should consider not just the number of similar licences in a particular area, but the detailed proposals in each case.
  I know that other hon. Members want to get into the debate, so I shall conclude with two other matters that should be covered by guidance. Local councils should be given powers to regulate "happy hours" when alcohol is sold at give-away prices, leading to serious antisocial behaviour problems. Finally, for premises holding a certain number of people, a requirement for registered door supervisors should be a condition of the licence. The door supervisor system piloted in Newcastle works well. It is administered by the local council and is welcomed by the publican trade. It would provide a degree of safety, which we all want.
  9.4 pm
  Mr. David Heath: I want to make a few remarks on the subject of the public entertainments licence. I have no idea how I got into that issue, but into it over recent years I certainly got. I tabled a few questions to which the Minister was incautious enough to reply with a sentiment that was not entirely complimentary to Somerset folk singers, managing to incur the wrath of the entire folk singing community, not only in the west country but across England. Indeed, I believe that he was the first person to prompt a fatwa from The Wurzels. Things escalated to the point where I found myself on television singing along with Billy Bragg while other hon. Members had gags over their mouths. I thought that that would give me some kudos in the eyes of my teenage children, but that proved to be a sadly unfulfilled hope. They were more embarrassed and mortified than they had ever been.
  I was incensed by the previous two-in-a-bar rule because it was stupid law. It was ridiculous law that was crying out for amendment, so I hugely welcomed the Government's commitment to introduce a reforming Bill. I hoped that there would be some genuine deregulation. When I first read the Bill—before it was amended in another place—I was sadly disappointed. Despite the Minister's intentions—I still believe that his intentions in this respect are good—the Bill was drafted and constructed by civil servants in his Department in such a way that it introduced a regime of regulation of entertainment and music making that caught a much wider spread of people and premises.
  I am saddened by that for several reasons. First, I like people to have the opportunity to play and to listen to live music in as many venues as possible. Secondly, such entertainment can make a major contribution to our tourist industry, especially in rural areas, where we do
  110
  not do nearly enough to promote the traditional inn that provides not only good food and drink but entertainment that fits the cultural identity of the west country and elsewhere. Thirdly, it is important that young musicians have the opportunity to rehearse and to play in front of an audience at a formative stage in their careers. If we cut that off, we cut off a large part of the future professional and amateur music scene.
  I share the view expressed by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride). I am not convinced that we need a public entertainments licence as such. Three areas desperately need regulation. One is health and safety at a venue. As the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) said, it would be on all our consciences if we failed to make appropriate health and safety legislation. Secondly and perfectly properly, we need to prevent nuisance to neighbours and people who are affected by performances. The third is to protect children from entertainment forms that are inappropriate for them.
  None of those needs an entertainment licence that restricts not health and safety aspects, not the access of children and not nuisance to neighbours, but the act of performing. That is the fundamental flaw in the Government's approach. Given that they are to stick to that course—there is a long enough precedent for it in England and Wales, but not of course in Scotland, where people do not feel the need for such legislation—it is incumbent on them to make it as easy as possible for licences to be issued, to encourage the spread of musical and cultural activity in as wide an array of venues as possible and to enable people to take up such opportunities. Again, I have some difficulty with the Government's approach. However often Ministers may assert that such and such is not their intention, the Bill does not say it. I beg the Minister to go just a little further.
  The Lords have already pointed the way in some of their amendments. We have already dealt with churches, village halls and community halls and I hope that we shall deal with educational establishments. The Government are supposed to be reconsidering the fee structure. All acoustic performances should be exempt from the provisions, as they are not capable of causing the nuisance that the Bill attempts to remedy. Whether we limit numbers or types of performance is a matter of opinion, but there should be a threshold below which the full licensing provisions do not apply.
  We need to examine the transitional arrangements, as well as the licence variations, which are a significant barrier. If a licensee does not initially apply for an entertainment licence but wants one at a later stage, it could prove too costly for them to countenance and we could thus eventually see a contraction in the number of live venues.
  I genuinely believe that the Government are listening to some of the points that have been made. Some of us have been accused of scaremongering, but any scares that I have mongered were manufactured in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The more that the Minister can allay fear by changing the precise terms of the Bill and by what he includes in the regulations and guidance, the more he will receive my support. The measure would then be genuinely

  111
  deregulatory. I commend the Minister on listening, but I am worried that there will be backsliding from the position established in another place.
  My closing points will confirm the Department's caricatured view of me as a yokel in a smock. I shall not deal at length with wassailing and the intervention of the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on the subject, except to point out that a Somerset wassail is different from a Totnes wassail. In Somerset, we perform the act of wassailing on old twelfth night; it involves shooting guns into ancient apple trees—which probably have tree preservation orders—in order to scare away the punkies. An inordinate amount of cider drinking takes place while an ashen faggot burns and the wassail song is sung. The number of licences that we should need to perform all those activities is mind-boggling. They are best done in the privacy of Somerset villages and should not be brought to the attention of the wider community.
  I am worried about the issue of cider at farmers' markets. The licensing proposals will not encourage the people who run the markets to apply for licences. Alcoholic beverages—cider or the wine that is produced in my constituency—are only a small part of what is sold at farmers markets. Often the management of those markets changes regularly, so there will be no incentive to obtain a licence. That will be a serious impediment to local cider and wine makers. Will the Minister consider that point in Committee?
  Incidentally, will the Minister also look into the position for roadside sales of farmhouse cider where they fall below the Excise threshold? As he knows, such sales are traditional in my part of the country. They are part of the tourism industry, as well as a jolly good idea for everyone who lives in our part of the world. What impact will the measure have on them?
  Despite my reservations, I am still confident that the measure will do what it says on the tin: it will be deregulatory. To achieve that, however, the Minister will have to listen to people involved in the music industry, in music promotion and the licensed trade. They know about the problems and have recognised the pitfalls in the Bill as it is presently worded and the dangers in the guidance—or lack of it—that might be issued to local authorities for the exercise of their duties under the measure. At all costs, we do not want a Bill that purports to deregulate but actually reduces the number of venues for live music in this country. Live music matters.
  9.15 pm
  Paddy Tipping: I am pleased to support the Bill on its Second Reading; it has been long overdue and long in its gestation. My own research suggests that the licensing laws go back to the 15th century and evolved through the Sunday observance laws. The hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) mentioned the first world war, and it is true that the licensing regimes were changed as a result of what we would now call exuberant and antisocial behaviour by Carlisle munitions workers.
  The Bill deals with matters that are not only archaic, but complex. I brought up two children who came to the pub with me, and I must confess that I never
  112
  Understood—I do not think that anybody really understands—the arcane and complex laws affecting children in pubs, which need to be reformed.
  A good deal of discussion has gone on in the industry, and the White Paper, "Time for Reform", brought consensus to the industry. It is sad that we did not have an opportunity for pre-legislative scrutiny, because one of the issues that emerged tonight and in the other place is that of live music and entertainment, on which there has been no real prior discussion. I agree with the Minister that there are a lot of myths around. In the course of the debate, we talked about Scottish dancing, wassailing, morris dancers and, perhaps most importantly, a private function held for the Children's Society in a private house where people are to be charged and there is the possibility of licensing. My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Claire Ward) asked whether licences are needed for village halls. If we are not clear about what will and will not be caught, it is bad legislation.
  The major part of my contribution concerns alcohol regulation. The White Paper made it clear that what was sought was a liberal, deregulatory, simple and flexible licensing regime. The White Paper fell within those parameters, but the Bill does not entirely do so. A good deal of the discussion has focused on urban centres. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) rightly drew attention to the genuine problems that exist in major urban centres, but most of our pubs are community pubs—local pubs—and the focus on problems in urban areas has led us to neglect what might happen to them. I do not think that the Bill will have the effect that other people argue for. I suspect that in locals and community pubs there will be, just at weekends, a slight extension—perhaps until midnight—of the licensing laws. We should welcome and celebrate that and recognise that in a changing environment people's social lives and attitudes change.
  The Bill is backed by what is called a "rough early draft" of the guidelines. The White Paper was about simplicity, but the rough early draft runs to 100-plus pages. Those of us who argued for liberal, simpler legislation will be concerned about the sheer volume of the rough early draft.
  What will be the status of the guidelines? Earlier this afternoon, the Secretary of State called them statutory guidelines. I welcome the idea that local authorities should be allowed flexibility. Local needs should be decided by local people. However, we have to be certain about the nature of the guidelines. Are they prescriptive? Are they a set of policies for Government? Or are they simply indicative and informal—allowing local authorities to make the appropriate judgment? Getting the balance of the guidelines right will be extremely important. That will be an issue for discussion in Committee.
  Fees should also be considered. Indicative figures for fees have been given and they are not as immense as many had said they would be. I do not share the concerns that pubs in the west of England will close because of the new onerous regime under which they will be placed. The procedure and the operating schedule that will have to be drawn up will be a straightforward way of making progress. We have to be more precise

  113
  about costs and about whether the fees from these activities will meet the costs and needs of local authorities. We are asking our local authorities to take on new functions. They ought to be properly resourced to do that; and they ought to be resourced by the applicant rather than by the council tax payer. It will be important to get that right and to get the timetable right. I hope that this new legislation will be in place by autumn 2004.
  I want to make two specific points. Earlier, I asked the Secretary of State directly about the national register of personal licences. It must be right to collect data nationally—the industry and the other place support that view. We will have to work on the detail, but the principle is right. I was delighted with what the Secretary of State said today. During our discussions, we will have to return to the issue of designated premises supervisors. What is currently envisaged by the Bill is not simple. It is not deregulatory and it is certainly not liberal. I ask the Minister to keep his mind open on that point.
  I have long taken an interest in licensing regulation and legislation. I am delighted that time is finally being called on old, anarchistic, anarchic and complex legislation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Anarchistic?"] It can be anarchistic. Those of us who have been there will know—as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) knows—how we would storm out into the night, as soon as the pub closed, to bring forward social and revolutionary change. We have all been there, but we are all modernisers now. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak for yourself."] There are some old lags left in this place. However, we do need to modernise our licensing legislation and we are on course to do so. We have made a good start. Concessions have been made. The Government have been listening—but I suspect that, during our consideration of this Bill, further changes will be necessary.
  9.23 pm
  Mr. Bob Blizzard: There are many good things in this Bill—they are too numerous to mention—but I want to speak about the Bill as it relates to the licensing of entertainment and, in particular, live music. I am a strong supporter of live music—not only in large concert halls but in small venues. As other hon. Members have noted, such venues help young musicians to develop. They have to perform live in front of a real audience to get any better.
  Live music is also essential to allow minority interests not only to survive but to thrive and one day, we hope, become less of a minority interest. Music that is broadcast is increasingly limited to mainstream music. The very nature of the broadcasting industry means that it squeezes out minority interests or, at best, pushes them further to the fringes. When I go into record shops, I increasingly find only mainstream top-40 music. Unless one goes to a specialist store in a large city, it is hard to find anything of a minority interest. I worry, therefore, that the public will be denied access to music beyond that mass, mainstream taste, unless we do everything we can to allow and encourage live music outlets to thrive and to recognise that the outlets for minority tastes will be small by their very nature.
  My passion is jazz. It is hard to find jazz on radio and television. A lot of people like jazz when they hear it; but, all too often, they do not hear it at all, or they think
  114
  it is just Kenny Ball and Acker Bilk and they might like or dislike them. When I take people to places where jazz is played, they really do like it. Small, live venues are a serious issue if we are to avoid that monoculture of mass entertainment, and I have looked at the Bill to find out what it will mean for those small premises that lay on live music.
  I want nothing to make life more difficult for jazz or other so-called minority tastes, so I should like the Minister to consider some concerns. I am very pleased with the idea behind the Lords amendment that grants exemption to live music at small events and premises up to 11.30 pm, as it is an attempt to deal with the issue. If I understand why my hon. Friend cannot support that measure, I hope that he will find an alternative way forward that satisfies the concerns of those small premises. I hope not only that he will meet the Musicians Union, but that he will be willing to receive a delegation from the all-party jazz appreciation group in the House to work through some of those issues.
  I accept that, in theory, the process to obtain a new entertainment licence will be simpler, but it will mean that, as we have heard, more than 100,000 premises that currently operate, mostly without problem, will become caught in the net of local authority regulation, and that worries some of the people who run them. They are worried about being caught in the local authority net because they have seen what that means in other spheres. They are worried that that will lead to more red tape, not less.
  People are worried not about ticking the box on the application form, but about what could happen afterwards. They look at some local authority licensing panels and see very elderly people with views that are probably conducive to allowing not more entertainment, but less. As a local authority leader, I tried to promote tourism in my area, but the licensing panel, which did not want to allow very much to happen at all, regularly thwarted me. Okay, applicants can appeal, but the cost of the appeals process is rather daunting for small operators.
  The White Paper said that local authorities must recoup all the administrative costs through fees, yet I am told that the Department for Culture Media and Sport regulatory impact assessment mentions fees of about £150 to £500, followed by £50 to £150 a year. Local authorities tell me that those fees would be insufficient and that they will have insufficient income to do their jobs properly; or those with small venues worry that the fees will have to be higher or that local authorities will find a way to increase them. So the fees could be more of a burden than they appear at the moment, but those with small premises are worried about bureaucratic local authority processes.
  The proposal on fire safety in the draft regulatory reform order is also an issue. At the moment, some people have their premises inspected by the local authority, and they believe that they will now need to have their own fire risk assessment carried out, with the cost of employing independent consultants. Although the licence might be cheaper, the cost of obtaining it may be a problem, given those independent consultants' fees.
  The transitional arrangements are another concern. Again, the Bill proposes that local authorities will have to deal with applications to vary the premises licence

  115
  within two months during the transitional period. It is anticipated that, in many areas, a flood of people might want to vary their licences or apply for new ones. Will local authorities be able to deal with all those people within two months? People will be deemed to be rejected unless they are approved, and the concern is that people could wait six or nine months, or more, to get an approval, so I hope that my hon. Friend will consider that.
  Finally, one more reason why we need to consider what we can do to ensure that the situation is better rather than worse for small premises is that, as we know, the Bill exempts wide-screen television music and juke box music, which can attract hundreds of people making a lot of noise. Those premises that put on one jazz pianist at the back of the bar feel that there is something not quite right if 100 people can watch football, listen to MTV, dance on the bar, jump around and make a lot of noise; they feel that live music is 'being discriminated against. It is not intended to be that way, but we do need to examine the issue again. "Keep Music Live" was a slogan a few years ago. I believed in that, and I still do. We must make sure that we encourage live music at its roots, promote minority interests and increase cultural diversity. If the Bill can do that, it will be a very good one.
  9.31 pm
  Mr. John Grogan: It is very appropriate that we have a Welsh Minister summing up today's debate, which has ranged widely from wassailing to motocross to a good night out in Skegness and Bexhill and Battle and a bad night out in Hornsey. It was a Welsh Minister, of course Lloyd George who, in the first world war, got us into this mess by introducing the liquor licensing legislation. He famously said:
  "We are fighting three enemies: the Huns, the Austrians and the drink, and the greatest of these is the drink."
  That has distorted British and particularly English and Welsh attitudes to alcohol for the best part of the following century.
  We have heard about the rush late at night to get taxis home. We have not, however, heard much about the pressure to drink quickly in the last half hour before closing time. Australia had something very similar many years agothe 6 o'clock swill. The changes that the Government are making are good for health.
  The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) mentioned the text message that the Government put out at the last election:
  "If you don't give a four X for the licensing laws vote Labour on Thursday."
  That was a big mistake. It gave the impression that changes in the licensing laws were mainly for the benefit of the young and not for the whole community. The changes in relation to councils help residents to make representations and complaints. The idea that liquor licensing could be kept by magistrates in a deregulating Bill, however, does not stand up to scrutiny. Under the old system there was a dual lock. To get a public entertainment licence to stay open late one had to go to the council for an extension, and for liquor licensing one
  116
  had to go to the magistrates. It was always a fallacy that councils could be completely wiped out of the process in favour of magistrates.
  I want to support some of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping). We can go further with deregulation. The idea of having a database for personal licences—not a national register—is crucial. The Local Government Association, the industry and the police have signed up to that. A couple of weeks ago, under the auspices of the all-party beer group, I chaired a rather good dinner at which all those organisations agreed about that. Moreover, when one changes a designated premises supervisor, it is not necessary to make that a change in the premises licence. That is over-bureaucratic. The police want the power to object to a change in licensee if they have information that is not known to the licensing committee, but they do not necessarily want that bureaucratic procedure. Changes can therefore be made.
  Given the time constraint, I shall leave the House with one quote that sums up this debate about liquor licensing. It is from Thomas Burke, who wrote a book called "English Night Life: from Norman Curfew to Present Black Out". Some of the language is a little arcane because it comes from the 1940s. Nevertheless, it is worth bringing it to the House's attention briefly:
  "Nightlife, nightbird, nightclub. There is something about the word 'night' as about the word 'Paris' that sends through some Englishmen a shiver of misgiving, and through another type a current of undue delight. The latter never get over the excitement of sitting up late, the others see any happening after midnight, even a game of Snakes and Ladders, as something verging on the unholy, as though Satan were never abroad in sunlight. A club they can tolerate, call it a nightclub and they see it as the ante room to Hell. This attitude to entertainment after dark is held by most officials. Whenever they hear of some new development of nightlife they get a prickling of the thumbs and give the impression that they would be happier if the Universe had so contrived its system as to give the whole globe perpetual day."
  It is time to call last orders on the liquor licensing laws.
  9.35 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Moss: The Bill before us is a much improved piece of legislation, owing to the considerable efforts of their lordships in the other place. The Opposition have now defeated the Government on nine separate occasions on issues such as music and entertainment, community input, children's welfare, and the proper consideration of religious and charitable establishment among others, and there is still some way to go before we can consider the Bill complete. As my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) set out in his excellent speech, our decision not to oppose the Bill on Second Reading is not to be regarded as a blank cheque or as a signal of our acquiescence in all its remaining stages. We will oppose moves to reject the Lords amendments, and we hope to make further improvements to the Bill in Committee.
  Our archaic licensing laws have long been in need of review. The cultural attitudes that have developed as a result of our laws have been detrimental to many aspects

  117
  of society and the consequences are evident far too frequently. As the hon. Members for Watford (Claire Ward) and for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best) pointed out in their speeches, we are all too aware of the strains on our services and communities produced by the so-called binge-drinking culture. In readdressing the licensing laws, we are seeking to re-educate our society and encourage a new way of thinking about the consequences of social drinking.
  A common theme running through the debate was concern over public order issues associated with binge drinking and a universal closing time. Conclusions on the Bill's efficacy in addressing and resolving those problems were varied. The problems of nuisance and antisocial behaviour associated with city centres and locations with late-night clubs were powerfully expressed by the hon. Members for Hornchurch (John Cryer) and for Leeds, North-West, as well as by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field). In their opinion, the Bill does not go far enough or give sufficient powers or resources to the relevant authorities to balance the interests of local communities and residents against those of people who wish to make use of licensed premises.
  A number of hon. Members alluded to the differences between the Bill and the White Paper published in 2000, which categorically stated that the licensing laws and the process of obtaining a licence should be more straightforward. While we agree that combining licences is potentially a means to reduce bureaucracy and red tape, the Government's proposed method of implementation could have the opposite effect. In fact, there could be higher costs and more regulation as a result of needless administration—points that were well made by the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds). One such example is the notion of a designated premises supervisor, which was not included in the original White Paper and has caused a great deal of debate and concern within the industry and, throughout the Bill's various stages. in the other place. The proposal to name the designated premises supervisor on a licence is quite unnecessary in practice—the relevant authorities could simply be notified when a change has occurred, eradicating the need for an entirely new application, thereby minimising bureaucracy and unnecessary costs to the licensee and the taxpayer.
  Another issue of concern to the Opposition is resources. The Government could be placing a huge burden on the shoulders of local authorities and other local services with the changes that they propose under the Bill. Additionally, we are not satisfied that the Government have thought through the impact of implementing the Bill. The proposed 12-month transition period would place additional pressure on authorities trying to adapt to the massive changes imposed on them. We believe that such a short period is wholly unrealistic, so we intend to encourage the Government to reassess the merits of that proposal.
  We also feel that the Government need to consider whether the local licensing authorities will be responsible for the late-night extended economy that
  118
  will stem from a change to the current laws. If not, where does the responsibility for those costs lie? That point was made by the hon. Members for Watford and for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) and by my hon. Friends the Members for Boston and Skegness and for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker).
  A number of hon. Members spoke in support of the existing role of magistrates, whose hard work and dedication is being undermined by the Government's continuing efforts to curtail their powers. The issuing of licences has been a central part of their role for many years and the expertise that they have developed in that time ensures that a fair hearing is given to all potential applicants and that a balanced and considered ruling results.
  Placing that power in the hands of local authorities will take us into completely uncharted territory, and we cannot know how effective or successful that move will be, although the Opposition have every confidence that local authorities will commit themselves wholeheartedly to the requirements of their role. Other hon. Members spoke in support of the proposed shift to local authorities. In particular, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherlar.d and Easter Ross (John Thurso) pointed out that such an arrangement had always been in place in Scotland and said that, in his opinion, it had worked perfectly well.
  The wide-ranging implications of the Bill affect a vast range of businesses and groups that are concerned about the consequences for their vested interests. Among the most publicised reservations are those voiced by the Musicians' Union. Those issues were raised my hon. Friends the Members for Maldon and East Chelmsford and for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride), who are rightly concerned about the possible effects of the Bill on the performance of live music and the abolition of the two-in-a-bar rule. We are delighted that the small premise licence amendment ensuring that a licence is not needed for events that fewer 250 people attend and in which performances finish by 11.30 pm was voted through in the other place. That amendment may not fulfil all the needs of the live music industry, but it at least seeks to recognise the importance of the music and entertainment industry—a notion that we will endorse and support throughout these proceedings.
  There is serious concern that opportunities for live music and musicians will be severely curtailed. The issue is not the ease of applying for an entertainments licence, but the substantial costs that would need to be incurred to satisfy the licensing authority's requirements on issues such as health and safety. Those in the licensing trade have serious fears because of their previous experience with local authorities and applications for public entertainments licences.
  In conclusion, as I said, we will not oppose the Bill on Second Reading, since it would be churlish not to recognise that significant improvements have been made in the other place. However, if the Government proceed in Committee to reverse many of those improvements, as they have signalled in this debate that they will do, we will oppose it all the way.
  9.43 pm
  The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells): May I welcome very much the statement of the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) that his party will riot oppose the Bill tonight?
  This has been a valuable debate in which I counted 21 contributions, many of which were of very high quality. For example, it was instructive to have the benefit of the long experience in the matters under discussion of hon. Members such as my hon. Friends the Members for North Durham (Mr. Jones) and for Selby (Mr. Grogan).
  I believe that the Bill will bring real change. It represents the first fundamental reform of licensing law for 40 years and it will introduce modern laws to reflect the many changes that have occurred in society. Above all, the Bill represents balance. As well as cutting unnecessary regulation and improving flexibility and choice, it offers strong protections for consumers, local people and children.
  It would be great if I could spend a good deal of the short time left discussing various speakers' contributions, and I apologise if I fail to deal in full with all the points raised. I want to speak briefly about the problem that has generated most interest. Various hon. Members have used different terms to describe it, but it is cumulative effect.
  Mr. Frank Dobson: Having harassed my hon. Friend and his predecessor for the past three years, I feel that his day would be incomplete if I did not make an additional point. Will he consider further amending the Bill to ensure that undertakings that existing licence holders have given in the past to protect residents' interests continue to apply? I understand that they will disappear under the Bill. If that happens, a great deal of existing protection for residents will be swept away. I am sure that that was never the Government's intention.
  Dr. Howells: We can examine that in the guidance but undertakings are different from conditions and they do not have legal force unless they become conditions in existing licences. However, licensing authorities may consider them when licences are being renewed. If the undertakings have been broken, that could lead to refusal to renew licences. I hope that the industry will consider that carefully.
  I understand the need for local authorities to take into account the possible effect of the concentration of licensed premises in a specific area on crime, disorder and public nuisance. The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Claire Ward) and the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) and many others raised that issue. The Government share their objective of making our town centres and high streets safe and enjoyable places while clamping down on the disorder and antisocial behaviour that can become a blight for ordinary residents.
  120
  As the debate has made clear, some provisions, notably the abolition of permitted hours, should lead to a reduction in the disorder that current law perversely drives. To that end, we have reconsidered our policy on cumulative effect. We have tackled the matter through proposed legislative changes and the statutory guidance that will be issued under the Bill. We have made it clear in the draft guidance that licensing authorities can take saturation or cumulative effect into account. For example, they can make clear in their statements of licensing policy, which will be subject to consultation, that a specific area could cope with normal premises of a particular type and that there would be a general presumption against granting any more licences for such premises. Of course, each case must be decided on its merits.
  Many hon. Members made important points. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham said that the problem is often not the existence of too many licensed premises but that of one sort of licensed premises. When I went on the night shift with police in Manchester, they described such premises as vertical drinking establishments. There is a genuine problem with them. Young people between 18 and 30 often constitute the easiest targets—30 appears very young to someone of my age. When they drink throughout the evening, they present an intimidating prospect to anybody who might visit the area to go to a restaurant or hear some music. The police told me in no uncertain terms that a concentration of vertical drinking establishments rather than a mix of places causes problems. We must bear that in mind.
  We have added the local planning authority to the list of responsible authorities that can make representations about an application for a premises licence or club premises certificate. This will give an additional voice on the kind of issues that arise as a result of saturation. We should not lose sight of the fact that one result of the amendment is that, in the vast majority of cases, at least two wings of the local authority will be empowered to make representations to the licensing committee: the environmental health authority, which is already a responsible authority under the Bill, and the local planning authority. Both those bodies will usually be drawn from the same local authority as the licensing authority.
  Mr. Mark Field rose—
  Dr. Howells: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not give way. There have been so many contributions already.
  The Bill also contains a number of measures designed to protect local residents. Residents will have a stronger voice than ever before in licensing decisions, and the Bill will establish clear licensing objectives on crime, disorder and public nuisance, although, as a result of amendments to the Bill, that objective has been much limited in scope and is now framed in terms of "public amenity", which is something different. That is something that we can discuss in Committee, however.
  Dr. Desmond Turner: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Dr. Howells: No, if my hon. Friend will permit me, I must make progress.
  Residents, police, environmental health officers and others will be enabled to call for a review of licences. Police powers will be introduced to close, on the spot, premises that are a source of disorder or noise nuisance, and to confiscate alcohol in sealed containers. The introduction of flexible hours is also intended to widen local consumer choice and reduce the density of drinkers in existing centres. However, seeking to influence the levels of crime and antisocial behaviour by limiting the numbers of licensed premises in a particular area is just not practical, for a number of reasons that have been recognised by many hon. Members tonight.
  Providing powers to refuse new licences on the grounds of saturation would provide an undesirable skew in favour of older, established premises, some of which might themselves be the focus of disorder. It would also run the risk of perpetuating the status quo. Some areas would end up keeping hold of the same old stock—the same old dreary drinking dens—with the same old opening hours and the same old problems. That would do no good whatever in the towns and town centres that want to renew themselves. That is an important consideration. There is no body of evidence to suggest that reducing the number of licensed premises in an area would have the desired effect.
  We must not forget the contribution that a vibrant late-night environment makes to the economy of an area, and to the country at large. The hospitality, leisure and entertainment industries employ between 2 million and 3 million people, of whom about 1 million are employed in alcohol-licensed premises. That point was made by the hon. Gentleman with the longest constituency name in the country, which I have forgotten. Caithness, Sutherland—
  John Thurso: And Easter Ross.
  Dr. Howells: We cannot extol the virtues of tourism while seeking to limit what is possible. We often find absurd situations in that regard. For example, if someone goes to the theatre or the cinema, they often have to be able to sprint faster than Linford Christie to get a bottle of wine with their meal at the end of the evening. That is completely absurd, but the Bill will change that.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: Will the Minister give way?
  Dr. Howells: If the hon. Gentleman will permit me, I will not.
  As many as one in five new jobs created in recent years has been in the hospitality sector, and the tourism sector employs 10 per cent. of the country's work force. Indeed, that appears to be one of the reasons that some of the proponents of saturation encouraged the development of licensed premises in their areas in the first place. Allowing the kind of filleting of licensed premises that we seem to be talking about would take those jobs away from the local and wider economy without bringing the benefits that we seek. Experience from abroad, in cities such as Barcelona, Madrid and Rome, suggests that a high density—but with a good mix—of licensed premises might actually have a positive
  122
  effect on a city, so long as the customer base is sufficiently diverse and the licensing regime does not encourage unpleasant behaviour.
  The problems of crime, disorder and antisocial behaviour were raised by a large number of hon. Members. The Bill contains a number of specific provisions to help to combat those problems, such as expanding the existing court powers, on application by the police, to close all licensed premises in a specified geographical area for up to 24 hours where disorder is occurring or is anticipated. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best)—I am not sure whether he is back in the Chamber—told us about a terrible incident in Leeds that could have been tackled by those powers.
  At present, the powers apply to premises selling alcohol, but they are being expanded to include, for example, all entertainment venues, theatres, cinemas, night cafes and takeaway outlets operating late at night. We are also expanding the police powers that we introduced in December 2001 to close down disorderly and excessively noisy pubs, nightclubs, restaurants and hotels instantly for up to 24 hours. Also, there is the possibility of extending the closure for a further 24 hours, which will be a powerful weapon in the police arsenal.
  Those powers will apply to all entertainment premises under the Bill, and abolishing the fixed and artificially early closing time, which provokes binge drinking and results in large numbers of young men hitting the streets simultaneously, thereby causing the police enormous difficulties, will also be tackled. The peaks of disorder immediately after the fixed closing times of 11 pm, 2 am and, as the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) told us, 3 am in the west end of London should be substantially reduced by a more gradual and orderly dispersal of customers.
  I am glad that my hon. Friends raised the issue of special promotions and happy hours. I heard about an example in Manchester from the police: if Manchester United win, certain pubs allow people to pay £10 at the door and they drink as much as they want all night.
  Dr. Ian Gibson: I happens too often.
  Dr. Howells: It does. There is also evidence that happy hours and special promotions are being co-ordinated so that excess capacity in drinking establishments can be filled. The police are convinced that those are some of the most potent sources of antisocial behaviour. We must consider that very carefully, although we have not done so in the debate, as it happens. I hope that we examine such matters in Committee.
  The police will have the opportunity to have a say in the issuing of all provisional statements, new licences and variations of existing ones, with a route of appeal to the magistrates court where they consider that their views have not been taken into account by the licensing authority. That will provide a new mechanism for reviewing licences when any problems arise, backed by an extended range of options, rather than the current practice of having to await renewals before any action can be taken. Included in that range of options is a temporary or permanent reduction in trading hours and

  123
  the suspension of licences, which will allow the licensing authority to hit the profits of businesses that are causing problems in the community rather than merely dealing with individuals.
  Strengthening the laws on selling alcohol to, and its consumption by, under-age children is taken very seriously in the Bill. Also, we are looking, for the first time, at extending the offence of permitting disorderly conduct on licensed premises from such premises to all premises licensed under the Bill, all entertainment venues, all qualifying pubs, clubs, working men's clubs, ex-services clubs, sports clubs, theatres, cinemas, concert halls, indoor sports arenas, all-night cafes and late-night takeaways. That is an important development. We shall require the management and staff of such premises, or club officers, to assist the police in expelling drunk and disorderly persons from those premises.
  I hope that the House gives this excellent Bill a Second Reading.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.

  LICENSING 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 Licensing Bill [Lords]:
  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 20th May 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.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
  The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 84.

  Division No. 131]

  [9:59 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Armstrorg, rh Ms Hilary

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Alexander, Douglas

  Austin, John

  Allen, Graham

  Austin, John

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Baird, Vera

  Banks, Tony

  124

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Battle, John

  Edwards, Huw

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Efford, Clive

  Benn, Hilary

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Etherington, Bill

  Berry, Roger

  Farrelly, Paul

  Blackman, Liz

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Fisher, Mark

  Blizzard, Bob

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Flint, Caroline

  Borrow, David

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Follett, Barbara

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Foster, rh Derek

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Brennan, Kevin

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Bryant, Chris

  Gerrard, Neil

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Burden, Richard

  Gilroy, Linda

  Burnham, Andy

  Goggins, Paul

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Grogan, John

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hain, rh Peter

  Casale, Roger

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Caton, Martin

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Challen, Colin

  Hanson, David

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Chaytor, David

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Clapham, Michael

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Healey, John

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Coleman, Iain

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Connarty, Michael

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Corston, Jean

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Cousins, Jim

  Crausby, David

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Cruddas, Jon

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Hutton, rh John

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Illsley, Eric

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Ingram, rh Adam

  David, Wayne

  Jamieson, David

  Davidson, Ian

  Jenkins, Brian

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Denham, rh John

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Doran, Frank

  Kemp, Fraser

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Kidney, David

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Drown, Ms Julia

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  125

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Purchase Ken

  Purnell,James

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Rammell, Bill

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Lammy, David

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Lepper, David

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Rooney, Terry

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Linton, Martin

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Salter, Martin

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McCafferty, Chris

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Shaw, Jonathan

  MacDonald, Calum

  Sheerman, Barry

  McDonnell, John

  Sheridan, Jim

  MacDougall, John

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  McIsaac, Shona

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  McKechin, Ann

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McNulty, Tony

  Singh, Marsha

  MacShane, Denis

  Smith, rh Chris(Islington S & Finsbury)

  McWalter, Tony

  McWilliam, John

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Soley, Clive

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

  Southworth, Helen

  Starkey, Dr, Phyllis

  Martlew, Eric

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Stevenson, George

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Merron, Gillian

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Miliband, David

  Stoate, Dr.Howard

  Miller, Andrew

  Strang, rh Dr.Gavin

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Moffatt, Laura

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Moran, Margaret

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Mountford, Kali

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Mudie, George

  Timms, Stephen

  Mullin, Chris

  Tipping, Paddy

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Trickett, Jon

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Truswell, Paul

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Olner, Bill

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Twigg, Derek (Halton>

  Organ, Diana

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield>

  Owen, Albert

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Perham, Linda

  Vis, Dr.Rudi

  Picking, Anne

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Pickthall, Colin

  Ward, Claire

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Pound, Stephen

  Watts, David

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  White, Brian

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Prescott, rh John

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Wills, Michael

  126

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Woodward, Shaun

  Woolas, Phil

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Mr. John Heppell and

  Mr. Nick Ainger

  NOES

  Amess, David

  Maples, John

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Barker, Gregory

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Boswell, Tim

  Paice, James

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Paterson, Owen

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Pickles, Eric

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Burns, Simon

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Redwood, rh John

  Cash, William

  Rendel, David

  Chidgey, David

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Collins, Tim

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Cotter, Brian

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Selous, Andrew

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Simmonds, Mark

  Forth, rh Eric

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

  Francois, Mark

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Steen, Anthony

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Harvey, Nick

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Syms, Robert

  Heath, David

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Hermon, Lady

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Thurso, John

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Holmes, Paul

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Watkinson, Angel

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Whittingdale, John

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Lamb, Norman

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Lidington, David

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Maclean, rh David

  Mr. Desmond Swayne and

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Hugh Robertson

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  LICENSING BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52 (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with Bills),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Licensing 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 any provision of the Act; and

  (b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

  Question agreed to.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Mr. Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118 (6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
    That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 115) (HC 449) on Special Grants for Local Authorities, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th February, be approved.

    GOVERNMENT TRADING FUNDS
    That the draft Vehicle and Operator Services Agency Trading Fund Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 3rd March, be approved.
    That the draft Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency Trading Fund Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 6th March, be approved.

    IMMIGRATION
    That the draft Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Consequential and Incidental Provisions) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 28th February, be approved.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
    That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 111) (HC 421) on the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund, which was laid before this House on 27th February, be approved.
    TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
    That the draft Town and Country Planning (Electronic Communications) (England) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 6th March, be approved.
    SOCIAL SECURITY
    That the draft Child Benefit and Guardian's Allowance (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2003, which were laid before this House on 5th March, be approved.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
    That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 114) (HC 477) on the Social Services (High Performers) Grant for 2003–04, which was laid before this House on 6th March, be approved.
    CLIMATE CHANGE LEVY
    That the draft Climate Change Levy (Combined Heat and Power Stations) Prescribed Conditions and Efficiency Percentages (Amendment) Regulations 2003, which were laid before this House on 11th March, be approved.

    CRIMINAL LAW
    That the draft Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (Powers of Seizure) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 24th February, be approved.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
    Question agreed to.

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

    TAKEOVER BIDS
    That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 12846/02, draft Directive on Takeover Bids, and the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum from the Department of Trade and Industry dated 4th March 2003 on the Council Presidency Compromise Proposal of 14th February 2003; welcomes the draft Directive as an important step forward in seeking to complete the European Union Financial Services Action Plan; and supports the Government's initial approach to negotiations in seeking to achieve a common framework for the treatment of shareholders and encouraging a single market for corporate control.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
    Question agreed to.

PETITION

  Malmesbury Community Hospital
  10.14 pm
  Mr. James Gray: I have the honour to present a petition signed by 2,366 residents of the ancient town of Malmesbury, the oldest borough in England. They are not unnaturally concerned about the indifference of the Department of Health to their inherited debt from the local primary care trust, which may well result in the closure of, or suspension of, some of the services of Malmesbury community hospital.
  The petition states:
  To the House of Commons
  The Petition of the people of the Malmesbury and North Wiltshire communities declares
  That the intention of the Kennet and North Wiltshire NHS Primary Care Trust is to close Malmesbury community hospital; to divert elsewhere those essential local resources in contradiction of the Government policy of encouraging the provision of community hospital facilities; thereby to remove the availability from the local community of health care provided for the elderly and the infirm, who are the main patient case of the 19-bed paediatric care hospital.
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons prevents the Kennet and North Wiltshire NHS Care Trust from closing Malmesbury Community Hospital thereby forcing local elderly and infirm patients to be hospitalised outside their local community and that the House of Commons direct that the PCT should continue to provide these essential services locally, under their statutory Duty of Care responsibilities.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

British Sign Language
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
10.15 pm
Tom Brake: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this important matter, and I was delighted by the announcement last week that the Government have recognised British sign language as a language in its own right and committed funding to it. As the Minister is aware, 8.7 million people in the UK are deaf or hard of hearing. BSL is the language of the deaf community in the UK. There are no accurate figures for the number of deaf people who use BSL, but it is estimated that 70,000 deaf people use BSL as their first or preferred language. In Northern Ireland, an estimated 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. of the deaf population use Irish sign language.
BSL is not a new language and it was not created by hearing people. BSL is a naturally occurring form of communication. 1t varies from area to area, just as dialect affects spoken languages, but it is clear that there is one single British sign language in the UK. I find it remarkable that BSL has survived through the prohibition of the use of sign language in educational institutions, the oralist movement, much prejudice and a period of being ignored and shunned. What does that suggest? It is that BSL is natural and inherent to the deaf. It is appropriate that BSL should receive the recognition it deserves. When the Minister responds to the debate, I hope that she will confirm that that rightful recognition will also be extended to Irish sign language.
Although BSL is different from English, it has much in common with spoken languages, sharing grammatical processes and features that have led linguists to begin to analyse it as a natural language. I shall touch later on some of the results of that research, along with the results of neurological research. BSL is a language of movements and space. It uses the hands and facial movements, storytelling and abstract communication. It exists in a visual-spatial mode, allowing much versatility, such as juxtaposition, the manipulation of symbols, the isolation of features and the discussion of events and objects that are separated in time and space. There are iconic symbols, such as those for "give" and "food, but there are also signs that are arbitrary, such as those for "easy" and "allow".
Stories in BSL incorporate mime, but contrary to popular belief mime is not the essence of BSL. If it were, a hearing person would have no difficulty understanding BSL, but I know from experience that it is not possible to understand a signed story. Mime is used as a vehicle for enhancing the story, rather than to convey the full meaning.
Linguists say that all natural languages have design features, including a semantic system, a grammatical system, a sound system and a lexicon. BSL has its own semantic system, in the form of signs instead of words, and its own grammatical system. It would not be possible to translate word for word from BSL to spoken English. Obviously, we cannot expect it to have a sound system, but building blocks are present in signing. Spoken language consists of sounds that have little meaning in themselves, but which are used as building blocks to make words. Similarly, in sign language we can see components that are smaller than signs, such as
130
the location of the sign in space or its direction, the type of movement made by the hand or the hand shape. Each sign is complex, with an inner structure comprising all those features.
It is clear that BSL is a rich, complex and unique means of communication, with spatial syntax and grammar that conform to the definition of a language. Linguistically, BSL has all the components of any spoken language. Neurological research carried out on stroke victims has shown that BSL uses the same neural pathways as grammatical speech. Stroke lesions to the left hemisphere can cause aphasia for sign that is analogous to the aphasias of speech. The Minister may be interested to know, or may know already, that aphasic signers are not impaired in other non-linguistic visual-spatial abilities, such as waving goodbye and shrugging. That illustrates the distinction between sign and gestures.
Visual-spatial activity is controlled by the right hemisphere of the brain. Lesions to the right hemisphere therefore result in spatial disorganisation, but the ability to sign is not affected. Even though sign is a visual-spatial language, does not use the visual-spatial processing area of the brain. Instead, it uses the same area as spoken language. That demonstrates clearly that BSL is a language in its own right.
When the UK signed up to the European charter for regional and minority languages, we agreed to sign up to the provisions of part II of the charter, which ensures that languages are properly taught and that they are protected, and to promote academic research into all the regional and minority languages used in the UK. As hon. Members know, the Council of Europe does not recognise any indigenous sign language under the charter. I hope that my argument demonstrates that sign language is a language linguistically and neurologically, and that that will strengthen the case in the discussions with the Council of Europe and will help to convince the council that sign languages should be adopted under the charter.
In last week's statement it was announced that the Government would consider the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) in the report to the Council of Europe on European sign languages. I hope that the Minister will give some assurance that she will do what she can to ensure that the members of the Council of Europe give the report full consideration on 31 March.
The official recognition of BSL will provide many practical benefits. Although the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 provides some protection of the rights of deaf people, there are aspects to which the Act does not apply. Those are linked not with deafness as a disability, but with sign language as a minority language. I seek assurances from the Minister that last week's announcement will rectify the problem, bearing in mind that legislation that would provide better protection for BSL users could be included in the European charter for regional and minority languages.
I am sure the Minister shares my concern that much of a deaf child's time is spent outside their natural language. I should like her to consider the amount of learning time that is consumed by the lack of a shared language between student and teacher.
Rob Marris: On the subject of shared language, the hon. Gentleman and

131
others may not be aware of the wonderful work done by the university of Wolverhampton in my constituency with British sign language, with teachers who are hearing-impaired or deaf using that as a medium of instruction. On the back of that, the British deaf film and television festival, which I had the pleasure of opening recently in Wolverhampton, takes place annually. It is such centres of excellence for minority languages that we need.
Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and welcome the good work done by his university.
It is vital to introduce language as early as possible. Young children can be fluent in signing at the age of three. That clearly facilitates a free flow of information, an intercourse of minds and possibly the development of speech. There is no evidence that signing inhibits the acquisition of speech. As the chosen language of the deaf, BSL has been undervalued by the rest of society. Most minority groups accept the language of the wider society and become bilingual, but that is not always possible for deaf people. Will the Minister consider that in this case, the responsibility lies with wider society to meet the communication requirements of deaf people?
The Minister will be aware that in 1999 there were just under 300 qualified and trainee BSL/English interpreters in the UK. There is not sufficient provision of certified interpreters. Indeed, it is thanks to the British Deaf Association that we have an interpreter for tonight's debate. I hope that, with the official recognition of BSL and the money that the Government are committing, it will be possible to provide an official interpreter if not for all debates, at least for relevant debates or for those for which members of the public have requested such a service.
The Minister will not be surprised to hear that the standard of interpreting varies. Interpreting fatigue after one hour can cause significant errors. That is happening because there are not sufficient interpreters and they are overworked. Although the DDA requires a BSL/English interpreter to ensure that a deaf person has equal access to a public service, there are not sufficient interpreters and the requirement is not always met, especially given that one needs to book an interpreter up to six weeks in advance for an important appointment or job interview. Indeed, I was due to meet someone who wanted to do work experience in my office, but the interview had to be cancelled at short notice owing to the non-availability of an interpreter.
Official recognition would actively promote the teaching of BSL. Article 8 of the European charter makes provision to encourage or provide teaching in or of the regional or minority language at all the appropriate stages of education. I am also concerned that the importance of training tutors is often lost in the push for more interpreters. There is a need to invest at the grassroots in order to benefit the wider community. I see the Minister nodding; she may have some points to make about that shortly.
I am sure that the Minister realises the positive impact on social exclusion of more people in society being able to sign, even at a basic level—as well as easing the
132
pressure on interpreters. I understand that, at present, about 4,000 people are attending BSL classes in the United Kingdom. They are showing initiative and willingness to help by signing. I should be interested in whether the Minister can provide details on the level of funding allocated to that from the £1 million-worth of initiatives that have been announced. I tried to find out from the Department exactly what that £1 million-worth of funding would be spent on. Perhaps people will have to bid for that pot of money, or it has not yet been allocated. There does not seem to be much information available about what it is to be spent on.
Sign language is complete as a language. It is capable of expressing every emotion and discussing any topic. It can be abstract or concrete. It is as much of a language as English, Welsh or Cornish. I hope I have illustrated that greater recognition under the European charter and acceptance of Irish sign language could offer opportunities for the increasing involvement of deaf people and easier access to information, knowledge and legal security. The provision of proficient BSL interpreters in employment, further education establishments and in law would offer a greater range of choice to BSL users.
I hope that the Minister will be able to respond now or in writing to the following questions. Will she support my hon. Friend in presenting his report at the European Council? Will she confirm whether what the Government have said about BSL applies to Irish sign language? Will she clarify whether the £1 million-worth of initiatives is a one-off or recurring funding? Will she give an assurance that the money will not simply be taken from other Departments' spending on deaf issues, and that it is additional funding? Will she say something about the regulation of BSL courses, qualifications and tutors? Will she clarify whether funding from the £1 million will be made available to Scotland or any Scottish initiatives? Finally, will she uphold the rights of all deaf British and Irish children, and guarantee them a bilingual and bicultural education?
10.29 pm
Malcolm Bruce: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate and I shall be brief. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) on initiating the debate. It is extremely well timed, as the issue is to be debated in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe next week. I note that the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), the leader of the UK delegation to the Council of Europe, is in the Chamber, as is the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) who is, I think, the only qualified BSL interpreter in the House. I am glad that he is in the Chamber on this occasion—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman tells me that he is a sign language user. He certainly has the subject very much at heart.
I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), not only for the statement made last week but for the reference in it that the Government acknowledge that BSL users want the language to be given the same protection as minority languages under the European charter. When the Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee of the Council, of which I am a member, debated the charter, I asked our rapporteur

133
why sign language had not been incorporated and was told that nobody had thought about doing so. Although the Parliamentary Assembly wanted to amend the charter, at that point it was too late to do so. However, there is growing recognition that an equivalent instrument would be extraordinarily helpful. I appreciate that the Government have not given unqualified support for that but they realise that there is a demand and have promised to consider the matter. That is extremely welcome.
In the course of preparing my report, I visited Scandinavia because the deaf community told me that it had the greatest provision for deaf sign language users. One simple statistical example will show how far we have to go. In Finland, where the population is 5.5 million and the proportion of deaf people is the same as in most other countries, there are 600 qualified sign language users. In my country. Scotland, which has a similar population, there are fewer than 30. As a consequence, deaf people are excluded from a variety of activities that are accepted as normal in Scandinavia.
The Government have acknowledged the force of the argument and they have taken an important first step down the road. I thank the Minister and congratulate her on that. I hope that we can work together to make that step the first on a road to ensure that sign language users are fully included in our society.
10.32 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) on his good fortune in holding the debate at this particular time. The timing could hardly have been better. I welcome the remarks made by the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce). He and I will be meeting tomorrow and I do not think that it will break any confidences to say that I shall want to talk to him about how we can support the work that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) are doing at the Council of Europe to take BSL recognition further.
The steps taken last Monday to recognise BSL and the Government's declaration are important, but they are only a step on the road and not the end of the road. Indeed, my hon. Friend and I have already had some discussions about how the Government can assist the process currently under way in the Council of Europe. Obviously, we cannot tell the Council what to do, but we want to make clear our objective to take BSL recognition further. We want to do all that we can to help our delegation, which includes my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Gordon, to ensure wider European recognition for sign languages.
While I am handing out congratulations, I congratulate the deaf community who, for at least 20 years, in great heart and without giving up, have campaigned for the recognition of their language, as other minority groups have done in the past for their language. I am very pleased, having considered the issue in my current role for some 18 months, to have been able to assist with that. There is no doubt that but for the campaigning efforts of the deaf community, not only in bringing this to the attention of parliamentarians and Governments, but in continuing to insist that it is an
134
important issue of self-esteem that needs to be taken seriously, it is unlikely that this step would have been taken.
I have taken a particular interest in the matter since I have been in the job, but so did my predecessor, the Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), who originally, in 2000, asked the Disability Rights Commission for advice about how recognition could be taken forward. The DRC suggested in its report that British sign language should be recognised and that using the Council of Europe's charter for regional and minority languages was the most appropriate way of doing so. Were it not for the unfortunate fact, as the hon. Member for Gordon said, that the framers of that instrument simply forgot about sign languages and that, as independent experts have confirmed, it is not designed for the recognition of sign languages, we may have made more progress across Europe in respect of indigenous sign languages. We now have to ensure that progress takes place. The report by the hon. Member for Gordon says that there are about 44 such sign languages, so it is not only a matter of BSL.
As those familiar with the charter may know, it is specific in its definitions. Our advice has consistently been—this has been confirmed by the committee of experts—that the charter as it stands cannot be used, but the Council's Parliamentary Assembly, to its credit, has called on the Council to find a further means of protecting and promoting sign languages, and we want to do what we can to support that. I am sure that we will be able to co-operate with the parliamentarians who are involved to encourage progress on wider European recognition. I am anxious that that should happen.
Although the Council will bring forward proposals in due course, the Government wanted to act in advance of that: hence the writ ten statement. As many deaf people I have talked to made clear, this is a matter of identity and self-esteem, and I have tried to make progress on it since I first came into the job as Minister with responsibility for disabled people. I met representatives from organisations of and for deaf people more than a year ago to hear first-hand their perspectives, and we are still committed to moving forward still further. The statement, which was published last Wednesday as a written statement to the House, reflects the fact that the Government have already taken steps to improve access to BSL. For example, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 requires service providers to consider reasonable adjustments to the way in which they provide their services so that they are accessible to disabled and deaf people. The provision of a BSL interpreter could be considered as a reasonable adjustment in the right circumstances, and certainly the Disability Rights Commission's code of practice on rights, goods, facilities, services and premises includes examples of situations where providing a BSL interpreter might be a reasonable adjustment.
There are several other examples of where access to BSL has been improved. For instance, the Government meet the reasonable costs of BSL interpreters for deaf and hearing-impaired litigants, and witnesses for hearings in civil and family proceedings, and have put in place arrangements for providing interpreters in investigations and proceedings in the criminal justice system. The NHS Executive has produced a video called

135
"When is it my turn? Making the NHS better for deaf people", which was produced by an all-deaf film crew and looked at improving access to the full range of services for deaf users, including access to interpretation. A good practice guide, "Doubly Disabled: Equality for disabled people in the new NHS: Access to services"—a rather strange title—was issued at the same time as the video and includes a section on providing good-quality services for deaf and hard of hearing people. It is vital that we raise awareness in our public services and in other areas, as well as making available access to interpretation.
The Government have also taken steps to ensure that deaf children, young people and adults normally have access to BSL provision when that is appropriate to their needs. Many teachers and other staff have taken the opportunity to make use of the resources that the Government have made available for supporting training in special educational needs and disability to improve their understanding of BSL. I am sure that that will increase as the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 is implemented over the next few years.
For students in higher education, access to BSL is assisted through the disabled student allowance. Those allowances became non-means-tested in 1998 and have subsequently been extended to part-time undergraduate students, to full-time and part-time postgraduate students and to Open University students and other distance learners. Expenditure on the disabled student allowance has increased from just over £13 million in 1997 to £45.5 million last year. As the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington will know, that can pay for communication support such as BSL interpretation.
In the employment field, the access to work programme does a similar job for BSL users who may be attending an interview or who may need communication support and interpretation to do their job. The number of people who are helped by the access to work programme has tripled since 1997, as has the budget for the programme. Beyond the extra £l million that was announced with last week's statement, more money and more resources are going into interpretation where it is needed. That £1 million is additional money; it is not drawn from existing budgets or from any expenditure that had already been planned.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington asked how the money would be spent. We expect that about half of it will be spent on assisting in the training of more interpreters. As he made clear—and I agree with him—one of the main problems is a lack of interpreters. There are not enough of them around. Even with the best will in the world, it is often difficult for service providers to provide interpretation when it is necessary.
Malcolm Bruce: Will the Minister give way?
Maria Eagle: I am afraid that I do not have much time left, although I appreciate that we all have a lot to say on the subject.
136
Beside the Government, others have been active in promoting access to BSL. For example, the DRC has jointly, with the British Deaf Association and the Royal National Insititute for Deaf People, produced guidance on BSL English interpreting. The DRC is currently consulting on the guidance. The consultation closes on 7 April. The joint project is one example of the work being done by non-governmental organisations with an interest in this issue.
There is still much to be clone. The Government recognise that further work is needed to raise awareness so that the status of BSL is understood and so that it is fully accepted as a language—one that is used by a significant number of deaf people. The written statement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions made to the House is an important sign of the Government's commitment.
BSL is important for deaf people's sense of identity and self-esteem. It has a symbolic significance that should not be underestimated. However, its significance is greater than that. Practical benefits will follow from the initiatives that were announced in support of the statement. We will be working with deaf organisations to progress those initiatives. However. I cannot give full details of that today.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington is quite rightly concerned to ensure that there is a continuous funding stream for the training of BSL tutors and so on. The £1 million that the Secretary of State has announced is in addition to existing resources. For example, the "success for all" strategy of the Department for Education and Skills is investing £200 million over the next three years in improving and raising standards for teaching and learning in further education. There is no reason why BSL tutors and trainers should not benefit from that funding in the same way as tutors and trainers in any other specialist subject.
I want to emphasise that the statement is not the end of the story, significant though it is. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington referred to Irish sign language. That will be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who will no doubt be in touch with the hon. Gentleman on the intentions for Irish sign language.
This is not the end of the process. It is a beginning and a step on the way towards increasing the profile of BSL and of recognising it for what it is—a language. I am committed to continuing to encourage wider recognition through the Council of Europe—to the extent that I can press for that—and to improving the opportunities for access to all aspects of life for deaf people whose first language is BSL.
I was never that good at learning languages. The extent of my vocabulary in BSL is to say, "BSL recognition". With that, I should probably resume my seat.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Coastal Erosion
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when officials from her Department last visited Happisburgh, Norfolk to assess the risks of coastal erosion. [103776]

  Margaret Beckett
  Responsibility for assessing the risks of coastal erosion at Happisburgh rests with North Norfolk district council. While DEFRA has provided funding for related studies, it has not been necessary or appropriate for officials to visit for this purpose.

  Departmental Annual Report
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will update Tables 5.1 to 5.5 from the Departmental Annual Report. [99262]

  Alun Michael
  We are working on revising the base data for Tables 5.1 to 5.5 for inclusion in the 2003 Departmental Report.

  Eco-labelling
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of existing eco-labelling; and what her policy on it is. [103827]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 19 March 2003]The Government asked the Advisory Committee on Consumer Products and the Environment (ACCPE) to look at environmental labelling as one of its first tasks when it was set up in 1999. Two studies were commissioned to look at the effectiveness of different labelling approaches—these were "Environmental Labelling of Consumer Products: Lessons for the UK market from existing schemes" (carried out by Ernst & Young and Atlantic Consulting) and an in-depth study of the innovative "TerraChoice" scheme in Canada (carried out by the IEMA and BSI).

  ACCPE's recommendations on this subject were included in its first report, "Choosing Green" (available on the Department's website). The Committee concluded that it would not be worthwhile setting up a national ecolabelling award scheme for the UK, alongside the existing EU ecolabelling scheme. They considered that the Government should focus its labelling "award" efforts on the EU scheme, but should also develop other approaches for improving the environmental information on products. The other approaches recommended included promoting awareness of the various good quality labelling schemes on the market; raising the standard of self-declared 'green claims' by business; and making full use of the internet. The
  2W
  Government accepted the advice of the Committee and have been following up the detail of these recommendations.

  Our policy recognises that environmental labelling has a significant part to play in raising consumers' awareness of the environmental impacts of products and in helping them to make informed choices. We have actively supported the EU ecolabelling scheme (having invested over £5 million to date in running and promoting it) and are committed to improving it as a market instrument. We have also actively supported the EU energy label and its extension to an increasing range of products in the single market, as well as looking at the scope for using it in other applications in the UK market, for example on cars and homes.

  We are also keen to promote awareness of other reliable labelling schemes which target a specific issue or sector, such as the FSC label for sustainable timber and comparative labels for the VOC content of paints. Our consumer information leaflet "Hi I'm Green" contains information about these and other common labels, and a new pocket-sized "shopper's guide" to green labels will be published soon.

  The Government are also working to improve the quality and quantity of self-declared environmental claims. These are a major source of information for consumers about the environmental impacts of products, so it is important that such claims are clear and helpful. We continue to promote the "Green Claims Code", which advises businesses on good practice in making green claims, and more detailed guidance is now being prepared in consultation with the relevant business sectors.

  We are also exploring some more novel approaches to information for purchasers. One of ACCPE's recommendations was for a new Internet information service, perhaps targeted initially on public procurement, and proposals for this are being developed.

  Eggs (Compulsory Marking)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her policy is on the penalties that should be applied to egg producers in breach of the EU's planned rules on compulsory marking. [103761]

  Margaret Beckett
  As far as possible, the relevant enforcement bodies seeks to encourage compliance with the egg marketing legislation through good communication and advice. In common with other aspects of the rules, where a minor discrepancy is discovered, producers will be given guidance on how to comply, and a reminder may be included on the inspection report. In more serious cases, Notices of Contravention will be served requiring compliance before the product can be marketed. Prosecution is normally only considered where serious breaches are found, or where there has been non co-operation in putting things right. In the event of a prosecution, the level of penalty is a matter for the court to decide but the maximum penalty for breaches of the egg marketing regulations is £5,000 per offence.
  3W
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 25 February 2003,Official Report, column 455W, on egg marking, what assessment she has made of the costs to small egg producers of complying with the new rules on marking. [103740]

  Margaret Beckett
  Compliance costs will vary considerably depending on producers' individual circumstances. For producers selling their own ungraded eggs direct to consumers, there will be no additional costs as they fall outside the scope of these rules. Similarly, producers selling eggs through larger registered packing stations will be unaffected as the marking will take place at the packing station. For those producers who package eggs on farm for subsequent marketing, the cost will depend on the size of throughput and the degree of sophistication of the stamping equipment. For very small producers, a hand stamp can be purchased for a few pounds, and the time costs should be minimal. For larger producers, the cost of automated stamping machinery starts at between £2,000 and £3,000.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether it is her policy to introduce the compulsory marking of eggs from birds other than hens. [103759]

  Margaret Beckett
  At present there are no plans at either EU or UK level to seek to introduce the compulsory marking of eggs from birds other than hens.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will place the issue of cetacean bycatch on the agenda of the next meeting of the Council of Fisheries Ministers; and if she will make a statement; [102823]

  (2) if she will make it her policy to secure international agreement to reduce incidental cetacean bycatch in European waters by the winter of 2004–05; and if she will make a statement. [102824]

  Mr. Morley
  I am determined to make progress to reduce cetacean bycatch. However, effective action to address the problem needs to be taken on the part of all member states involved in the fisheries concerned and the Commission. This is why we raised the need for urgent action to address the issue of cetacean bycatch at the January Council of Ministers' meeting. I have also raised this issue with Commissioner Fischler on a number of occasions both in writing and in personal contacts. I have also recently written to the Commission to press for urgent action to widen observer coverage off the south west coast where a number of other member states' vessels fish. I was pleased that the Commission included a commitment to take action in this area in papers produced as part of the recent reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. I am now looking for positive action in advance of 2004–05 in response to our recent approaches.

  In the meantime, DERA has also committed some £140,000 for trials into the use of exclusion devices developed by the Sea Mammal Research Unit (SMRU) to reduce the bycatch of cetaceans in the offshore bass fishery. I will also, along with the devolved
  4W
  administrations, shortly be issuing a consultation document outlining a UK bycatch response strategy. This will set out the extent of our knowledge of bycatch in UK waters and make proposals for action to address the bycatch problem. The document will be placed in the Library of the House and I will ensure that my hon. Friend receives a personal copy.

  GM Crops
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what control the GM Debate Steering Board will have over the Food Standards Agency's GM public debate; [100866]

  (2) how the Food Standards Agency's GM public debate will contribute to the Government's GM public debate. [100862]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Food Standards Agency is organising a number of activities as a contribution to the wider GM Public Dialogue announced by the Secretary of State last July. The Agency is an independent body and has taken this action on its own initiative in coordination with the GM dialogue. The Agency will continue to update the Public Debate Steering Board on its activities and provide it with a copy of its findings, which will feed into the wider GM Public Debate.

  Horse Welfare
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with horse welfare groups in the United Kingdom. [104244]

  Alun Michael
  I have regular contact, directly and through officials, with representatives of horse industry organisations. I have discussed horse welfare issues most recently with the RSPCA and with the British Horse Society which represents horse industry interests on the Rural Affairs Forum for England. In addition our officials have recently met horse welfare groups to discuss the proposed Animal Welfare Bill and the Defra Horse Industry Team has frequent contact with the British Horse Society, the British Horse Industry Confederation and the British Equestrian Federation.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on horse welfare in the United Kingdom. [104245]

  Alun Michael
  The proposed Animal Welfare Bill provides an opportunity to improve welfare standards for horses. The possible improvements include allowing a prosecution to be brought where an animal is being maintained in a way that will lead to unnecessary suffering, the licensing of livery stables and controls to combat poor tethering.

  Illegal Imports
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of her Department's Don't Bring Back More Than You Bargained For campaign. [103754]
  5W
  Margaret Beckett
  Qualitative research undertaken on behalf of Defra has shown that the Don't Bring Back More Than You Bargained For campaign has raised travellers' awareness of the import rules for food and plants by 10 per cent.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what analysis has been made of products seized under Regulation 24 in(a) 2000–01, (b) 2001–02 and (c) 2002–03, broken down by country of origin of the products seized; and if she will place a copy in the Library. [103756]

  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the countries which, since 1997, have been identified as the original source of illegal imports of(a) meat, (b) fish and (c) other food products, by type. [103643]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 19 March 2003]Data on products seized have been held by the Illegal Animal Product Seizures (ILAPS) database since April 2001. It is analysed on a monthly basis and the results are circulated to the relevant enforcement authorities. These reports are not published documents since they contain sensitive information which is relevant to the targeting of enforcement activity. We shall shortly publish the report on the risk assessment of the import of meat and meat products contaminated with foot and mouth disease virus. That report includes analysis of the overall risk by world region of origin. A copy will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to transfer provision from her Department's budget to that of HM Customs and Excise when Customs takes over responsibility for controls on illegal imports of animal and plant products. [103782]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 18 March 2003]The Government have allocated £25 million over the three years commencing 2003–04 for work on illegal meat and plant imports. We expect to announce very shortly how much of the available budget will transfer to HM Customs and Excise in 2003–04 to fund their new responsibilities for anti-smuggling controls on animal and plant products.

  National Parks
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to introduce congestion charging in national parks. [103910]

  Alun Michael
  Under the Transport Act 2000 it is for each local traffic authority to consider whether there is a case for introducing charging schemes in its area. Any such proposals require the approval of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received about the designation order for the South Downs National Park. [103918]

  Alun Michael
  About 5,000 representations have been received in regard to the South Downs National Park Designation Order. These relate to the principle of a National Park, the boundary, and administrative 6W
  arrangements. We are currently considering the responses and I expect to make an announcement on the next steps soon.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many visitors there were to each of the National Parks in each of the last 10 years. [103919]

  Alun Michael
  Statistics are not collected annually. The last comprehensive visitor survey of the National Parks was undertaken in 1994. The figures are given in the following table. A new survey is to be undertaken in 2004.

  National park

  Visitor days

  Lake District

  13,925,000

  Peak District

  12,400,000

  Yorkshire Dales

  8,303,000

  North York Moors

  7,790,000

  Dartmoor

  3,825,000

  Northumberland

  1,408,000

  Exmoor

  1,397,000

  Procurement Contracts
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many procurement contracts in her Department have been awarded in the last year; how many such contracts used pre-tender short listing criteria that did not include(a) environmental criteria for the contract and (I)) the environmental record of companies; what the total cost in the last year was of such contracts; and if she will make a statement. [104082]

  Alun Michael
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Rural Poverty (Wiltshire)
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment she has made of rural poverty in Wiltshire; and if she will make a statement. [104155]

  Alun Michael
  We do not have data on rural poverty at the county level although local authorities may have undertaken work on poverty in their area. In England as a whole fewer rural households than urban households are below 60 per cent. of average household income which is accepted as a normal poverty indicator.

  The average (median) income is approximately £18,000 per annum, so the 60 per cent. level is approximately £10,M0. Figure 1 compares urban and rural levels of income-poverty.

  Figure 1. Households in income poverty

  Rural

  Urban

  Number of households

  5,918,756

  15,202,778

  Household income less than 60 per cent. of the median

  1,347,399

  4,031,904

  Total (percentage)

  23.2

  26.5

  Source:

  Countryside Agency, (2002) "The state of the countryside 2002", Countryside Agency, Cheltenham.
  7W
  In 2001, 1 per cent. of rural wards in the South West had an average household income of below £15,000 per year, compared with 7 per cent. of urban wards.

  Figure 2. Average (mean) household income, 2001

  Percentage of wards with household income:

  Less than £15,000

  £15,000–£20,000

  £20,000–£25,000

  £25,000–£30,000

  Above £30,000

  South West

  Rural

  1

  27

  39

  24

  8

  Urban

  7

  42

  33

  12

  5

  All England

  Rural

  2

  20

  29

  27

  22

  Urban

  9

  28

  26

  19

  18

  Source:

  Countryside Agency, (2002), "The state of the countryside 2002: South West", Countryside Agency, Cheltenham

DEFENCE

  Media Interviews
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what rules he has made about serving members of the armed forces talking to the media; and what plans he has for revising them. [104563]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 15 May 2002,Official Report, column 642W. There are no plans to revise the Queen's Regulations covering this issue.

  Balance Sheets
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library copies of the balance sheets maintained by his Department's management groupings since 1999–2000. [103989]

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

  Biological/Chemical Warfare
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether(a) the man-portable chemical agent detector, (b) the light-weight chemical agent detector and (c) the integrated biological protection system will be available for service for war in Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [104228]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence gave on 24 February 2003,Official Report, column 138W.

  Canister Incident (Hurst)
  Mr. Desmond Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the canisters washed up at Hurst in the western Solent last week and removed by the Royal Navy. [104646]

  Dr. Moonie
  During the week of 10 March, a number of silver metallic canisters washed up along the Solent and on the Isle of Wight. On two occasions, a Royal Navy Explosive Ordnance Unit were asked by civil authorities to examine the canisters and did so. On the 8W
  first occasion the Royal Navy removed 15 canisters for safe keeping. On the second occasion they x-rayed canisters in situ. All canisters examined were found to be empty. The canisters were not of a type suitable for use as ordnance or to contain gas and they did not contain any mechanism that would allow them to disperse their contents into the environment. Any further investigation into how the canisters came to be washed up is a matter for the civil authorities.

  Defence Finance
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his Answer to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) of 24 March 2002,Official Report, column 299W, on defence finance, what the (a) gross and (b) net costs of DESO are; what the sources of offsetting income are; and if he will make a statement on the financial benefits to the defence budget. [103469]

  Mr. Ingram
  A table of operating costs for the Defence Export Services Organisation (DESO) for the last two years is as follows:

  £ million

  Financial years

  Expenditure

  Receipts

  Net operating costs

  2000–01

  55.810

  41.430

  14.380

  2001–02

  48.930

  37.853

  11.077

  Main sources of offsetting income for DESO are three Government to Government project offices, where the customer country pays Ministry of Defence costs, and the Disposal Services Agency where costs are met from revenue.

  DESO raises other sources of income from charging industry for activities undertaken on their behalf where Government independence from industry is not essential and when costs can be directly identified, calculated and recovered from individual companies. On this basis charges are raised for a proportion of the costs of the following activities: demonstrations of defence equipment overseas, demonstrations of defence equipment in the United Kingdom, Market Research and Publications, DESO Symposium and Seminars, and charging for Inward Visits. Savings to the defence budget come from spreading the fixed overhead cost of equipment over the longer production runs generated by exports, from the sale of surplus military equipment to overseas governments and from Commercial Exploitation Levy receipts on exports of equipment developed using public money.

  European Defence Co-operation
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent he is cooperating with other European defence ministries to avoid overlapping of military resources; and if he will make a statement. [104232]

  Mr. Ingram
  Co-operation on military capabilities is taking place within the EU and NATO and through bilateral agreements, and is a subject of regular ministerial discussion.

  Within the EU, the European Capabilities Action Plan is fostering co-operation between member states to fill specific shortfalls against the Helsinki Headline

  9W
  Goal. NATO's capabilities initiative—the Prague Capabilities Commitment—also aims to strengthen European capabilities and complements the ECAP/ Headline Goal process. We are working to ensure that EU and NATO capability development is closely co-ordinated and mutually reinforcing, most recently through agreement on a mechanism as part of the Berlin Plus arrangements, and the United Kingdom plays an active part in both. By encouraging co-operation in pursuit of agreed force goals, these two initiatives help to ensure the coherency of capabilities between member states and Allies. We also seek to maximize efficiencies through bilateral defence co-operation—for example, in our plan with France to harmonise activity cycles and training for our aircraft carriers.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what discussions he has held with(a) NATO counterparts and (b) other EU member states on the EU's future role, with particular regard to (i) humanitarian and peacekeeping missions and (ii) immediate response capability; and if he will make a statement; [103867]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the relationship between the NATO Response Force and EU member states' responsibilities under the EU Headline Goals for defence-related issues. [103871]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have regular discussions with my NATO and European Union counterparts, both bilaterally and in the framework of each organisation.

  The current scope of EU Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) is defined in the EU Treaty as "humanitarian and rescue tasks, peacekeeping tasks and tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking", the so-called "Petersberg Tasks". In the Convention on the Future of Europe, the United Kingdom has proposed modernising and extending the list, to reflect the range of roles the EU should be aiming to play in crisis management and to broaden the ESDPs proactive role in wider conflict prevention, for example by adding stabilisation, conflict prevention, and defence outreach/diplomacy. Decisions on a new EU Treaty are for the Intergovernmental Conference, and these matters have not yet been discussed internationally at ministerial level.

  The Headline Goal agreed at the Helsinki European Council in 1999 stated that member states should, within the overall target, "provide smaller rapid response elements available and deployable at very high readiness". This subject was recently discussed at the General Affairs and External Relations Council in November 2002, at informal meetings of EU Defence Ministers in October 2002 and March 2003, and at bilateral meetings such as with the French Defence Minister in Le Touquet last month where we noted the need to improve further European capabilities in planning and deploying forces at short notice, including initial deployment of land, sea and air forces within 5–10 days.

  At the NATO Summit in Prague last year, Heads of State and Government agreed to create a NATO Response Force (NRF). Further work on the NRF concept is currently being undertaken by the Military Committee in NATO, aiming to achieve an initial
  10W
  operating capability by no later than October 2004. Each nation has a single set offerees which may be used nationally, or in NATO, EU or coalition operations, and ultimately it is up to nations to decide when and where to commit their forces. We are working to ensure that the work on NRF and on rapid response elements under the EU Headline Goal is mutually reinforcing

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many RAF planes have landed at Gibraltar in each of the last five years. [104087]

  Mr. Ingram
  The number of RAF aircraft landings at Gibraltar over the last five years is as follows:

  Year

  Number of RAF landings

  1998

  1,028

  1999

  1,532

  2000

  1,160

  2001

  520

  2002

  454

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Navy ships have docked in Gibraltar in each of the last five years. [104088]

  Mr. Ingram
  The number of Royal Navy ship visits to Gibraltar in each of the past five years is detailed in the table. For completeness the information has been presented to show visits by Royal Navy ships, Royal Fleet auxiliary vessels and Royal Navy submarines.

  Royal Navy ship

  Royal Fleet auxiliary ship

  RN submarine

  1998

  40

  18

  2

  1999

  26

  40

  6

  2000

  31

  40

  5

  2001

  31

  17

  1

  2002

  43

  14

  —

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will initiate discussions with Spain to allow(a) RAF planes to fly direct to Gibraltar over Spain and (b) Royal Navy ships to sail in Spanish waters on the way to Gibraltar. [104101]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are no immediate plans to do so. The future of the relationship between the United Kingdom and Spain over Gibraltar, and hence the restrictions on access, remain to be resolved. However, our defence relations with Spain are close and it remains our view that dialogue with Spain and Gibraltar is the best way to resolve these access issues.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role Gibraltar's military base played in preparing for conflict in Iraq. [104086]

  Mr. Ingram
  Gibraltar is a key staging post and forward mounting base. The Naval Task Group headed by HMS Ark Royal transited the Straits en route to the Gulf and some vessels called at Gibraltar. Elements of the Air Group also embarked via Gibraltar as the Task Group transited east. Six Royal Gibraltar Regiment officers and soldiers are currently in the Gulf attached to deployed units.

  Guided Bombs
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the UK's precision guided bomb requirements. [104338]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Precision Guided Bomb programme will provide the RAF with an all weather precision bombing capability on Tornado GR4, Harrier GR9 and Typhoon.

  The programme is currently in its assessment phase in which the exact In-service date will be defined, but it is currently planned to be late 2006 In the interim, the Tornado GR4 has been given an all-weather precision guided bomb capability with Enhanced Paveway Bombs, which entered service in October 2001.

  Gulf Forces
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Government have commissioned capacity from ships and aircraft to supply the needs of an additional humanitarian emergency in the area of the Gulf where UK forces are operating. [103948]

  Mr. Ingram
  Planning for the movement of pre-positioned humanitarian aid in the Gulf envisages the use of in-theatre military or Royal Fleet Auxiliary assets. Officials from the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development remain in close contact over the possible use of military or military-chartered assets for the movement of further humanitarian supplies to the region.

  Humanitarian Relief
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what funds his Department has been allocated in connection with humanitarian relief tasks(a) this year and (b) last year; and for what purposes. [104029]

  Mr. Ingram
  The ambit of Defence Votes does not ordinarily include funding for humanitarian aid, which is a responsibility of the Department for International Development. Therefore, no funding was provided for this task in 2001–02. Funding will be provided in 2002–03, for the conflict in Iraq, to cover the United Kingdom's legal requirements under the 1949 Geneva Convention for the Protection of Civilians in Time of War. The final amount required has yet to be determined.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assistance British forces are giving to the Department for International Development in respect of contingency plans for humanitarian relief missions in Iraq and the Gulf region. [104032]

  Dr. Moonie
  Ensuring the provision of humanitarian relief to the people of Iraq, both during and immediately following any conflict, will be one of the coalition's highest priorities. Experts from the Department for International Development are embedded in the United Kingdom National Component Command Head-Quarters in Kuwait to advise the armed forces on how to address urgent humanitarian need in advance of UN agencies and NGOs being able to operate safely in a post-conflict environment.

  Insurance Schemes
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are to alter insurance provision for serving members of the armed forces when the existing PAX and RPAX insurance schemes expire. [104675]

  Dr. Moonie
  Revised PAX and RPAX schemes will operate from 1 July 2003. The Ministry of Defence is currently negotiating benefits and premiums with commercial providers.

  While every effort is being made to achieve best value for money, replicating existing benefits is unlikely in the current insurance climate. Some combination of increased premiums and decreased benefits appears likely. Changes will apply to all scheme members, both new and existing. Details of the new schemes will be promulgated to all Service personnel (Regulars and Reservists) once they are available. Existing PAX and RPAX members will automatically migrate to the new schemes.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations have been made to him about the operation of the(a) PAX and (b) RPAX insurance schemes; and what plans he has to augment these schemes for reservists being called up during the current crisis. [104674]

  Dr. Moonie
  PAX provides Personal Accident and Life cover for Regulars and RPAX for Reservists. No representations have been made to the Secretary of State for Defence about the operation of these schemes. There are no plans to augment arrangements for Reservists provided under RPAX.

  Interdepartmental Fund Transfers
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what funds have been transferred from the Department for International Development to the Ministry of Defence in each of the last four years; and for what purposes. [104030]

  Mr. Ingram
  The cross-departmental Conflict Prevention Fund was established in the 2000 Spending Review. This joint approach by the Ministry of Defence, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Department for International Development maximises the impact of the conflict prevention work done by each Department by ensuring it is based on a shared strategy and common objectives. It also allows the United Kingdom to react flexibly and more rapidly to emerging crises and to opportunities for peace building.

  Conflict prevention expenditure from the three Departments was brought together in two pooled budgets—one for sub-Saharan Africa and one for the rest of the world. Programme funds for conflict prevention in sub-Saharan Africa are included as a ring-fenced element in the Department for International Development's Departmental Expenditure Limit. Programme funds for conflict prevention in the rest of the world are included in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's Departmental Expenditure Limit. Both pools are managed jointly by the three departments and funds are transferred between relevant Departments to cover expenditure incurred in pursuit of commonly-agreed objectives. Since the pools' inception

  13W
  there have therefore been a number of transfers between pool partners associated with their management. The amounts and purposes of these transfers are set out in the relevant Estimates, all of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Iraq
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the man-portable communications electronic support measures system will be operational for war in Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [104229]

  Mr. Ingram
  We have deployed a range of surveillance equipment in support of current operations. I am withholding details in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Javelin
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the Javelin anti tank weapon to enter service. [104333]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 24 February 2003,Official Report, column 308W, to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock).

  Military Contracts
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will award a contract for the Urban Operations Study for the armed forces; how long the contract will last; how much money the contract is worth; when equipment tested will enter service; and if he will make a statement. [104227]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Urban Operations Study contract is expected to be let towards the end of April 2003 subject to completion of the competitive bid assessment and contract negotiation process. The Study is expected to last for up three years. While contract values can not be confirmed until the tender assessment process is complete it is likely that the study will be valued at about £2.5 million. Supporting contracts will also be let with QinetiQ and DSTL to assist and manage the analysis of

  Serial (a)/Unit (b)

  Exercise (c)

  Remarks (d)

  1. 2nd Bn, Royal Anglian Regiment

  UK MILAN Concentration

  2 week dry/live anti-tank training

  2. 1st Bn, Royal Green Jackets

  GRAND PRIX

  6 week FTX1

  3. 1st Bn, Kings Own Scottish Borderers

  UK MILAN Concentration

  2 week dry/live anti-tank training

  4. 16 Regiment, the Royal Regiment of Artillery

  CENTAURS BOW

  1 week CPX2

  5. 40 Regiment, The Royal Regiment of Artillery

  IRON THUNDER

  1 week CAST3

  GRAND PRIX

  6 week FTX

  IRON SQUALL

  1 week CPX

  6. 4 Regiment, The Royal Regiment of Artillery

  Artillery Firing Camp

  3 week dry/live firing

  7. 22 Engineer Regiment

  LION SUN

  5 week FTX

  8. 38 Engineer Regiment

  GRAND PRIX

  6 week FTX

  9. Queen's Royal Hussars

  Armoured Firing Camp

  2 week dry/live firing

  10. 1st Bn, The Queen's Lancashire Regiment

  DRUIDS DANCE

  4 week FTX

  11. 1st Regiment, Royal Horse Artillery

  IRON SQUALL

  1 week CAST

  IRON THUNDER

  1 week CPX

  SEA TROUT

  3 week light gun firing camp

  12. 1st Bn, The Royal Anglian Regiment

  IRON RAM

  2 week exchange FTX

  1 Field Training Exercise

  2 Command Post Exercise

  3 Command and Staff Trainer

  14W
  the data collected and help convert this into prioritised user requirements in order to support equipment programming action. Equipment tested and prioritised for acquisition would enter service from 2005. Future acquisition could, however, be subject to normal affordability considerations.

  Military Training
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what Royal Air Force training exercises have been cancelled since 1 January as a result of personnel allocated to Operation FRESCO. [103995]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 20 March 2003]Operation Swift Hawk was cancelled in February 2003. This exercise was in support of rotary wing aircrew training. No other training exercises have been cancelled as a result of Operation Fresco.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which training exercises to be undertaken by(a)nd Bn, Royal Anglian Regiment, (b)st Bn, Royal Green Jackets, (c)st Bn, King's Own Scottish Borderers, (d) 16 Regiment, Royal Artillery, (e) 40 Regiment, Royal Artillery, (f) 4 Regiment, Royal Artillery, (g) Light Dragoons, (h) 22 Engineer Regiment, (i) 38 Engineer Regiment, (j)st Bn, Duke of Wellington's Regiment, (k) Royal Dragoon Guards, (l) 21 Engineer Regiment, (m)st Bn, King's Regiment (n) Queen's Royal Hussars, (o)st Bn, Queen's Lancashire Regiment, (p)st Regiment, Royal Horse Artillery, (q) 22 Regiment, Royal Artillery, (r)st Bn, Cheshire Regiment, (s)st Bn, Royal Anglian Regiment, (t) 32 Regiment, Royal Artillery, (u) 4 General Support Regiment, RLC, (v) 3 Close Support Regiment, RLC, (w)st Bn, Royal Regiment of Wales, (x)St Bn, Welsh Guards, (y) 27 Regiment, Royal Logistic Corps, (z)st Bn, Scots Guards, (aa)st Bn, Princess of Wales' Royal Regiment, (bb) Household Cavalry, (cc)st Bn, Grenadier Guards, (dd)st Bn, Royal Welsh Fusiliers, (ee)st Bn, Royal Gloucestershire, Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment and (ff)st Bn, Royal Highland Fusiliers have been cancelled as a result of the units being on stand by for Operation Fresco. [103996]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 20 March 2003]Of the units listed, the following have had major training exercises cancelled as a direct result of Operation Fresco:
  15W
  In addition, all units involved in Operation FRESCO have had their training plans affected to varying degrees. Detailed information on the impact on individual units could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Online Sales/Purchases
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what(a) products, (b) goods and (c) services were (i) bought and (ii) sold online by his Department in each of the last five years. [97449]

  Mr. Ingram
  During the last five years the Ministry of Defence has bought the following products, goods and services online:

  Year

  Product

  1998

  Naval stores

  Medical supplies

  1999

  Naval stores

  Medical supplies

  2000

  Naval stores and cables

  Medical supplies

  2001

  Tools

  Cables

  Medical supplies

  2002

  Tools

  Cables

  Adhesives, tapes and sealants

  Bearings, pipe, tubing and valves

  Stationery

  Metals

  Polymers

  Packaging

  Medical supplies

  In addition, over the past six months the Ministry of Defence has piloted on-line reverse auctions which are a means of buying items or services against a published specification where pre-selected industrial partners are invited to bid in an on-line auction. In the Defence Procurement Agency (DPA) the Battlefield Infrastructure Integrated Project Team has used this technique to purchase battlefield survey equipment and within in the Defence Logistics Organisation (DLO) the Non-Project Procurement Organisation has used the technique to purchase cleaning products, resilient mounts and anti-freeze. Both DPA and DLO are planning to run further reverse auctions over the coming months, and the Department's corporate requirement for utilising the technique is now being scoped with a view to introducing such a capability during the next financial year.

  The Disposal Services Agency will begin piloting an "e-Trade exchange" in April providing information to other Government departments on the availability of surplus MOD IT equipment which is available for purchase. The Disposal Services Agency website (www.disposalsservicesagency.mod.uk) aims to provide information to explain how to purchase Ministry of Defence surpluses either as a business or a member of the public as well as to explain the Agency's role in selling MOD surplus assets.
  16W
  The MOD has recently published "Defence e-Business: Understanding the Commercial Issues" in collaboration with the Defence Industries Council, and this publication provides guidance on the subject for both MOD staff and industry colleagues. The guide can be viewed online at www.contracts.uk. A hard copy version has also been produced and I am arranging for copies of this to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The MOD is keen to embrace the technological advantages provided by e-Business to support the full range of procurement activities. To this end we are investing substantial sums of money, as well as consulting with industry, to ensure that these new technologies realise mutual benefits to the MOD and Industry.

  Operation Desert Fox
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost to his Department was of Operation Desert Fox; what this operation achieved; what impact the operation had on UK relations with France; and if he will make a statement. [104230]

  Mr. Hoon
  Operation Desert Fox was the name given to the December 1998 joint US-UK air operation against targets in Iraq. Information on the total cost of Operation Desert Fox cannot be reliably differentiated from the overall costs of military operations in the Gulf. The Ministry of Defence identifies the costs of operations in terms of the net additional costs it has incurred. The costs which the Ministry of Defence would have incurred had the operation not been undertaken for example—expenditure on wages and salaries or on conducting training exercises—are deducted from the total costs of the operation. The following table sets out the overall additional expenditure incurred by the Ministry of Defence as a direct result of operations in the Gulf in 1998–99 and 1999–2000, primarily enforcement of the No Fly Zones. Costs include operating costs for aircraft enforcing the No Fly Zones—primarily fuel and maintenance, plus the cost of maintaining personnel in-theatre. In-theatre costs include accommodation and utilities, equipment, plant, machinery, vehicles and allowances.

  £ million

  1998–99

  35

  1999–2000

  28

  The aims of Operation Desert Fox were to degrade Saddam Hussein's military capability and reduce the threat that he posed to his neighbours. These aims were achieved and Saddam Hussein's war machine was seriously weakened. Contemporary estimates indicated that 87 per cent. of targets were either destroyed or damaged. A report on the results of Operation Desert Fox was sent to all Members of the House on 18 January 1999 and a copy was placed in the Library of the House.

  The United Kingdom continues to work closely with France as one of its key European partners.
  17W
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost to his Department was of maintaining a presence in the Persian Gulf in each year since 1997; what this money was spent on; how he estimates this figure will change in the aftermath of a war in the region; and if he will make a statement. [104315]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Department identifies the costs of Operations in terms of the net additional costs it has incurred. The costs which the Department would have incurred had the operation not been undertaken, expenditure on wages and salaries or on conducting training exercises for example, are not included in the total costs of the operation. The following table sets out the overall additional expenditure incurred by the Department as a direct result of operations in the Gulf, primarily enforcement of the No Fly Zones. Costs include operating costs for aircraft enforcing the No Fly Zones—primarily fuel and maintenance, plus the cost of maintaining personnel in-theatre. In-theatre costs include accommodation and utilities, equipment, plant, machinery, vehicles and allowances.

  £ million

  1997–98

  16

  1998–99

  35

  1999–2000

  28

  2000–01

  25

  2001–02

  161

  2002–03 (estimate)

  145

  1 Denotes figure calculated on a full resource cost basis; all previous figures are cash-based.

  This does not include the cost of Operation Telic, forecast at £1 billion for 2002–03. I am withholding a more detailed breakdown of the figures for this operation in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information as it could compromise operational planning and the security of our Servicemen and women.

  It is too early to say what costs might be incurred by forces required following operations in Iraq.

  Operational Deployments
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the(a) Army and (b) RAF is (i) deployed and (ii) warned to deploy to operations, including operation FRESCO. [103979]

  Mr. Ingram
  The following table shows the percentage of Service personnel from the Army and RAF currently deployed on operations including Operation FRESCO as at 14 March 2003. The table also shows the approximate percentage of Army and RAF personnel warned to deploy on operations.
  18W

  Percentage deployed on Operations

  Percentage warned to deploy

  Army

  57.5

  4–5

  Air Force

  24

  1

  Public Private Partnerships
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many depart mental minutes issued by his Department were outstanding on 30 November 2002, that referred to public private partnerships as included in Table B 14 of the Consolidated Fund and National Loans Fund Accounts; and what their value was. [89418]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 13 January 2003]Fourteen of the liabilities shown in the Consolidated and National Loans Fund Accounts B14 statement for financial year 2001–02 were assumed by the Ministry of Defence as part of a long-term public private partnership and remained extant at 30 November 2002. These relate to the, Ministry of Defence's nuclear operations, the contactorisation of the Atomic Weapons Establishment, the privatisation of the Dockyards at Rosyth and Devonport, the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency and the sale of Service married quarters. As the B14 statement shows, the nature of some of these liabilities makes it impossible to quantify their individual value. Accordingly, it is not possible to cost the overall value of these liabilities. The total value of those liabilities which can be quantified, is £16,855.5 million.

  RAF Fairford
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the protocol between the USA and UK Governments whereby US planes can use RAF Fairford to undertake acts of war. [103533]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 18 March 2003]The use of United Kingdom bases, including RAF Fairford, by the United States Visiting Force is set out in a number of confidential arrangements between the UK and US Governments. I am withholding the release of these documents in accordance with Exemption 1 (Defence, security and international relations) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. I can confirm, however, that the use of UK bases for combat operations by United States Air Force aircraft remains a matter for joint decision by the UK and US Governments at the appropriate time.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with(a) the US Air Force and (b) local police forces on security at RAF Fairford. [104611]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence is engaged in regular and frequent: discussions with all parties with a responsibility for security at RAF Fairford, including the United States Air Force and the local police.

  RAF Stanbridge
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role RAF Stanbridge, Leighton Buzzard is playing in the Iraq crisis. [104612]
  19W
  Mr. Ingram
  RAF Stanbridge hosts some of the logistic computer systems that are used to manage the defence inventory. The staff that work there support the United Kingdom Armed Forces in peacetime, and when deployed for training and operations.

  Satellite Centre
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has held with full members of NATO on the involvement of(a) associate members and (b) partners in the work of the Satellite Centre; and if he will make a statement. [103872]

  Mr. Hoon
  Under the terms of the Joint Action that established the EU Satellite Centre, non-EU European Allies and EU Accession Candidates are able, through mutual agreement, to task and participate in the work of the Centre. This is consistent with the United Kingdom's wish to see the EU Satellite Centre make an effective contribution to crisis management in the EU and other organisations, including NATO.

  Search and Rescue
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the range is of UK combat search and rescue capabilities when launched(a) from a land-based platform and (b) from a sea-based platform, when working in conjunction with the UK's allies; [104329]

  (2) what the range is of UK combat search and rescue capabilities when launched (a) from a land-based platform and (b) from a sea-based platform. [104330]

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

  Stimulants
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the use of amphetamines and other stimulants by British armed forces. [96751]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 10 February 2003]In common with civilian medical practice, amphetamines and other stimulant drugs may be prescribed by armed forces medical personnel for defined clinical conditions. However, such clinical conditions would preclude operational deployment. Misuse of these or other drugs would result in disciplinary action.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is on the use of go pills and similar drugs by(a) Royal Air Force, (b) Fleet Air Arm and (c) Army Air Corps personnel (i) seconded to, (ii) attached to, (iii) under the operational command of and (iv) on personnel exchanges with the United States armed forces. [98720]

  Dr. Moonie
  United Kingdom armed forces aircrew serving on exchange or attachment with the United States armed forces operate under the same terms and conditions as US personnel. Therefore, any drug or non-medicinal products offered to US armed forces aircrew to counter fatigue would also be offered to UK aircrew on exchange or attachment who are engaged in the same mission. In accordance with US armed forces policy, the 20W
  use of such products is voluntary and only permissible after individuals have been tested for adverse effects. The offer of these products is subject to strict criteria and close medical supervision. UK aircrew on exchange or attachment with the US armed forces are permitted to accept the same drugs to counter fatigue as US aircrew, subject to the same conditions.

  British forces under operational command of US forces would continue to adhere to standard UK operating procedures. It is not our practice to issue drugs or other products to UK armed forces aircrew to counter fatigue.

  Tri-service Soldier Programme
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on Future Integrated Soldier Technology requirements. [104339]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the Written Ministerial Statement I gave on 12 March 2003,Official Report, column 14WS.

  South Korea
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many United Kingdom military personnel are serving with the United Nations Command in Korea. [104682]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 6 March 2003,Official Report, column 1175W, to the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer).

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  British Transport Police
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many successful prosecutions there have been of offenders apprehended by the British Transport Police in each of the last four years. [103477]

  The Solicitor-General
  All Crown Prosecution Service casework units across England and Wales are likely to receive cases for review and prosecution from a number of police sources, the British Transport Police being one such source. Crown Prosecution Service casework data are not disaggregated in a way that differentiates between various police sources. It would not be practicable, and would involve a disproportionate cost, now to survey all case files for the past four years to determine how many British Transport Police case files resulted in a successful prosecution.

  House of Commons (Legal Advice)
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will make a statement on her role and responsibilities for providing legal advice to this House. [103642]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 18 March 2003]The Law Officers' role as legal advisors to Parliament covers three areas. First, the constitution and conduct of proceedings in the House, including questions of parliamentary privilege. Secondly, the conduct and discipline of Members. Thirdly, the meaning and effect of proposed legislation.
  21W
  However, by a longstanding convention, observed by successive Governments and reflected in the Ministerial Code, the Law Officers' legal advice to the Government remains confidential. This enables Government to obtain frank and full legal advice in confidence. To express a view independently to Parliament on matters which may be consulted by the Government would undermine the confidentiality of the lawyer/client relationship between the Law Officers and the Government.

  Iraq
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Solicitor-General pursuant to the answer of 17 March 2003,Official Report, column 515W, to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), what advice the Attorney-General has given the Government on war with Iraq without explicit United Nations authorisation. [103971]

  The Solicitor-General
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave on 17 March 2003,Official Report, column 515W, to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), in which I set out the terms of a written answer by the Attorney-General to a question from Baroness Ramsay on his view of the legal basis for the use of force against Iraq.

  By longstanding convention, observed by successive Governments, the fact and substance of Law Officers' advice is not disclosed outside Government. This convention is referred to in paragraph 24 of the ministerial code.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Solicitor-General pursuant to her answer of 17 March 2003,Official Report, column 515W, on Iraq, what discussions the Attorney-General has had with his United States counterpart on the legality of a military attack upon Iraq without a successor resolution to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441. [104004]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Attorney-General had a short meeting with his US counterpart in Washington on 10 February. Discussion covered a range of legal issues. It is not the practice to disclose the content of confidential discussions with foreign Governments.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Crime Reduction
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what role the(a) Prison Service and (b) probation services have in reducing crime; and if he will make a statement. [104119]

  Hilary Benn
  The Prison and Probation Services contribute jointly to the Home Office target to reduce re-offending by 5 per cent. for both offenders sentenced to imprisonment and those given community sentences. The latest published figures, for adults commencing community penalties or discharged from custody in 1999, show a 3.2 per cent. reduction in reconvictions compared with 1997.

  Land (Illegal Occupation)
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with the Association of Chief Police Officers on enforcing the law on illegal occupation of land. [104123]

  Mr. Wills
  We meet the Association of Chief Police Officers regularly both at ministerial and official level to discuss a wide range of issues. On this issue of illegal occupation of land, the Association of Chief Police Officers were consulted. They made comments on our proposals announced in July 2002, that we intended to bring forward new eviction powers for police to deal with unauthorised encampments, where local authorities have made adequate site provision, without the preconditions found in the current legislation. We hope to bring forward the new powers once parliamentary time allows.

  Neighbourhood Wardens
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his estimate is of the number of neighbourhood wardens who will be in place by the end of this financial year. [104125]

  Beverley Hughes
  There will be about 1,470 wardens in place by the end of the financial year.

  Sex Trade
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to allow the victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation to claim asylum after they provide evidence against those responsible for the sex trade in trafficked women and children. [104126]

  Hilary Benn
  Victims of trafficking can apply for asylum in the United Kingdom in the same way as anyone else. Any such applications should be made as soon as is practicable.

  Police Numbers
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on police numbers. [104127]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  By 31 March 2002 (the latest date available) there were 129,603 police-officers in England and Wales, a record number. There were also 58,909 civilian support staff in March 2002, also a record number.

  We have set a target of 130,000 police officers by 31 March 2003. We are confident that the target will be exceeded. We have set a further target of 132,500 police officers in 2004.

  Sentencing Guidance Council
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will bring forward proposals for a Sentencing Guidelines Council; and if he will make a statement on its likely composition. [104128]
  23W
  Hilary Benn
  We are continuing to reflect on the issues raised during the Committee Stage of the Criminal Justice Bill in relation to the composition of the Sentencing Guidelines Council. Any changes would, we anticipate, be introduced at Report Stage.

  Prison Capacity
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the planned average in-prison capacity is for 2004. [104130]

  Hilary Benn
  As at 19 March 2003, the planned average useable crowded capacity (operational capacity) is 75,000.

  Antisocial Behaviour
  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 has had on reducing anti-social behaviour. [104124]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The police service and local authorities may carry out directed surveillance under Part II of Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) 2000 for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or of preventing disorder. However, no assessment has been made of the impact of RIPA on reducing anti-social behaviour.

  Appeals
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations have been received in each year since 1988 regarding right to appeal cases to the Court of Appeal where the sentencing is seen to be unduly lenient; and if he will make a statement. [100208]

  The Solicitor-General
  Further to my reply of 5 March 2003, the following table shows the number of cases received annually since 1992 (when records began to be kept) by the Law Officers for consideration of a referral to the Court of Appeal as an Unduly Lenient Sentence. The table also shows the number of eases referred by the Law Officers to the Court of Appeal and the number of cases in which the Court increased he sentence.

  Number of cases received by LSLO for unduly lenient sentences

  Number of cases sent to the sentence Court of Appeal increased

  Number of cases in which sentence increased

  1989

  No records available

  9

  7

  1990

  No records available

  25

  17

  1991

  No records available

  26

  18

  1992

  80

  37

  29

  1993

  102

  30

  24

  1994

  146

  50

  39

  1995

  145

  77

  68

  1996

  159

  68

  49

  1997

  145

  70

  47

  1998

  185

  95

  69

  1999

  167

  89

  59

  2000

  143

  67

  48

  2001

  209

  90

  79

  2002

  261

  112

  153

  1 To date

  Asylum Seekers
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with the First Minister of Scotland on the UK Government's policy on asylum seekers. [104129]

  Beverley Hughes
  There have been no recent discussions with the First Minister. However, I have regular quarterly meetings with Scottish Ministers (Anne McGuire, PUSS at Scotland Office and Margaret Curran, Minister for Social Justice) to discuss asylum and immigration matters.

  Criminal Justice IT Systems
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will break down the expenditure for modernising the IT systems used by the criminal justice service outlined in the Justice for All White Paper by(a) item, (b) criminal justice system agency and (c) partner; what timetable governs the expenditure; and whether his Department is meeting that timetable. [101930]

  Mr. Wills
  The Criminal Justice System (CJS) IT spending review for 2002 concluded with ring fenced funding of £834 million new money coupled with £324 million from existing baseline funding. This is intended to provide substantial impetus to reform and modernise the criminal justice system through funding significant new investment in IT. It is important that all criminal justice agencies make progress in a joined-up and consistent way according to common standards, requirements and timetables. A modern and effective IT system that enables secure e-mail, the electronic exchange of case information and case tracking by victims will benefit both users and practitioners.

  Officials are currently finalising the CJS IT delivery plan prior to presenting it to Ministers for their approval. Once Ministers have approved this plan we will publish an electronic progress report on the Criminal Justice Information Technology (CJIT) website, http://www.cjit.gov.uk. I will also write to the hon. Member at this time with that information.

  This report will include information on the investment profile, the IT that it will buy and the projected benefits that will be delivered. Copies of this report will be laid in the Library.

  Emergency Planning
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with fellow Ministers in EU Governments regarding(a) the provision of a rapid reaction civil emergency force within the EU and (b) coordination at the EU level of measures needed to facilitate civil emergency planning. [101596]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I have had no discussions with Ministers of EU Governments regarding the provision of a rapid reaction civil emergency force within the EU.

  There are on-going official level discussions about coordination needed to facilitate civil emergency planning in a number of EU working groups.

  Victims' Personal Statements
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what monitoring is being undertaken of the impact of victims' personal statements on sentencing. [104116]

  Hilary Benn
  Victim personal statements provide the victims of crime with a formal opportunity to say how they have been affected, and for this to be taken into account by the criminal justice agencies in dealing with the case. The primary purpose of the statement is not to inform sentencing decisions. The implementation and effectiveness of the scheme is being evaluated.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the impact of the climate change levy upon the manufacturing sector. [104145]

  Alan Johnson
  The climate change levy is an environmental protection measure and is designed to avoid damaging the competitiveness of UK manufacturing. The levy's impact on individual manufacturing businesses will depend on the extent to which they take advantage of the various levy exemptions, the scheme of enhanced capital allowances for energy efficiency, and energy support from the Carbon Trust; and whether their sites qualify for a discount from the levy. Eligible sites in energy intensive industries are receiving an 80 per cent. levy discount where they have committed to challenging energy saving targets in negotiated agreements with the Government.

  The Government continue to keep in touch with business on the levy's operation to see how it is changing the way they manage their energy use.

  Competitiveness Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the outcome was of the Competitiveness Council held in Brussels on 3 March; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if she will make a statement. [101358]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry represented the UK at the Competitiveness Council 3 March 2003.

  Ministers at the Council reached an agreement on the Community Patent. The agreement combines new proposals on jurisdiction and distribution of patent fees with text agreed under the Spanish Presidency on languages and the role of patent offices.

  The main elements of the agreement include a unitary jurisdiction enforced by a single panel of the Court of First Instance, in Luxembourg, and a transitional period for enforcement of the patent by national courts to end by 2010 at the latest. On languages member states agreed that the regime for the Community patent should involve translations of the claims part of the patent
  26W
  document into all Community languages. They also agreed that the larger part of fee income should be redistributed according to measures of patent activity.

  The Presidency invited comments on the Report of the Competitiveness Council's input to the Spring European Council. Among other things, the report stresses the need for increased co-ordination between member states to create the European Research Area (ERA), a true internal market for science and knowledge, through the open method of co-ordination. This should firstly be applied to a number of research-related areas, such as the objective of raising European research spending to 3 per cent. of EU average gross domestic product (GDP), up from the current 1.9 per cent.

  The report highlighted the Competitiveness Council role as the 'guardian of competitiveness', ensuring that the effects of all measures taken on the competitiveness of European industry and services are fully taken into account in policy making. Impact assessment was the key to achieving the right balance between the three pillars of sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that the new Council formation was still building competence and credibility; there was scope for a more ambitious input next year, which should be based on an integrated framework prepared by the High Level Group for Competitiveness and Growth. In particular, this should develop the Council's horizontal role in assessing the work of other Councils for its effects on competitiveness.

  There was a public debate on entrepreneurship that allowed member states to emphasise SMEs' crucial role in job creation, growth and innovation in Europe, and the need to better integrate the different policies enhancing entrepreneurship. Several member states, including the UK, mentioned the need to organise information campaigns to improve the image of entrepreneurship, to cut red tape, to improve the access to financing and to public procurement, and to cooperate actively at the regional and local level. The Council adopted conclusions on "The Promotion of Entrepreneurship and Small Firms".

  The Commission presented its initiative to simplify the Community's legal acquis. Work will be divided into two stages, the first involving consolidation and codification of legal texts thereby reducing the sheer number of pages of EU law. The second stage begin to reduce legal obligations on economic operators.

  Commissioner Busquin presented the Green Paper on European Space Policy. The paper forms the basis of a consultation, to be held from 22 January to 30 May 2003. The Presidency announced that an in-depth discussion on European Space Policy would take place at the next meeting of the Competitiveness Council on 12–13 May 2003.

  A progress report by the Commission summarised the state of play of negotiations on the ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) nuclear fusion energy research project. A full progress report will be presented at the Competitiveness Council on 12–13 May.
  27W
  The Spanish and French delegations underlined the importance of the ITER project. They both confirmed their application to host the ITER facility. A consensus on a draft international agreement to fulfil the ITER, including the site and the cost-sharing scheme between partners, is envisaged for the end of 2003.

  The Commission outlined a timetable for their work on the proposed Chemicals Directive. The main elements of this were: an orientation debate to be held in the college before Easter and a five-week internet consultation with business and stakeholders and formal proposals adopted before the summer break. The Commission fully recognised the need to get the right balance between the protection of the environment, jobs and innovation.

  The Council reviewed progress on the Directive on takeover bids, presented by the Commission on 2 October 2002. This was followed by an exchange of views. The UK said the Presidency text was a good step towards reaching the necessary level playing field. Commissioner Bolkestein said the Commission would welcome any agreement that goes further than their proposal to achieve a level playing field, provided that it is acceptable both to the Council and to the Parliament.

  The Commission introduced its recently adopted proposal for a directive harmonising rules on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, aimed to combat large scale counterfeiting and actions with significant effects on right holders.

  Under other business Germany tabled a short paper on implementation of EU directives into national law. Germany suggested that the Commission should consider making a legal assessment as to whether national authorities have correctly implemented EU law when it receives notification of this implementation. The Commission argued that they already do this, when they collate information for the biannual Single Market Scoreboard. They were though willing to engage in further dialogue with Germany to improve systems.

  The Portuguese delegation presented to the Council the third "EUREKA meets Asia" event, to be held in Macao in May. The event aims to strengthen the relationship between European and Asian, and particularly Chinese, businesses.

  Departmental Website
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the total cost of her Department's website was in the last 12 months; and how many hits it received in the same period. [104190]

  Ms Hewitt
  The support costs for the Department's websites are included in the overall service charge paid monthly under the IT service contract in place since 1 April 1999. There is no separation of website costs in this charge.

  The DTI site www.dti.gov.uk was redesigned in April 2002, at a cost of £60,294 including VAT.

  The number of hits to the site www.dti.gov.uk in the months February 2002 to January 2003 was 196,359,744.

  Energy Production
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of power was produced by(a) coal, (b) oil and (c) nuclear power plants in the United Kingdom in the last year for which figures are available; how many (i) coal, (ii) oil and (iii) nuclear power plants operate in the UK; and what the lifespan is of each. [103925]

  Mr. Wilson
  The available information on electricity supplied from particular types of plant is as follows and relates to 2002.

  Percentage of electricity supplied

  Number of power plants1

  Coal

  32

  20

  Oil

  1

  29

  Nuclear

  22

  14

  1 Only covers stations of more than 1MW capacity. Mixed fired coal/oil and coal/gas fired stations have been included under coal and similarly mixed oil/gas fired stations are counted under oil. Oil plants include single cycle gas fired stations as well as diesel and kerosene fired stations. Data are as at end May 2002.

  Source:

  Energy Trends Table 5.1 and Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 2002, Table 5.10. Generation data for 2002 are provisional.

  Information on the lifespan of coal and oil plants is not available as it is a technical and commercial matter for the individual companies concerned. Nuclear plants operate under licences and the latest published company information on expected station closure dates is as shown below.

  Power station

  Expected date of closure

  British Energy

  Dungeness B

  2008

  Hunterston

  2011

  HinkleyB

  2011

  Heysham 1

  2014

  Hartlepool

  2014

  Heysham 2

  2023

  Torness

  2023

  Sizewell B

  2035

  British Nuclear Fuels

  Calder Hall

  End March 2003

  Chapelcross

  2005

  Sizewell A

  2006

  Dungeness A

  2006

  Oldbury

  2008

  Wylfa

  2010

  EU Enlargement
  Stephen Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the benefits of EU enlargement for small and medium enterprises in Britain. [103352]

  Ms Hewitt
  UK companies, including many SMEs, will benefit from the creation of the largest single market in the world, as it expands to include the fast growing economies of central and eastern Europe. Our trade with the new member states , from a low base, is growing much faster than UK's trade overall. Over 14,000 companies, many of them SMEs are already exporting
  29W
  to the region. Further analysis of the trade and investment impact is being finalised and will be published shortly.

  Fireworks Bill
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she intends to produce a regulatory impact assessment for the Fireworks Bill. [102133]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 10 March 2003]A partial Regulatory Impact Assessment is currently under production and will be available as soon as possible. A full RIA is required when regulations are laid in due course, if the Bill reaches the Statute Book.

  Genetically Engineered Animals
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what UK patents relating to genetically engineered animals and processes for creating such animals have been(a) applied for and published since 9 November 2001 and (b) granted since 9 November 2001. [103294]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Since 9 November 2001 13 UK patents relating to genetically engineered animals and processes for creating them have been applied for and published. These were GB 2362383 A, GB 2362384 A, GB 2362885 A, GB 2367295 A, GB 2367555 A, GB 2367823 A, GB 2369828 A, GB 2370275 A, GB 2374870 A, GB 2376468 A, GB 2375110 A, GB 2376024 A, and GB 2377221 A. Since 9 November 2001 there have been three UK patents granted relating to genetically engineered animals and processes for creating them. These were GB 2370275 B, GB 2362885 B, and GB 2350613 B. This information does not include applications filed at the European Patent Office which may have the effect of UK patents if granted by that office.

  Globalisation
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what contribution the UK Government are making to the World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalisation. [99927]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I have been asked to reply.

  Through the Governing Body of the International Labour Organisation (ILO), officials from this Department offer advice and guidance to the World Commission. They have also participated in a European Union-organised joint consultation event to inform the World Commission about how EU member states address social and economic change, and the challenges of globalisation. The Department for International Development is supporting a workshop for the World Commission, on 8 April, on the effects of globalisation on employment and wages in developing countries, with particular reference to low-income groups and low income countries. In addition, Ministers and officials from both Departments regularly offer support and advice on the work of the Commission in meetings with the ILO.

  Insolvency
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) individuals and (b) firms are licensed by recognised professional bodies to carry on their business as insolvency practitioners. [100915]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Individuals, not firms, are authorised to act as an insolvency practitioner by either one of seven recognised professional bodies or by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. As at 31 December 2002 (the latest date figures are available) there were 1603 insolvency practitioners authorised by the recognised professional bodies.

  New Energy Technologies
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans there are to(a) establish a national energy research centre and (b) encourage the research and development of new energy technologies. [103549]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 20 March 2003]The information is as follows:

  (a) The Research Councils are developing proposals for a new UK energy research centre as part of the new £28 million cross-Council programme "Towards a Sustainable Energy Economy". The councils intend that the centre will be established by 1 April 2004. They announced a call for expressions of interest to operate the centre on 18 March 2003. Further information is available from: www.nerc.ac.uk/funding/programmes/sustenergy.

  (b) A programme to support renewables is already in place and is worth £250 million between 2002–03 and 2005–06. The 2002 Spending Review also allocated an additional £38 million for energy policy objectives in 2005–06 compared with 2002–03. This will now be increased by a further £60 million. The programme comprises a range of measures, including funding for R&D and demonstration projects, to accelerate the uptake of renewables.

  The Carbon Trust, which leads on low-carbon technology and innovation, is spending £75 million over the next three years to support R&D, development and other activities to bring forward new and emerging technologies. Funding for energy-related technology has also been available via the DTI's Innovation and Business Support programmes and though various European programmes.

  The Research Councils will spend over £11 million on energy-related research in 2002–03 and have been allocated an additional £28 million under the 2002 Spending Review for further research in support of a sustainable energy economy, including the establishment of the UK energy research centre.

  Office of Fair Trading
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make it her policy to ensure that the Office of Fair Trading(a) more closely polices companies which may be in breach of the Consumer Contracts Regulations and (b) enforces stricter penalties on companies in breach of this contract. [104104]
  31W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, the Director General of Fair Trading (DGFT) has a duty to consider complaints about unfair terms in standard contracts between sellers or suppliers and consumers. The DGFT can and does act to stop terms he considers unfair. Action usually results in the terms being revised or deleted by agreement but the DGFT can if necessary apply to the Courts for an injunction to prevent the continued use of the term(s) concerned.

  Post Office Card Accounts
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many post office card accounts have been opened. [104018]

  Mr. Timms
  Beyond those used to pilot the new service no Post Office card accounts have yet been opened. The intention is to gradually build up (starting from April 2003) the number of benefit customers and pensioners that we pay through the Post Office card account. Approximately 106,000 customers have already chosen a Post Office card account and the issue of Personal Invitation Documents to those people, to start the account opening process, will begin on schedule at the end of March. DWP customers who have opted for a Card account but have not yet opened that account will continue to be paid by order book or giro as appropriate.

  Pricing Policies
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what requirements are imposed by the Companies Act 1985 for disclosure of transfer pricing policies by companies. [100913]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  None.

  Renewable Energy
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much energy was produced by renewable resources in the United Kingdom, in megawatts, broken down by generating source, in the last year for which figures are available; and how much energy was produced by fossil fuels. [103924]

  Mr. Wilson
  The information requested is as follows and relates to 2001. Renewables accounted for 2.6 per cent. of electricity generated in the United Kingdom in 2001. Early estimates suggest that this rose to 3 per cent. in 2002. Detailed data for 2002 will not be available until June 2003.

  Electricity generated in the UK from renewable sources and from fossil fuels

  GWh

  Wind

  967

  Solar photovoltaics

  2

  Hydro

  4,055

  Landfill gas

  2,507

  Sewage sludge digestion

  363

  Municipal solid waste combustion1

  948

  Other biofuels2

  770

  Wastes 3,4

  488

  32W

  Electricity generated in the UK from renewable sources and from fossil fuels

  GWh

  Total generation from renewables3,5

  10,099

  Total generation from coal, oil and gas

  279,213

  1 Biodegradable part only

  2 Includes poultry litter combustion, meat and bone combustion, straw and short rotation coppice

  3 Includes some waste of fossil fuel origin

  4 Non biodegradable part of municipal solid waste

  5 Because of rounding constituent parts do not sum to the total

  Source:

  Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 2002, Tables 7.4 and 5.6

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much funding was allocated to development of renewable energy in each of the last five years; what areas the investments have been focused on; and when projects are expected to become economically viable. [103941]

  Mr. Wilson
  Payments from the DTI's Renewable Energy Programme for each of the last five years have been as follows:

  £ million

  1997–98

  6.8

  1998–99

  5.9

  1999–2000

  7.9

  2000–01

  9.7

  2001–02

  13.6

  Government have followed a market-driven policy, rather than prescribing a specific focus for this research activity. The research and development projects supported have been the best proposals emanating from the renewable energy industry.

  Large-scale hydro and energy from waste are already commercially viable and well-established in the market. With the benefit of the Renewables Obligation, onshore wind also becomes commercially viable. Over the next four years, the Government plan to provide nearly £350 million direct support, mainly in the form of capital grants, to help more forms of renewable energy achieve economic viability, but we cannot predict when this will be achieved. The Energy White Paper gives some broad indications about the possible timescale on page 55, "A Renewables Timeline."

  Supplier Selection (Environmental Criteria)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what scope contracting authorities will have, under the current draft of the new EU public procurement Directive, to consider environmental criteria when selecting suppliers at the pre-tender stage of contracts; and if she will make a statement. [104083]

  Ms Hewitt
  The proposed new EC public procurement Directive provides various ways for contracting authorities to take environmental criteria into account at the selection (pre-tender) stage of the procurement process. In selecting suppliers to tender on the basis of their technical capability, environmental matters may be taken into account where justified by the subject of the contract. For works and services
  33W
  contracts, evidence of environmental management measures that the supplier will be able to apply when executing the contract can also be required by the contracting authority, where these are relevant to the subject of the contract. In addition, contracting authorities may exclude suppliers from tendering if they have been convicted of an offence concerning professional conduct, or have been guilty of grave professional misconduct. These can include relevant environmental issues.

  Environmental issues can also be taken into account at other stages of the procurement process. For example, contracting authorities have a great deal of scope to take environmental issues into consideration when defining the subject of the contract, and drawing up the specifications.

  Timber Imports (Liberia)
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what volume of timber from Liberia was imported to the UK(a) in 2002 and (b) during the first two months of 2003. [104142]

  Nigel Griffiths
  According to figures published by HM Customs and Excise, the UK imported 4,738 tonnes or 5,705 cubic metres of timber from Liberia in 2002. Information for 2003 is not yet available.

  Timber is defined by headings 245.01, 246, 247 and 248 of the Standard International Trade Classification, Revision 3.

  Trading Standards Departments
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what funding is to be made available from the Office of Fair Trading Modernisation Fund for trading standards departments in local authorities in(a) 2003–04 and (b) 2004–05; and if she will make a statement. [102781]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The OFT does not have a modernisation fund. The Department of Trade and Industry's Modernisation Fund was launched in 2001 investing £30 million to raise the level of consumer protection at local level. £13 million will be available in 2003–04 with a further £2 million available, in 2004–05 to fund projects and initiatives under the themes of effective enforcement, information and advice to consumers, raising trading standards capabilities and consumer safety.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) members of staff and (b) full-time equivalent vacancies there are in each trading standards department; and if she will make a statement. [102785]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The total number of staff in Trading Standards Authorities in England and Wales as of 1 April 2002 was 3,749. Table 1 gives a breakdown for each authority; data are not available for seven authorities. Information on the total number of vacancies is not available.

  The total number of staff in Trading Standards Authorities in Scotland as of March 2002 was 511.6. The number of vacancies at this time was 53. Table 2 gives a breakdown for each authority.
  34W

  Table 1: Showing Trading Standards Staff Statistics at 1 April 2002—England and Wales

  Local authority

  Total

  London

  Corporation of London

  10.3

  Inner London

  Camden

  12.0

  Greenwich

  12.0

  Hackney

  5.0

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  4.9

  Islington

  10.6

  Kensington and Chelsea

  6.0

  Lambeth

  2.5

  Lewisham

  11.0

  Southwark

  12.6

  Tower Hamlets

  23.1

  Wandsworth

  8.7

  Westminster

  22.0

  Outer London

  Barking and Dagenham

  19.2

  Barnet

  14.5

  Bexley

  13.0

  Brent and Harrow

  35.0

  Bromley

  12.7

  Croydon

  21.8

  Baling

  15.3

  Enfield

  15.9

  Haringey

  10.0

  Havering

  16.2

  Hillingdon

  9.2

  Hounslow

  8.1

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  8.5

  Merton

  10.5

  Newham

  15.6

  Redbridge

  14.0

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  9.7

  Sutton

  12.2

  Waltham Forest

  13.5

  Metropolitan Districts

  Greater Manchester

  Bolton

  16.5

  Bury

  14.3

  Manchester

  26.0

  Oldham

  n/a

  Rochdale

  14.1

  Salford

  12.8

  Stockport

  21.9

  Tameside

  13.3

  Trafford

  n/a

  Wigan

  15.6

  Merseyside

  Knowsley

  10.0

  Liverpool

  25.0

  St. Helens

  12.5

  Sefton

  15.5

  Wirral

  19.7

  South Yorkshire

  Barnsley

  7.0

  Doncaster

  12.0

  Rotherham

  13.9

  Sheffield

  19.6

  Tyne and Wear

  Gateshead

  15.5

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  9.5

  North Tyneside

  6.2

  South Tyneside

  10.2

  Sunderland

  12.0

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  78.2

  Coventry

  25.0

  Dudley

  n/a

  Sandwell

  28.8

  Solihull

  15.0

  35W

  Table 1: Showing Trading Standards Staff Statistics at 1 April 2002—England and Wales

  Local authority

  Total

  Walsall

  24.2

  Wolverhampton

  —

  West Yorkshire Joint

  124.0

  Unitary Authorities England

  Bath and North East Somerset

  11.4

  Blackburn

  10.9

  Blackpool

  16.0

  Bournemouth

  13.0

  Bracknell Forest

  6.1

  Brighton and Hove

  14.0

  Bristol

  15.8

  Darlington

  9.9

  Derby

  16.4

  East Riding

  22.1

  Halton

  9.4

  Hartlepool

  n/a

  Herefordshire

  14.5

  Isle of Wight

  13.0

  Kingston-upon-Hull

  24.5

  Leicester

  28.5

  Luton

  16.4

  Medway Council

  8.4

  Middlesbrough

  25.4

  Milton Keynes

  15.5

  North East Lincolnshire

  15.8

  North Lincolnshire

  14.0

  North Somerset

  9.8

  Nottingham

  23.5

  Peterborough

  12.6

  Plymouth

  14.4

  Poole

  6.8

  Portsmouth

  13.7

  Reading

  12.2

  Redcar and Cleveland

  12.0

  Rutland

  0.3

  Slough

  9.1

  South Gloucestershire

  14.1

  Southampton

  13.6

  Southend-on-Sea

  10.6

  Stockton-on-Tees

  12.1

  Stoke-on-Trent

  20.0

  Swindon

  12.6

  Telford and Wrekin

  12.0

  Thurrock

  6.0

  Torbay

  9.2

  Warrington

  13.5

  West Berkshire

  10.1

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  11.0

  Wokingham

  n/a

  York

  19.0

  English Counties

  Bedfordshire

  26.1

  Buckinghamshire

  39.5

  Cambridgeshire

  37.9

  Cheshire

  48.2

  Cornwall

  53.6

  Cumbria

  43.0

  Derbyshire

  66.7

  Devon

  45.0

  Dorset

  28.5

  Durham

  41.0

  East Sussex

  25.0

  Essex

  68.9

  Gloucestershire

  43.1

  Hampshire

  69.3

  Hertfordshire

  44.2

  Kent

  80.0

  Lancashire

  83.8

  Leicestershire

  48.6

  Lincolnshire

  46.2

  Norfolk

  72.3

  36W

  Table 1: Showing Trading Standards Staff Statistics at 1 April 2002—England and Wales

  Local authority

  Total

  North Yorkshire

  56.5

  Northamptonshire

  49.0

  Northumberland

  41.5

  Nottinghamshire

  62.4

  Oxfordshire

  43.4

  Shropshire

  28.7

  Somerset

  44.8

  Staffordshire

  57.6

  Suffolk

  50.6

  Surrey

  73.2

  Warwickshire

  60.9

  West Sussex

  60.5

  Worcestershire

  49.0

  Wiltshire

  29.0

  Wales

  Blaenau Gwent

  n/a

  Bridgend

  13.0

  Caerphilly

  15.9

  Cardiff

  33.3

  Carmarthenshire

  17.0

  Ceredigion

  5.3

  Conwy

  11.0

  Denbighshire

  12.8

  Flintshire

  13.5

  Gwynedd

  14.3

  Isle of Anglesey

  10.7

  Merthyr Tydfil

  7.0

  Monmouthshire

  10.0

  Neath Port Talbot

  13.4

  Newport

  16.0

  Pembrokeshire

  12.9

  Powys

  20.2

  Rhondda Cynon Taff

  N/a-

  Swansea

  18.6

  Torfaen

  10.0

  Vale of Glamorgan

  15.3

  Wrexham

  13.4

  Totals for England and Wales

  3,749.0

  Source:

  Data published in September 2002 by Chartered Institute of Public Finance. Some authorities did not submit the relevant information and so no data are shown against these.

  Table 2: Showing Trading Standards Staff at March 2002—Scotland

  Local authority

  Number of staff

  Number of current vacancies

  Large

  Aberdeen City

  18.1

  1.0

  Aberdeenshire

  21.2

  6.0

  Dumfries and Galloway

  19.0

  0.0

  Edinburgh, City of

  31.5

  4.0

  Fife

  50.0

  6.0

  Glasgow City

  57.5

  2.0

  Highland

  25.5

  1.0

  North Lanarkshire

  38.0

  2.0

  South Ayrshire

  21.0

  10.0

  South Lanarkshire

  32.8

  0.0

  Medium

  Angus

  10.0

  4.0

  Argyll and Bute

  11.0

  0.0

  Dundee City

  16.0

  0.0

  East Ayrshire

  14.0

  0.0

  Inverclyde

  12.5

  2.0

  Moray

  9.0

  2.0

  North Ayrshire

  13.0

  0.0

  37W

  Table 2: Showing Trading Standards Staff at March 2002—Scotland

  Local authority

  Number of staff

  Number of current vacancies

  Perth and Kinross

  11.0

  2.0

  Renfrewshire

  13.0

  6.0

  Scottish Borders

  12.0

  0.0

  West Dunbartonshire

  14.5

  3.0

  West Lothian

  10.0

  0.0

  Small

  Clackmannanshire

  3.0

  0.0

  East Dunbartonshire

  7.3

  2.0

  East Lothian

  6.0

  0.0

  East Renfrewshire

  5.6

  0.0

  Eilean Star

  2.5

  0.0

  Falkirk

  7.0

  0.0

  Midlothian

  4.5

  0.0

  Orkney Islands

  3.5

  0.0

  Shetland Islands

  4.0

  0.0

  Stirling

  7.6

  0.0

  Total

  511.6

  53

  Source:

  Accounts Commission report "Made to Measure?" published in October 2002

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Level 2 and 3 Qualifications
  Dr. Francis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of(a) level 2 and (b) level 3 qualifications were achieved in (i) schools and (ii) further education and sixth form colleges in the last year for which figures are available. [103985]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table shows awards made at levels 2 and 3 during the 2000–01 academic year. It aggregates data from two sources: academic awards data from the secondary school and college performance tables database and vocational awards data from National Information System for Vocational Qualifications (NISVQ)1. Awards coverage is limited to England only.

  Number of awards and proportion by centre type

  Centre type

  Level 2

  Percentage

  Level 3

  Percentage

  School

  321,868

  51

  205,317

  43

  FE College/Tertiary College2

  160,104

  25

  147,000

  31

  Sixth Form College

  4,978

  1

  60,437

  13

  Other3

  141,660

  23

  63,711

  13

  Total

  628,610

  —

  476,465

  —

  1 NISVQ received information on around 92 per cent. of all NVQs/SVQs awarded in 2000–01.

  2 Includes Adult Education data.

  3 Institutes classified as "other" include: university or other higher education centre, private training provider, local government/ central government/NHS, employer, HM prison/youth offenders institution and armed forces.

  Source:

  Secondary school and college performance tables database and NISVQ

  Academic Staff Morale
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what recent representations he has received on the level of academic wages; [103932]
  38W
  (2) if he will make a statement on the report by the Association of University Teachers on the levels of morale and motivation among academic staff; and what steps he is taking to contract people to the academic profession. [103930]

  Margaret Hodge
  We have received several representations from individuals and representative bodies on a number of higher education matters, including academic pay. While pay levels are a matter for negotiation between employers and staff, the Government are concerned that higher education institutions should he able to recruit, retain and reward the high quality staff they need. That is why we announced in the recent White Paper that spending on higher education will rise from a total of £7.5 billion in 2002–03 to almost £10 billion in 2005–06. This includes £50 million in 2004––05 and £117 million in 2005–06 in addition to the total of £330 million for the three years up to 2003–04 specifically to help with the recruitment, retention and reward of all staff and, in particular, to value and reward good teachers. It also includes 'golden hellos' for 1,000 new lecturers in shortage subjects worth £9,000 over three years' service. We are also introducing a range of measures to raise the status of teaching in higher education. New professional standards will be agreed by 2004–05 and from 2006 all new teaching staff will be expected to have a teaching competence which meets the standards. Centres of Excellence in teaching will be established to reward good teaching at departmental level and to promote best practice, and the current National Teaching Fellowships Scheme will be increased in size to offer substantial rewards to twice as many outstanding teachers. The Government also support the proposed new teaching quality Academy being set up by the HE sector and considers that the Academy will play a major role in supporting and developing the profession of teaching.

  Bullying
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures he is taking to help reduce the incidence of bullying in schools. [103796]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We attach a high priority to helping schools prevent and combat bullying, and ensuring that the pupils report bullying when it happens. In 1999 we introduced a statutory requirement on schools to frame anti-bullying policies, in consultation with the school community. We supported that with a guidance pack for schools entitled 'Bullying: don't suffer in silence' with an accompanying video aimed at pupils, which was updated and relaunched in September 2002. We have developed a linked website at www.dfes.qov.uk/bullying, and funded the ChildLine programme of research into children and young people's views on bullying and how o tackle it.

  I will set out our new plans for training and support for schools, and increased accountability, when the results of that research are launched on 25 March.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to ensure that schools have at least one member of staff qualified to deal with bullying in school. [103797]
  39W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  A school is required by law to have a written anti-bullying policy, which should be consistently implemented whenever bullying is reported. We have produced a guidance pack for schools to help them discharge this responsibility. Additional LEA support, guidance and training on behaviour and attendance issues, including bullying, will be available to all secondary schools from the autumn term. It is for schools to decide which individuals have the main responsibility for drawing up and managing the bullying policy, and for dealing with specific cases, and for ensuring that those concerned have the necessary knowledge and skills.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures he is taking to help staff work with parents to tackle bullying(a) in school and (b) outside school hours. [103798]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Schools should work closely with parents in tackling bullying, both when updating the school's anti-bullying policy and when investigating specific complaints. This will enable parents to play their part, with school support, in tackling bullying outside school hours and outside school premises. Our anti-bullying pack 'Bullying: don't suffer in silence' offers practical advice on how schools should communicate both with the parents of victims and with the parents of alleged bullies. Additional support, guidance and training to be made available to all secondary schools from the autumn term will reinforce these messages.

  Business Forms
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the forms that his Department requires private sector businesses to complete and return. [98086]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  This Department does not require private sector businesses to complete and return any forms. For the last full survey year, April 2001—March 2002, we carried out seven surveys involving private sector businesses. All these surveys were voluntary in nature. Of the seven surveys, six were telephone surveys and one involved face to face interviews.

  Business Partnerships
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment has been made by learning and skills councils of the number of further education colleges with business partnerships; what proportion of colleges this represents; and if he will make a statement. [104077]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Learning and Skills Council (LSC) does not count the number of FE colleges with business partnerships. We are going to receive "employer engagement" as part of delivery contracts.

  However, many FE colleges have already developed effective business partnerships, most recently through the creation of Centres of Vocational Excellence (CoVE), which are focused on meeting the skills needs of employers. Currently 137 FE colleges in England have a CoVE, including three CoVEs in the Bedfordshire & Luton LSC area. By March 2006 we will have created 400 CoVEs nationally.
  40W
  From April local Strategic Area Reviews will be used in part to assess the links FE colleges have with employers and to ensure that the pattern of provision matches local skill needs.

  From August, colleges will agree three year development plans with their local LSC. Funding for the sector will be allocated in return for each college meeting key headline targets, including targets for employer engagement. The targets will be specific to the mission and role each college will play in responding to local skill needs.

  Child Care
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many(a) day nurseries, (b) childminders and (c) out of school clubs there were in England on (i) 31 March 2002 and (ii) 31 March 2001: [101156]

  (2) when the Government will publish official statistics for the number of (a) day nurseries, (b) childminders and (c) out of school clubs in England on 31 March 2002. [101158]

  Maria Eagle
  The available information is shown in the table.

  Number of day care providers by type1 England

  Position at 31 March 2001

  Number

  Day nurseries2

  7,800

  Registered childminders2

  72,300

  Out of school clubs3

  4,900

  1 Figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred.

  2 Day nurseries and childminders provide care for children under eight years of age.

  3 Out of school clubs provide care for five to seven year old children.

  The latest figures on Children's Day Care Facilities in England were published by the Department in the Statistical Bulletin 08/01 "Children's Day Care Facilities at 31 March 2001" in October 2001, for the position at March 2001. Responsibility for the registration of day care facilities for children under eight was transferred from local authorities to OFSTED in September 2001. Figures for the position at March 2002 will not be available before OFSTED completes the compilation of its register of childcare providers, after March 2003.

  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will estimate how much it would cost to extend childcare centres to cover 30 per cent. of the most disadvantaged communities. [101157]

  Maria Eagle
  The Government's long-term aim is that all children living in the 20 per cent. most disadvantaged wards have access to children's centre services. By March 2006 we plan to reach at least 650,000 of these children—around two-thirds of those living in the 20 per cent. most disadvantaged wards— and to create nearly 43,000 extra childcare places for them. We are investing some £435 million over the next three years to meet these targets. In many cases children's centres will he developed from existing provision, such as Sure Start local programmes and Neighbourhood Nurseries, building on their success.
  41W
  We cannot currently estimate costs for extending reach beyond the planned 650,000 children until we have a better understanding of the different costs involved in establishing children's centres.

  Dyslexic Children
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what estimate he has made of the number of(a) pre-school, (b) primary, (c) secondary, (d) further education and (e) higher education pupils who have been diagnosed with dyslexia in each of the last five years; [103365]

  (2) how much money was allocated for support of school-age children in (a) primary and (b) secondary schools who were diagnosed as being dyslexic, in each London borough, in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [103367]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Information on the number of pupils with special educational needs (SEN) is collected from schools in January each year, via the Pupil Level Annual Schools Census. However, the data collected are not broken down by different categories of SEN, such as dyslexia. Currently, therefore, it is not possible to offer a realistic estimate of the number of children with dyslexia.

  In June 2001, the Department carried out a pilot study involving a sample of 200 mainstream and special schools to assess whether it would be possible to collect data from schools on a broad range of types of SEN. Following that study, it is proposed that from 2004, schools and local education authorities will be required to provide information on a range of SEN, including specific learning difficulties, such as dyslexia. It is expected that maintained nursery provision will be covered by the requirement as well as primary, secondary and special schools.

  Based on information taken from the individualised student records, as collected by the Learning Skills Council for the academic year 2000–01, the only year for which full data are available, there were 20,400 students in further education colleges in England indicating their main learning difficulty as dyslexia.

  Information collected by the Higher Education Statistics Agency, based on the student's own self-assessment, indicates the number of students with dyslexia in higher education as being:

  1996–97

  10,190

  1997–98

  13,000

  1998–99

  16,080

  1999–2000

  20,730

  2000–01

  26,490

  Note:

  Student numbers rounded to the nearest 10

  Funding allocated to local education authorities under Education Formula Spending is not broken down between different categories of education spending, or for different types of SEN.

  Education Spending
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the expenditure per 42W
  full-time equivalent pupil in English local education authority maintained (a) pre-primary, (b) primary and (c) secondary schools in 2002–03, broken down by authority. [104506]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is not due to be collected by the Department until September 2003. I will write to the hon. Member once this information becomes available.

  Further Education Colleges
  Dr. Francis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students aged 19 or under are studying in further education colleges for qualification at(a) level 1, (b) level 2, (c) level 3 and (d) level 4 or above in each of the Learning and Skills Council areas. [103986]

  Margaret Hodge
  This is a matter for the Learning and Skills Council. John Harwood, the Council's Chief Executive, will write to the hon. Gentleman with the information requested and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Library.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the 18–24 age cohort participation in higher education rate was in each region and nation of the UK in(a) 1992, (b) 1997 and (c) 2002. [98450]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 24 February 2003]The Department does not calculate HE participation rates specifically for 18–24 age cohorts.

  The Age Participation Index (API) covers HE participation in full-time undergraduate study below the age of 21. The API is not calculated at regional level and the available national figures are given in the table. A higher proportion of young people from Scotland and Northern Ireland enter HE than from England and Wales. This is due largely to high levels of participation in sub-degree level HE courses in these countries.

  Age Participation Index (API)1 by country (percentages)

  Country

  1992–93

  1997–98

  2002–03

  England

  26

  32

  2—

  Wales

  29

  32

  2—

  Scotland

  32

  46

  2—

  Northern

  Ireland

  32

  44

  2—

  Great Britain

  28

  33

  2—

  1 The API is defined as the number of initial entrants to full-time and sandwich undergraduate HE aged under 21, expressed as a percentage of the average number of 18 and 19-year-olds in the population. These figures may differ from the individual countries' own APIs, which are derived on a slightly different basis.

  2 Not available.

  A more complete measure of HE participation, the Initial Entry Rate (IER), has been calculated for England since 1999–2000. The IER gives the proportion of young English people entering full or part time HE by the age of 30 and a provisional estimate for 2001–02 is 43 per cent.

  Internal Flights (Ministers)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills 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. [103594]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Cabinet Office on 22 January 2003,Official Report, column 334W, in response to a request for information from the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) about the cost of UK travel by Ministers. I also refer the hon. Member to a related answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about UK flights he has undertaken, 20 February 2003, Official Report, column 163W.

  Maintained Nurseries
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to(a) protect and (b) extend the role of existing maintained nurseries. [103027]

  Maria Eagle
  The Department is now consulting on proposals for guidance to School Organisation Committees (SOCs). The guidance will include a presumption against closure of Maintained Nursery Schools. The new guidance is expected to come into force in June 2003.

  We are actively encouraging Maintained Nursery Schools to develop and extend their services. The nursery school development grant and the forum for Maintained Nursery Schools are key drivers for supporting this. Some Local Authorities will be considering how Maintained Nursery Schools might be involved with the children's centres programme.

  Statutory governance for Maintained Nursery Schools which comes into force in September 2003 will put them on an equivalent footing to schools and grant them similar discretion. The devolved budgets which Maintained Nursery Schools will have from April 2004 will also afford increased autonomy and opportunity.

  Secondary Schools
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the methodology used to construct value added scores for secondary schools. [104021]

  Mr. Miliband
  Two value added measures are calculated for secondary schools; Key Stage 2 to Key Stage 3 and Key Stage 3 to GCES/GNVQ. We aim to pilot a measure of value added between Key Stage 2 and GCSE/GNVQ in 2003 prior to full publication in 2004. The methodology used to calculate the value added measures for secondary schools is fully explained in the Value Added Technical Annex of the 2002 Performance Tables booklets, copies of which have been placed in the Library. The document can also be accessed on the performance tables website at www.dfes.gov.uk/performancetables.

  Sure Start
  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many Sure Start programmes have been approved which are(a) community partnership and (b) voluntary sector-led. [102800]

  Maria Eagle
  To date, three Sure Start Partnerships have been approved which have a community partnership as their accountable body and 25 programmes have been approved which have a voluntary sector organisation as their accountable body.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps he is taking to ensure that Sure Start units have a manager with an early years teaching qualification; which senior members of staff within each Sure Start unit will have to have specialist early years teaching qualification; and whether all sure start units will(a) have at least one qualified teacher and (b) be supported by a qualified nursery nurse. [103026]

  Maria Eagle
  Sure Start local programmes deliver a wide range of services including health, family support, and childcare. Programme managers are recruited from a range of relevant backgrounds but above all must have strong leadership and management skills.

  The new Children's centres which we are introducing from this year will provide integrated care and education for young children, health services, family support, and a base for childminders. As with Sure Start local programmes, it will be more important for the managers of these centres to have the leadership and other skills to manage a multi-disciplinary team than to have a qualification in any specific professional area.

  Children's centres will be required to have strong support for the teaching and learning offered. The initial guidance issued in February says that this should be secured through either the employment of qualified teachers or developed from a base of significant input from teachers in an advisory role. Full guidance will be published in June 2003.

  Teacher Recruitment (Havering)
  Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what criteria are used in defining a local authority area as high cost for teacher recruitment purposes; and for what reasons Havering does not qualify as a high cost area. [104375]

  Mr. Miliband
  The area cost adjustment in Education Formula Spending is based on average wage costs in an area rather than on the direct costs of teachers. Havering is grouped with other boroughs to the east of Inner London where average wage costs are lower than they are in Inner London itself or to the west of Inner London. The amount of area cost adjustment received by Havering and other east London boroughs is substantially more than the cost of London Weighting payments to teachers and other staff.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students paid(a) full, (b) partial and (c) no tuition fees who were normally resident in (i) England and Wales, (ii) Scotland, (iii) Northern Ireland and (iv) the EU; and how many

  45W
  paid overseas student fees in each year since 1999 at the Universities of (A) Newcastle and (B) Northumbria at Newcastle. [103419]

  Margaret Hodge
  The information is not available in the requested format.

  In England and Wales students on full-time undergraduate courses and their families are expected to make a contribution towards the cost of their tuition only if they can afford to do so.

  The percentage of students in England and Wales in academic years 1999–2000 and 2000–01 (latest year for which data are available) who have been assessed to make a nil, partial or full contribution towards the cost of their tuition is shown in the table:

  Percentage

  All students1

  1999–2000

  2000–012

  Nil contribution towards the cost of tuition from student/parents/spouse/partner

  45

  42

  Partial contribution towards the cost of tuition from student/parents/spouse/partner

  20

  19

  Full contribution towards the cost of tuition from student/parents/spouse/partner

  35

  39

  1 Contributions towards the cost of tuition are assessed by local education authorities in England and Wales for students normally domiciled in their area and studying in the UK.

  2 2000–01 data are provisional.

  Source:

  F503G survey of local education authorities

  National level data are published annually in the Department's Statistical First Releases (SFRs) (SFR 18/ 2001 and SFR 08/2002 for 1999–2000 and 2000–01 respectively). National data for academic year 2001–02 will be available at the end of April 2003.

  The devolved administrations for Scotland and Northern Ireland are responsible for the administration of tuition fees in their countries.

  The level of contribution towards tuition for EU and overseas students is not held centrally.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many and what percentage of English students resident in each government office region were paying(a) full, (b) partial and (c) no tuition fees in (i) 1999–2000 and (ii) 2000–01. [103420]

  Margaret Hodge
  In England and Wales students on full-time undergraduate courses and their families are expected to make a contribution towards the cost of their tuition only if they can afford to do so.

  The percentage of students in England and Wales in academic years 1999–2000 and 2000–01 (latest year for which data are available) who have been assessed to make a full, partial or nil contribution towards the cost of their tuition is shown in the table:

  1 All students (percentage)

  Academic Year

  1999–2000

  22000–01

  Full contribution towards the cost of tuition from student/parents/spouse/partner

  35

  39

  Partial contribution towards the cost of tuition from student/parents/spouse/partner

  20

  19

  Nil contribution towards the cost of tuition from student/parents/spouse/partner

  45

  42

  46W
  1 Contributions towards the cost of tuition are assessed by local education authorities in England and Wales for students normally domiciled in their area and studying in the UK.

  2 2000–01 data are provisional.

  Source: F503G survey of local education authorities

  National level data are published in the Department's Statistical First Releases (SFR 18/2001 and SFR 08/ 2002 for 1999–2000 and 2000–01 respectively). Data are collected from the Local Education Authorities (LEAs) to produce national estimates and the data collection exercise does not allow the production of firm figures below this level, and therefore data by Government Office Region are not available.

  Youth Inclusion Programme Areas
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the rates of(a) truancy and (b) school exclusions were in each of the Youth Inclusion Programme areas in (i) 1999, (ii) 2000, (iii) 2001, and (iv) 2002. [102471]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Aggregated data on exclusions and truancy are collected at school and LEA level. Youth Inclusion Programmes involve specific individuals and not whole schools or areas. Limited data have been kept on the individuals involved, which will be published in the programme's evaluation report covering the first three years of operation and will be available on the Youth Justice Board's website from 28 March.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to introduce legislation to outlaw discrimination against people on the grounds of age. [103254]

  Mr. Browne
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer on 18 March 2003,Official Report, columns 650–51W (96852).

  Care Services (Complaints)
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many complaints have been lodged in relation to(a) nursing and (b) residential homes in Northern Ireland in (i) the public sector and (ii) the private sector in the last three years. [96856]

  Mr. Browne
  There are no nursing homes run by the statutory sector in Northern Ireland. The following table sets out the number of complaints made against residential and nursing homes for the years 1999–2000; 2000–01 and 2001–02, the most recent figures available.

  Total number of complaints

  Number in public sector

  Number in private sector

  Percentage in nursing homes

  Percentage in residential homes

  1999–2000

  234

  18

  216

  82

  18

  2000–01

  222

  25

  197

  83

  17

  2001–02

  195

  4

  191

  81

  19

  Financial Priorities
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what funding has been allocated for the financial year 2003–04 for the(a) Assets Recovery Agency, (b) Organised Crime Task force and (c) Police Ombudsman; and what criteria were used to determine the financial priority given to each organisation. [100675]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Assets Recovery Agency

  The annual budget for the Assets Recovery Agency is allocated by the Home Office. The final budget for 2003–04 is under discussion but will be between £10 million and £15 million. The budget for the Northern Ireland Branch of the ARA is allocated from this at the discretion of the Director The Director has made it clear that the Agency will function as a whole and where a specific case in Northern Ireland demands extra support, this will be provided by staff resources based in London.

  Staff in London will also provide many support services for the branch in Northern Ireland leaving the team free to focus on investigations.

  (b) Organised Crime Task Force

  With the exception of a publicity budget of £50,000 to meet the cost of publishing the annual OCTF Threat Assessment and Strategy Documents and to promote the role of the OCTF and operational successes of partner agencies throughout 2003–04, no specific funding has been allocated to the Organised Crime Task Force. Individual constituent members of the OCTF are responsible for funding their involvement from within their overall organisational budgets. Costs for administrating the OCTF will be met from the overall resources allocated to the Security Policy and Operations Division of the Northern Ireland Office.

  (c) Police Ombudsman

  The Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland has been allocated funding of £7.38 million in the financial year 2003–04.

  In determining the financial priority for the Police Ombudsman's office, the budget allocation for 2003–04 was based on a submission to the N 10 by the Ombudsman in relation to the 2002 Spending Review, which requested appropriate funding to allow the Ombudsman's Office to meet it's statutory duties based on anticipated workload.

  Further Education
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when investigations as part of the Review of Further Education Strategy on the economic contribution of the sector 'Widening social access and student satisfaction' will be completed. [103331]

  Jane Kennedy
  The investigations on the economic contribution of the sector will be completed in April 2003. The exercises on widening access and student satisfaction will be completed in early May.

  Higher Education
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the 48W
  number of 18-year-olds from Northern Ireland going on to higher education (a) in Northern Ireland and (b) in Great Britain since 1 April 1998. [103629]

  Jane Kennedy
  The following table provides details of the number of NI domiciled 18-year-olds enrolled on higher education courses in the UK by location of study and academic year.

  Academic year

  NI institutions

  GB institutions

  1997–98

  4,908

  2,176

  1998–99

  5,052

  2,069

  1999–2000

  5,439

  1,847

  2000–01

  5,704

  1,688

  2001–02

  5,929

  1,684

  Hillsborough Talks
  Stephen Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on talks in the week beginning on 3 March in Hillsborough Castle. [102632]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) on 12 March 2003,Official Report, column 277.

  Hospitality
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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. [99499]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Northern Ireland Office budget for hospitality in 2002–03 and in previous three years inclusive of amounts overspent/unspent is listed as follows:

  2002–03: £362,000

  2001–02: £339,000 (£97,240 not spent)

  2000–01: £273,000 (overspent by £13,442)

  1999–2000: £419,000 (£75,211 not spent).

  The figures for the NIO are inclusive of its agencies, but excluding NDPBs.

  Within the Northern Ireland Administration Departments are not required to establish a separate budget for hospitality. Payments for approved hospitality are generally made from a budget allocated to general administrative expenditure, and in line with the principles and guidelines set out in Government Accounting Northern Ireland (GANI). The information requested is not held in the required format, therefore the information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Industrial Action/Illness
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many working days have been lost in his Department owing to(a) illness and (b) industrial action in each year since 1997–98. [94283]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Sick absence statistics for the Northern Ireland Civil Servants and the Home Civil Servants in the Northern Ireland Office are recorded
  49W
  separately. Figures for Home Civil Servants within the NIO are not available in the required format. The information available is as follows:

  Days sick absence per staff year

  1998

  6.5

  1999

  8.0

  2000

  9.3

  2001

  10.0

  Sick absence statistics for NICS staff in the Northern Ireland Office are analysed by financial year as opposed to calendar year.

  The number of working days lost by NICS staff in the Northern Ireland Office due to illness was 16,394 during 2000–01. Comparable figures are not available for earlier years. The figure for 2001–02 will be available shortly.

  The sick absence statistics for 2001–02 for HCS and NICS staff are to be available in the near future.

  The Northern Ireland Office is committed to managing sickness absence effectively and a range of corporate and departmental initiatives have been and are being taken forward to reduce the current levels of sickness absence.

  No days have been lost in the Northern Ireland Office due to industrial action.

  In the Northern Ireland Administration Departments sick absence statistics are analysed by financial year. The information sought is only readily available for the period 1999–2000 to 2001–02. Published statistics for Northern Ireland Departments for the financial years 2000–01 and 2001–02 are accessible on the Department's website at www.dfpni.gov.u1c/publications.

  The number of working days lost by NI Administration Departments due to illness was as follows:

  Financial year

  Total number of working days lost

  1999–2000

  315,105

  2000–01

  319,790

  2001–02

  335,720

  Due to the reorganisation of Departments following devolution, the 1999–2000 absence details were analysed according to the Department in which staff were employed at the end of the 1999–2000 financial year. As such the year on year comparisons are not entirely comparable.

  The number of working days lost by Northern Ireland Administration Departments due to industrial action was as follows:

  Financial year

  Total number of working days lost

  1997–1998

  1,151½

  1998–1999

  441

  1999–2000

  0

  2000–01

  0

  2001–02

  634½

  50W
  Note:

  The figures are not available for one NI Department (Health, Social Services and Public Safety) as it cannot be disaggregated from other forms of unpaid leave.

  Insurance Premium Increases
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the impact of increased insurance premiums on Northern Ireland's small and medium businesses. [99320]

  Mr. Pearson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to question 99321. Given the extensive survey already conducted by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment into this issue and a recent survey published by the Federation of Small Businesses in Northern Ireland, which shows similar results, a further review is not proposed at this time.

  Link Funding
  Mr. Roy Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much funding has been allocated in each of the last three years to each of the schools and colleges in the Western Education and Library Board for the provision of link courses; why such funding has been withdrawn; and if he will postpone the scrapping of link funding until the common formula for funding schools has been introduced. [103333]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Department of Education (DE) provides no separate funding to schools for the provision of link courses. Pupils on such provision are counted for each school's funding under the Local Management of Schools (LMS) arrangements.

  Schools in the WELB area have been receiving all of their link course provision free while schools in all other ELB areas have paid a fee. The amount paid is a matter for agreement between colleges and schools. The inconsistency has arisen because a separate earmarked fund, resulting from a pre-FE Incorporation WELB initiative for link provision, was provided to colleges in the WELB.

  In addition to this funding the Department for Employment and Learning (DEL) provides funding through the further education funding formula to assist all colleges to provide and develop suitable link courses. The DEL funding is not provided as a substitute or replacement for any element of DE funding and schools should, therefore, meet the appropriate costs of colleges running link courses for their pupils.

  Making separate earmarked funding available to assist schools and colleges in one area of Northern Ireland is inconsistent with the key principle of equity. Consequently, in the interests of commonality and equity, I have decided to make the arrangements for link course provision the same across Northern Ireland and the separate funding for WELB colleges will be withdrawn from September 2003.

  Midwives
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many individuals are(a) eligible to register, (b) registered and (c) practising as midwives. [104041]
  51W
  Mr. Browne
  We do not have statistical information about the number of people in Northern Ireland who have midwifery qualifications but are not currently registered with the Nursing and Midwifery Council. At present there are 1,437 midwives registered with the NMC. As at 30 September 2002 there were 1,249 practising midwives.

  Soccer
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what funding was provided by the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure to the task force which was established for soccer in Northern Ireland. [103174]

  Angela Smith
  The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure (DCAL) provided no funding to the task force which was established as part of the Soccer Strategy initiative. However, between October 2000 and February 2003, DCAL incurred direct costs amounting to £133,600 on the Soccer Strategy process as a whole. This figure includes support services provided by the Department to the task force.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what time was invested by the Department of Culture Arts and Leisure in the soccer strategy. [103173]

  Angela Smith
  It is not possible to quantify the amount of time invested by the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure (DCAL) on the soccer strategy process. However, the soccer strategy is recognised as an important initiative to which DCAL has allocated appropriate resources while also ensuring that sufficient attention continues to be devoted by the Department to its other important sporting priorities.

  Student Debt
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on levels of student debt in Northern Ireland in the last year for which figures are available. [103630]

  Jane Kennedy
  The current average annual amount of student loan borrowed by Northern Ireland students is £2,784. The introduction of non-repayable bursaries of up to £1,500 a year for students from low-income families from September 2002, with a commensurate reduction in the student loan is aimed at reducing the amount of debt which students would accumulate. The maximum bursary is to be increased to £2,000 from September 2003.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the nature and level of the present threat from dissident republican terrorists in border regions of Northern Ireland; and what criteria are employed when(a) closing military bases and (b) ceasing military operations in those areas. [103416]

  Jane Kennedy
  Dissident republicans currently remain a threat to the peace process although most of their activities have been thwarted, intercepted or nullified by the security forces. Dissidents have been 52W
  responsible for two attacks in border areas this year. Their latest attack was on 10 February when a device exploded outside Enniskillen Town Hall. Any decisions on adjustments to the security profile are taken on the advice of the Chief Constable in consultation with the GOC.

  Vehicle Fleets
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the annual rate is at which his Department renews its vehicle fleet, by(a) volume and percentage for each category of vehicle, (b) type of power unit and (c) type of fuel, and what progress has been made in replacing vehicles on a lower emissions basis in each of the last three years. [96552]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  For the Northern Ireland Office the information is not held in the format requested. The following table shows the number of vehicles disposed of or purchased by the Northern Ireland Office during the 2001–02 financial year by category. Figures for Agencies and NDPBs are not included as these are not held centrally.

  Cars

  Other vehicles

  Total number of vehicles at 31 March 2001

  17

  4

  Petrol

  16

  Diesel

  1

  4

  Other

  0

  0

  Total number disposed in 2001–02

  10

  1

  Petrol

  9

  Diesel

  1

  1

  Other

  0

  0

  Total number purchased in 2002–03

  1

  1

  Petrol

  1

  1

  Diesel

  0

  0

  Other

  0

  0

  Total number leased at 31 March 2001

  9

  0

  Petrol

  8

  0

  Diesel

  1

  0

  Other

  0

  0

  Vehicles are selected and purchased on their ability to meet particular needs.

  Consideration will be given to leasing lower emission vehicles for despatch services when they next fall to be changed.

  Within the Northern Ireland Administration the information is not held in the format requested. The following table shows information on the number of vehicles disposed of or purchased by the Northern Ireland Administration during the 2001–02 financial year by category. Figures for Agencies and NDPBs are not included as these are not held centrally.

  Cars

  Other vehicles

  Total number of vehicles at 31 March 2001

  35

  204

  Petrol

  11

  15

  Diesel

  24

  189

  Other

  53W

  Cars

  Other vehicles

  Total number disposed in 2001–02

  Petrol

  2

  4

  Diesel

  8

  Other

  Total number purchased in 2001–02

  Petrol

  13

  Diesel

  2

  20

  Other

  Although the Northern Ireland Administration has no central policy on the replacement of vehicles on a lower emission basis, lowering the level of emissions is an important consideration when replacing the cars.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Child Obesity
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures her Department is taking to reduce the incidence of clinical obesity in children, broken down by type of obesity; and how much her Department has spent on such measures in the last five years. [103854]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government's Game Plan report recommends that participation needs to rise across the population and targets young people as a priority group. The Government plan to invest £459 million over the next three years in PE and sport in schools to increase youth participation and help combat obesity. Over the last five years £150,624,745 has been distributed by Sport England in community revenue Lottery awards targeted at young people. Initiatives to increase physical activity are not broken down by impact on type of obesity.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what grants have been given to Chorley constituency in each of the last five years; and for what purpose. [104072]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Department does not make grants directly and we do not hold central information on other grants given by our non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs).

  According to the information supplied to us by the distributing bodies for the National Lottery awards database, there have been the following awards to the Chorley constituency:

  Calendar Year

  Amount (£)

  Awards

  1997

  41,445.00

  8

  1998

  694,695.00

  6

  1999

  519,928.00

  22

  2000

  655,272.00

  35

  2001

  2,825,727.00

  35

  The grants are used to improve the quality of life for all through cultural and sporting activities, and to champion the creative and leisure industries.

  Youth Sports
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many youth sports teams there were in each of the last 10 years, broken down by(a) age group of team members and (b) sport. [103852]

  Mr. Caborn
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much her Department has spent on support for youth sports(a) teams, (b) training and (c) organisations; and what other expenditure her Department has made on support for youth sports in the last 10 years. [103853]

  Mr. Caborn
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  The Government announced in October 2002 that it was investing £459 million in physical education, school sport and club links in the years 2003–04 to 2005–06 as follows:

  £115 million to maintain and expand the network of specialist sports colleges.

  £224 million to expand the network of school sport co-ordinators (plus £20 million in 2001–02 and 2002–03).

  £12 million to expand the Step into Sport programme (D million in 2002–02).

  £60 million for the Community Club Development programme.

  £10 million for Sporting Playgrounds.

  £28 million for coaching.

  £10 million for club and talent development.

  Sport England has also allocated the following Lottery funding to programmes and projects that specifically benefit young people:

  £75.5 million for Active Sports Programme.

  £24 million for School Sport Co-ordinators.

  £23 million for Awards for All

TRANSPORT

  Radars
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the two new radars for the London zone. [104341]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The additional funding secured earlier this week will allow National Air Traffic Services Ltd. to carry through a major 10-year investment programme that will include the renewal and upgrading of all NATS' radar facilities in the UK.

  Air Safety
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps the Civil Aviation Authority have taken to ensure that(a) aerodrome operators and (b) air traffic service providers have the required expertise and resources to undertake (i) aerodrome safeguarding and (ii) design of instrument approach procedures. [103994]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In preparation for the transfer of responsibility for aerodrome safeguarding, the Civil Aviation Authority has run training and refresher
  55W
  courses for airport operators and their air traffic control providers, and has encouraged them to build up their expertise through active involvement in the safeguarding process. It has published new safeguarding maps, a guidance document, technical advice notes and an information leaflet, and has made its database of safeguarding cases available to the operators. As part of its regulatory function it will conduct periodic audits of the safeguarding procedures and cases at individual airports.

  Air traffic services providers have always performed the safeguarding of facilities and services within their interest (i.e. technical sites) and continue to do so.

  To date the CAA has not taken any formal action to transfer responsibility for the design of instrument approach procedures, other than initiating consultation on a proposal. The recently issued "Regulatory Impact Assessment For The Purpose To Amend The Air Navigation Order 2000 To Permit The Transfer Of Instrument Flight Procedure Design To Industry" outlines a list of potential requirements for third party designers against which the CAA would assess an individual's or an organisation's competence to engage in the task of instrument approach procedure design.

  Award Schemes
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 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. [102062]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Secretary of State sponsors the following awards.

  Local Transport—Centres of Excellence initiative:

  In March 2001, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions designated 16 English local authorities, or groups of local authorities, as Centres of Excellence for Local Transport Planning. This followed a competitive process, in which the Department, with the help of independent experts, assessed bidders on the quality of their Local Transport Plans, their target-setting and monitoring abilities, and their willingness to share experience and good practice with others. All bidders were notified of the results at the same time. In a separate initiative, Cornwall county council was designated a Centre of Excellence for Rural Transport, also in March 2001. There were no additional Centre of Excellence designations during 2001 or 2002. The Department for Transport now has responsibility for both schemes.

  Secure Station Scheme:

  The Secure Stations Scheme was launched in April 1998. The scheme awards Secure Stations status and certification to those stations that reach specified standards in crime management, station design, station management and passenger perceptions. The award is for a two year period, after which the station can apply for reaccreditation. During 2001, 60 stations were awarded either accreditation or reaccreditation; during 2002, the figure was 76. There are currently 170 stations (both mainline and underground) accredited under the Scheme.
  56W
  The Prince Michael International Road Safety Awards:

  The Department is one of many partners ranging from national Governments to consumer and motoring groups involved in Euro New Car Assessment Programme (NCAP). This is an independent organisation that carries out crash tests of new cars and then publishes the results. The test programme is carried out in phases and the results are published by Euro NCAP twice a year. The cars tested are awarded between 1 to 5 stars, indicating the level of crash protection offered.

  The Department contributes to the Prince Michael International Road Safety Awards, run by the Prince Michael Trust. The Department comments on candidates for awards in its capacity as a member of the Prince Michael Road Safety Advisory Board.

  Consultation Exercise
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 24 February 2003,Official Report, column 298W, to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Jon Cruddas), if he will list the bodies being consulted as part of his review of the 1999 SACTRA report on Transport and the Environment. [104653]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No formal review of the SACTRA report has been carried out. The Government accepted many of the recommendations of the SACTRA report as set out in the Government's Response to the SACTRA Report on "Transport and the Economy", May 2000 Cm 4711.

  Crewe-Kidsgrove Rail Route
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the cost of the electrification of the Crewe-Kidsgrove rail route. [104224]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The electrification of the Crewe-Kidsgrove route was included in the Strategic Rail Authority's draft 'West Coast Strategy' consultation document as a possible enhancement element. The Authority's broad estimate is that the overhead line installation and signalling works to allow electric trains to operate would be in the region of £12 million. The final Strategy will be published shortly.

  Dartford Crossing (Tolls)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what projects net tax income from the Dartford crossing on the M25 will be spent in 2003–04. [104614]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Dartford net revenues form part of the funding included in our 10 year transport plan. After actual revenues have been received we shall be able to identify projects which will illustrate the benefits this additional source of funding has helped deliver.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his estimate is of the economic cost of delays which will be occasioned to traffic in 2003–04 by means of having to pay tolls at the Dartford crossing on the M25. [104615]
  57W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The principal cause of delays at the Dartford crossing is the capacity of the crossing and the surrounding network. Research published in August 2001 suggested that use of the Dartford crossing would grow more rapidly if there were no charge to use the crossing. Using 1997 as a base year the forecast was that traffic would be 17.6 per cent. higher in 2003 if there was no charge, compared to the situation if charging was maintained at the same level.

  A significant increase in the level of traffic could have an adverse impact on the local community and users of the crossing in terms of health, the economy and the environment.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the forecast gross toll revenue is from the Dartford crossing on the M25 for 2003–04; and what the forecast cost is of collecting the tolls in 2003–04. [104616]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The forecast gross revenue from road user charging at the Dartford crossing for 2003–04 is approximately £66 million.

  The management fee for 2003–04 to be paid to 'Le Crossing', who have been appointed to operate and maintain the crossing including collection of the user charge, is forecast to be approximately £16 million.

  First Great Western
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with First Great Western over its decision to declare void days regarding compensation because of poor performance. [104028]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None. Under the terms of their Passenger's Charters train operating companies are allowed to declare void days when performance is particularly poor. This results in the holders of monthly or longer duration season tickets, receiving compensation to the value of a day's travel.

  M6
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive the report from the Highways Agency on the proposed improvement of Junction 20 of the M6; and if he will publish the report. [103939]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Secretary of State is currently considering options for the possible improvement of M6 junction 20 and to the A556.

  Railways
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the latest performance figures on the railways, with particular reference to punctuality; and if he will make a statement. [103988]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The figures published by the Strategic Rail Authority on 12 March show that overall performance between October and December 2002 was 58W
  about one percentage point better than for the equivalent period of the previous year. The Strategic Rail Authority is taking tough decisions designed to deliver sustained improvements in performance over time.

  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who the Strategic Rail Authority consulted on its recent decision to cut direct rail services between Liverpool and(a) Stansted Airport and (b) Portsmouth; and when this consultation took place. [104602]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority's decision on the September 2003 timetable changes was made in partnership with Train Operating Companies and Network Rail. The Rail Passenger Committee and Passenger Transport Executive were made aware of the outline proposals before the announcement was made on 24 February.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidance he has received from the Department of Culture, Media and Sport on plans by Network Rail to close the London Paddington to Reading line on the weekend of 22 to 25 August. [103355]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The management of engineering possessions is a matter for Network Rail, overseen by the Rail Regulator. I understand that Network Rail is consulting with relevant parties, including the passenger and freight train operators, Reading council and the organisers of the Reading Festival, regarding any engineering possession of this line over that weekend.

  Scotland
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many times he has visited Scotland on official duties each year since 2000; and what meetings were held on each occasion. [103600]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department was formed on 29 May 2002. Since its formation and up until 31 December 2002 the Secretary of State has carried out official duties on four occasions. He has of course been in Scotland on many other occasions in that time. In accordance with exemptions 2 and 7 of the 'Code of Practice on Access to Government Information', it is not the normal practice of Governments to release details of specific meetings or their content, as some of these discussions may have taken place on a confidential basis.

  Trams
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research his Department is sponsoring into the role of trams in a sustainable transport policy. [104149]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None directly. However, all local public transport schemes, including trams, proposed for Government funding are subject to comprehensive appraisal on criteria which include the likely impact of the scheme on the environment, safety, the economy, accessibility and integration. Evaluation of tram schemes is also carried out after their completion.

TREASURY

  MRSA
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many recorded deaths there were from MRSA virus in each of the last five years for which records are kept. [104349]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Eric Pickles, dated 24 March 2003:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking how many recorded deaths there were from MRSA in each of the last 5 years for which records are kept. (104349)
  Information on deaths from Methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureas (MRSA) is not routinely available but a recent research study published in the British Medical Journal identified the number of death certificates that mentioned MRSA as the underlying cause of death or as a contributory cause for the years 1993–1998. The table below gives figures from the study for the 5 years to 1998.

  Number of deaths where MRSA was mentioned as the underlying or a contributory cause of death, England and Wales, 1994–1998

  Number

  1994

  88

  1995

  187

  1996

  290

  1997

  377

  1998

  398

  The Office for National Statistics is currently in the process of updating this study to cover the period 1999–2001. The results of this analysis will be published later this year.

  Unemployment (Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber)
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the change has been in the level of unemployment in the constituency of Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber since May 1997. [104572]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. David Stewart, dated 24 March 2003:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on what the change has been in the level of unemployment in the constituency of Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber since May 1997.(104572)
  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) compiles statistics of unemployment from surveys following the international standard International Labour Organisation definition. However the survey sample size is too small to provide estimates for the Inverness East Nairn and Lochaber Parliamentary Constituency.
  ONS also compiles statistics of claimants of the Jobseekers Allowance (JSA) benefit for Parliamentary Constituencies.
  In February 2003, there were K543 claimants of Jobseekers Allowance in the Inverness East and Lochaber Parliamentary Constituency compared with 2,403 in May 1997. This represents a reduction of 860 or 36 per cent. The data are not seasonally adjusted.

  Civil Service Travel
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what grades in the Civil Service in his Department are allowed to travel by air(a) first class and (b) business class at public expense when on official duties. [104961]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury meets the cost of business or club class air tickets for staff flying on official business. Staff may travel first class at official expense only with written permission from the Accounting Officer. No distinction is made by grade.

  Computer Misuse
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 10 March (2003),Official Report, column 19W, on computer misuse, how many staff in other agencies of HM Treasury have been (a) dismissed and (b) prosecuted as a result of misuse of its computer systems. [104208]

  Ruth Kelly
  One official in HM Customs and Excise was dismissed for computer misuse in 2001 and three were in 2002. There were three such dismissals from the Office for National Statistics in 2001 and one from the Treasury in 2000. HM Customs and Excise prosecuted one official for computer misuse in 1998 and another in 2002. There were no other dismissals or prosecutions of officials working for the Chancellor's departments and agencies in the period 1998 to 2002.

  Departmental Invoices
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the occasions on which(a) his Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department failed to pay valid invoices within 30 days or after the agreed credit period in the financial year 2001–02. [104326]

  Ruth Kelly
  The bodies for which the Chancellor is responsible have made the following percentages of payments within 30 days or within contractual arrangements: HM Treasury 98.7 per cent.; National Investment and Loans Office 100 per cent.; Department of National Savings 99.6 per cent.; Inland Revenue 98.9 per cent.; HM Customs and Excise 97.38 per cent. and Royal Mint 91 per cent. More detailed information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Website
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total cost of his Department's website was in the last 12 months; and how many hits it received in the same period. [104196]

  Ruth Kelly
  The total cost of the Treasury's website, www.hm-treasury.gov.uk. was £140, 634 for the year ending January 2003. During that period pages from the site were viewed 18 million times.

  Entertainment Expenditure
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [92371]
  61W
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [99511]

  Ruth Kelly
  Expenditure in the years since 1997–98 is as follows:

  £000

  Expenditure

  1997–98

  59

  1998–99

  69

  1999–2000

  99

  2000–01

  141

  2001–02

  100

  2002–031

  115

  1 April to December

  Figures for earlier years were given in the answer by the then Economic Secretary (Helen Liddell) on 18 November 1997, Official Report, column 110W.

  Treasury internal budgets are controlled in respect of organisational units, not in respect of types of spending. Accordingly there are no binding budget figures comparable to these figures for expenditure.

  All expenditure on official entertainment is made in accordance with published departmental guidance on financial procedures and propriety, based on the principles set out in "Government Accounting".

  Euro
  Mr. Andrew Rosindell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the answer of 30 January 2003,Official Report, column 991W, on the euro, (1) what issues have been discussed by Government officials with representatives of (a) Gibraltar and (b) the Isle of Man; [104046]

  (2) which Government officials are responsible for liaison with officials from Jersey; how often meetings occur between Government officials and representatives from Jersey; and whether there are regularly scheduled talks between the two groups. [104047]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 11 February 2002,Official Report, columns 104–05W.

  Financial Sector Green Paper
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 11 March 2003,Official Report, column 133W, on the Financial Sector Green Paper, if he will make a statement on the ongoing work undertaken by his Department to strengthen financial sector resilience. [103968]

  Ruth Kelly
  HM Treasury is working with the Bank of England, the Financial Services Authority and the private sector to help strengthen financial sector resilience. More information on this work can be found at their tripartite website: www.financialsectorcontinuity.gov.uk.

  Financial Services Authority
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to extend the responsibilities of the Financial Services Authority. [103914]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws), on 21 January 2003,Official Report, column 247W.

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many complaints officers posts there were at all grades within the establishment of the Inland Revenue on 1 April on each of the last five years; and what the total annual(a) salary and (b) on-cost was in each year. [104102]

  Dawn Primarolo
  For the year to 31 March 2002, 271 staff in the Inland Revenue's Local and National Services offices were dedicated to complaints work at a salary cost of £5.69 million. Other running costs were approximately £540,000.

  Other parts of the Inland Revenue also have staff whose duties include complaints handling. For the year to 31 March 2002 this resource is estimated to be equivalent to 20 fall time staff at a salary cost of £600,000 and other running costs are estimated at approximately £40,000.

  The Inland Revenue's network of offices was reorganised in April 2001 and responsibilities for dealing with complaints changed accordingly. Comparable figures for earlier years are not available following the fundamental changes in Inland Revenue structures and organisation.

  Low Incomes (Leigh)
  Andy Burnham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in Leigh were earning less than(a) £4.50, (b) £4.85 and (c) £5.00 per hour and the latest date for which figures are available. [104601]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Andy Burnham, dated 24 March 2003:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question about the number of people in the Leigh parliamentary constituency earning less than £4.50. £4.85 and £5.00 per hour. (104601)
  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) calculates estimates of the number of jobs paid below low pay thresholds from £2 to £7 at 10p intervals for the United Kingdom. These data for the years 1998–2002 can be found on the National Statistics website at:
  http://www.statistics.gov.uladownloads/theme_labour/1 Opbands.xls
  Estimates for Parliamentary Constituencies are not available.
  A guide to measuring low pay and associated articles and data can be found on the National Statistics website at:
  http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CC1/nugget.asp?ID = 188&Pos = 44&ColRank = l&Rank = 208

  Pensions
  John Mann
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Financial Services Authority is able to allow
  63W
  pension providers to continue selling new pension policies that are not based on the parameters set by the Statutory Money Purchase Illustration regulations coming into force on 6 April. [103545]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 18 March 2003]A comprehensive FSA regime is already in place to govern the sale of personal pensions.

  The requirement to provide Statutory Money Purchase Illustrations (SMPI's), for holders of existing contracts, will come into effect from 6 April 2003. These will show what personal pension income may be worth in retirement at today's prices. They are designed to help pension savers determine whether they are saving enough for retirement.

  The SMP1 regulations, and the technical memorandum that informs them, will ensure these illustrations are prepared using standard assumptions.

  Following consultation in April 2002, the FSA has made rules to bring its post-retirement assumptions into line with those in SMPI's.

  Saving Gateway
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Saving Gateway scheme. [103913]

  Ruth Kelly
  Pilots for the Saving Gateway, an account designed to provide transparent incentives to save for low-income individuals, were launched in August 2002. The pilots, located in Cambridgeshire, Cumbria, Gorton, Hull and Tower Hamlets, end in February 2005 and have been designed to provide a regular stream of information and data. Further development of the Saving Gateway, including the appropriate level of the match rate and the criteria to be used to determine eligibility, will follow in light of evaluation evidence. A statement on the progress of the pilots will be provided in the Budget.

  Scotland
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many times he has visited Scotland on official duties each year since 2000; and what meetings were held on each occasion. [103624]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Chancellor visited Scotland on official duties twice a year in 2000, 2001 and 2002. He has visited Scotland on official duties once so far this year. It would not be appropriate: to disclose details of the meetings concerned, as provided for under Exemptions 2 and 7 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Second Homes
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate his Department has made of(a) the capital investment made by UK residents in second homes overseas and (b) the number of UK residents who have purchased second homes overseas. [104887]

  Ruth Kelly
  These figures are not available.

  Self-Employment
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what estimate has been made of the number of self-employed workers in the UK in the last five years; and what proportion of workers this represents in each year; [104437]

  (2) what estimate has been made of the number of employees in supermarkets who are self-employed. [104438]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Ms Atherton, dated 24 March 2003:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Questions about total self-employed people and those working in supermarkets.
  The attached table gives the number and percentage of self-employed people in the United Kingdom for the three month period ending January for each of the last five years. These estimates are from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) and are seasonally adjusted.
  Information on the number of self-employed people working in supermarkets is not available.

  Self-employed United Kingdom, seasonally adjusted

  November to January

  Thousand

  Percentage1

  1998–99

  3,144

  11.7

  1999–2000

  3,084

  11.4

  2000–01

  3,064

  11.2

  2001–02

  3,078

  11.2

  2002–03

  3,184

  11.4

  1 Self employed as a percentage of all in employment

  Note:

  These Labour Force Survey (LFS) estimates are Seasonally Adjusted (SA) and have been interim adjusted to take account of the recent Census 2001 results.

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey

  Sustainable Timber Products
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how companies are selected by the Office of Government Commerce for the list of Sustainable Timber Products and Supplier Information; how often the list is updated; how companies who would like to supply such products to Government can be added to the list; and what action will be taken if evidence becomes available that suppliers on this list are dealing in timber from(a) illegal and (b) unsustainable sources. [100577]

  Mr. Boateng
  In line with the Government commitment made in July 2000 following a statement by the Minister of the Environment, the Office of Government Commerce, including OGCbuying.solutions, is actively seeking to ensure that all timber supplied through OGCbuying.solutions contracts is from legal and sustainable sources.

  To that end OGCbuying.solutions publishes on its website a list of 'OGCbuying.solutions Sustainable Furniture and Timber Products'. This provides relevant information on companies that have successfully tendered for inclusion in OGCbuying.solutions

  65W
  framework arrangements. The current list is on its fourth revision and was last updated in January 2003. Revisions and updates are made on a periodic basis given any relevant changes in status.

  The list only includes companies that have successfully tendered for inclusion in OGCbuying.solutions framework arrangements. Companies must tender for inclusion in the framework arrangements through periodic competitions that are advertised in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

  Should evidence become available that any company included in an OGCbuying.solutions framework arrangement has knowingly obtained timber from (a) illegal (b) unsustainable sources they would be removed from the published list.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will answer question 94020, on the working tax credit, tabled on 23 January. [104657]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 20 March 2003,Official Report, column 908W.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the number of claim forms for(a) child tax credit and (b) working tax credit that have been (i) issued and (ii) returned. [104712]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There is a single claim form for these tax credits.

  By 28 February 2003 about 5.5 million claims forms had been issued and over 3 million claims received (including 334,000 on-line).

  Treasury Budgeting Guidance
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what purpose the table Cost of European flights appears in section 3.7 of the current Treasury Budgeting Guidance; and if he will make a statement. [104429]

  Ruth Kelly
  In constructing budgets for Treasury teams, officials need to estimate the costs of official travel. The table is provided to help in that process.

  Treasury Priorities
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the Treasury's strategic priorities are for 2003–04; and if he will make a statement. [104762]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury's strategic priorities for the year ahead are broadly encapsulated within the Department's PSA targets set out on the public website (http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/Spending_Review/spend_sr02/psa/spend_sr02 psahmt.cfm) and recently in the HM Treasury Autumn Performance Report, November 2002 (Cm 5665).

  Treasury Risks
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment the Treasury Management Board has made of the key risks facing HM Treasury. [104764]
  66W
  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury Management Board has identified the key risks facing the Department and has incorporated these into the Treasury's business plan ("Our Priorities for the Year Ahead 2002 to 2003", August 2002). The Management Board review these key risks regularly and periodically undertake wider risk assessment 'horizon scanning'.

  Unemployment (Stoke-on-Trent)
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many unemployed people in Stoke-on-Trent claimed unemployment benefit in each year since 1997. [105000]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. George Stevenson, dated 24 March 2003:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on how many unemployed people in Stoke-on-Trent claimed unemployment benefit in each year since 1997. (105000)
  The table below gives the annual average number of claimants of Jobseeker's Allowance in the Stoke-on-Trent Unitary Authority for the years 1997 to 2002. The data are not seasonally adjusted.

  Year

  Total

  1997

  6,377

  1998

  5,725

  1999

  6,063

  2000

  5,256

  2001

  5,142

  2002

  4,739

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Commonwealth Scholarships Commission
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list appointees on the Commonwealth Scholarships Commission. [103934]

  Clare Short
  The 15 members of the Commonwealth Scholarship Commission are:

  Professor Trudy Harpham (Chair)

  Professor William Hill (Deputy Chair)

  Professor Colin Bundy

  Professor Jang B. Dilawari

  Ms Sharon Huttly

  Professor Maxwell Irvine

  Professor David Johns

  Ms Caren Levy

  Dr. Derek Miles

  Professor John Morgan

  Dr. Hilary Perraton

  Dr. Patricia Richardson

  Professor Timothy Shaw

  Professor Gurharpal Singh

  Professor Martin Snaith

  GM Food
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the extent to which the food needs of developing nations can be met with out using genetically modified food; and if she will make a statement. [103865]

  Clare Short
  There are approximately 800 million hungry people in the world. In May 2001, we published our strategy in the paper "Eliminating Hunger". This outlines our approach for achieving the Millennium Development Goal on hunger to reduce the proportion of hungry people in the world by half by 2015.

  It is important to increase recognition that poverty rather than a country's lack of self sufficiency in food is the principal cause of hunger. The performance of the agricultural sector is however key to improved livelihoods and sustained poverty reduction. Lack of technology is not the sole or major cause of poor productivity in the agricultural sector. In many countries, agricultural productivity has been declining while existing productivity increasing technologies remain unused. A poor policy environment and limited international market opportunities resulting from developed country trade and agricultural policies are significant factors. Improving agriculture's performance will require removing these fundamental policy impediments, in addition to technology and innovation.

  There will always be a need for improved varieties of crops, livestock and fish with characteristics that meet the needs of the poor, and modern biotechnologies and conventional approaches to selection and improvement both have a role to play in developing these. Developing countries must have the opportunity to make their own informed decisions on whether or riot to adopt modern biotechnologies based on an assessment of the risks and benefits from their safe development and use. Developed countries have a responsibility to help developing countries build the capacity to make these choices.

  Iraq
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what representations she has received concerning the continuation of the UN Oil for Food programme during military action in Iraq; [104397]

  (2) what contingency plans her Department has made to provide for the Iraqi people in the event of discontinuation of the UN Oil for Food programme in Iraq; [104398]

  (3) what representations she has received concerning the number of Iraqi people (a) currently dependent on the UN Oil for Food programme and (b) the projected number of people that may be dependent on food aid after military action in Iraq; [104400]

  (4) what representations she has received concerning provision for the Iraqi people in the event of the discontinuation of the UN Oil for Food programme during military action in Iraq. [104399]

  Clare Short
  60 per cent. of the people of Iraq—around 16 million people—are currently totally dependent on the UN Oil for Food Programme (OFF).68W
  We have had many discussions on the continuation of the OFF programme with the UN Secretariat, Security Council members and others. I discussed this with Kofi Annan and his senior officials during my visit to New York on 19 March. Preparations are in hand for a new Security Council Resolution to allow the UN Secretary General to take charge of the Oil for Food (OFF) programme. A draft resolution will be tabled very soon.

  The UK has been in discussion with the UN humanitarian agencies, Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement and international NGOs to determine what resources they require to procure food to cover any temporary gap in the programme. We have committed £20 million to support the contingency preparations of these partners (covering food and other relief). This includes £8 million for the World Food Programme. We have set aside a further £70 million for the immediate humanitarian response and are considering further assistance in line with emerging humanitarian needs.

  DFID also provides 19 per cent. of EC funding for Iraq. The EC has committed 21 million euros to the immediate response, and the UK will support the Commission's request to the budgetary authorities for additional humanitarian assistance to Iraq.

  The current mandate for OFF runs until 3 June 2003. It is too early to plan in detail what might happen beyond that date.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress the Government have made with the US Administration over a co-ordination of response to the humanitarian relief effort in the event of a major new humanitarian emergency in the area of the Gulf where their military forces are co-operating. [103857]

  Clare Short
  DFID has been liaising with the UN and the US over the last few months to try to ensure that humanitarian considerations are fully taken into account in both the planning of military action and to ensure that humanitarian relief is available throughout the crisis and plans for reconstruction in place. I visited the UN, US Administration, IMF and World Bank on 19 and 20 March to help take this forward.

  The immediate responsibility for humanitarian relief lies with the military and both the UK and the US have made preparation. The UN is ready to take forward its humanitarian operations as soon as this is possible. DFID has provided funding to the UN and relevant NGO's to enable them to make preparations. A flash appeal for funds will issue from the UN shortly. Work is also in hand to provide authority to the Secretary General to put in place an Iraqi transitional government so that the international community can come together to support reconstruction. Both the IMF and the World Bank are prepared to engage but need a legally competent government in place.

  There is urgent need for a UN resolution to enable the Secretary General to keep the Oil for Food programme going. This provides $10 billion worth of relief annually. Work is in hand to secure such a resolution.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment has been made of the numbers of Iraqi civilians who would face
  69W
  hunger and disease in the event of a breakdown of water supplies and food rations lasting longer than seven days. [103947]

  Clare Short
  There are a number of possible humanitarian scenarios. The UN is currently planning on a 'medium case' scenario. This assumes severe disruption to critical infrastructure and the Iraqi Government's capacity to deliver basic food and relief. Shortages of fuel and power could shut down water and sewage treatment plants. Up to half the population could be without access to potable water and up to 10 million people may require food assistance during and immediately after conflict.

  We have been fully engaged in recent months in trying to get the international community to face the humanitarian risks of military action in Iraq, and to make preparations. There has been close collaboration between DFID and the Ministry of Defence to minimise the humanitarian impact of any conflict. A key aim is to minimise damage to the infrastructure on which the Oil for Food distribution network depends, in order that it can be re-established as quickly as possible after any conflict. This is the key to the avoidance of a humanitarian crisis.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the arrangements in place to maintain distribution of food within Iraq under the Oil-for-Food Programme in the circumstances of a military attack on Iraq. [104008]

  Clare Short
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) earlier today (PQ numbers 104397, 104398, 104400 and 104399).

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to her written statement of 13 March 2003,Official Report, column 21WS, on humanitarian contingency planning for Iraq, what the optimistic assumptions referred to are. [103875]

  Clare Short
  The optimistic view is that military action will be short with very limited casualties and that the regime will crumble quickly, the Oil for Food programme will be quickly reinstated, UN authority put in place to install an Iraqi Government and the international community work together to support the Iraqi people in reconstructing their country. Progress in implementing the route map to Palestinian statehood would be taken forward at the same time that following military conflict in Iraq, UN agencies will be able to follow quickly behind advancing coalition troops to start addressing the humanitarian needs previously met by the Oil for Food programme, and new needs caused by conflict.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Unemployment
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many citizens of the European Union were out of work on average last year. [101605]
  70W
  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 7 March 2003]I have been asked to reply.

  At the end of 2002, the number of unemployed people in the European Union, according to the International Labour Organisation (ILO) definition, was 13.8 million. Around 77 million working-age people were estimated to be 'inactive' in the EU labour market. Excluding the 15 to 19-year-old age group, many of whom are in education or training, the number of Inactive' working-age people was 53 million.

  Biological Research Centres
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how many applicants at biological research centres in(a) postgraduate institutes and (b) commercial laboratories and research facilities have been vetted under the voluntary security scheme and any other scheme in (i) the past five years and (ii) the past two years; how many were refused; and if he will make a statement; [85024]

  (2) which UK postgraduate institutions whose work includes biological research comply with the voluntary arrangements for security vetting of applications by scientists seeking work and studies in such institutions; what percentage of them this represents; and which do not; [85023]

  (3) if the voluntary arrangements for security vetting applications by scientists seeking work and studies in the field of biological research in postgraduate institutions apply equally to (a) NHS facilities and (b) all categories of scientific, medical, paramedical and ancillary staff; [85022]

  (4) what the countries of origin were of scientists who had their applications for work or study in biological research rejected on grounds of security in the past five years. [85025]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I will write to my hon. Friend separately on this issue.

  British Detainees (Guantanamo Bay)
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements are in place for(a) consular and (b) Red Cross visits to British detainees held on Guantanamo Bay. [102679]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  As Guantanamo Bay is outside a recognised consular district, the US does not consider that we are entitled to formal consular access there. However, British officials have visited on four occasions to check on the welfare of the British nationals and ask questions relating to National Security. We were the first country to visit its nationals.

  We understand that the International Committee of the Red Cross no longer maintain a permanent presence at Guantanamo Bay, however they visit there approximately every six months for an extended period of up to three months the committee has confidential access to the detainees there. We understand that it can raise issues of concern, if necessary, with the camp authorities.

  Consul General (Dubai)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason the Consul General in Dubai was replaced in November 1999; and what involvement his successor has had in making representations on behalf of George Atkinson. [99939]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  It is not our practice to divulge reasons for senior staff movements. His successor has been involved in George Atkinson's case from his arrival. Consular staff in Dubai and London are continuing to offer George Atkinson all the consular assistance they properly can.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussion she proposes to have with Mr. Denktash of Northern Cyprus on his views as to restarting discussions towards future negotiations on Cyprus. [103799]

  Mr. MacShane
  None.

  Departmental Catering Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the cost was of(a) in-house canteen and (b) other catering services provided by the Department in 2002. [104264]

  Mr. Rammell
  In house catering services are provided by an external contractor. Staff pay for their own refreshments, although the FCO provides a subsidy to the contractor. The cost to the FCO for the provision of the subsidy in 2002 was £173,958.39 + VAT.

  The information requested in part (b) of the question is not centrally maintained and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Iraq
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Government have agreed protocols for assistance by UK forces of UN agencies in the co-ordination of new relief efforts in the Gulf. [103946]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  During the period of military conflict it is unlikely that conditions will allow UN agencies to operate. We hope that as soon as the security environment permits UN agencies will commence work in Iraq.

  Our forces are experienced in operating with UN agencies and will seek to establish close and effective contact with any UN agencies they may be in contact with.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the steps taken to authenticate the documentation passed to the UN weapons inspectors referred to by Dr. M. El Baradei at the UN Security Council on 7 March 2003, claiming that Iraq had attempted to buy uranium from Niger and elsewhere. [103807]
  72W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We understand that the IAEA acquired documents—some of which were forgeries. I am told these were not from UK sources. We can remain confident the statement in the Government's Dossier on Iraqi WMD that Iraq sought the supply of significant uranium from Africa.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the impact of Shia fighters from Iran invading Iraq on the military situation on the border between Iraq and Iran. [104608]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We continually assess all aspects of the military situation in Iraq. In this context, we welcome Iranian Government assurances that, in accordance with Iran's neutrality, it is not their intention that their troops will enter Iraq. We will continue to monitor the situation and keep in contact with the Iranians.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Iran on the situation in Iraq. [104609]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We maintain regular contact with the Iranian authorities over the situation in Iraq, both at ministerial level and through our respective embassies. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary most recently discussed the situation with the Iranian Foreign Minister, Dr. Khamal Kharrazi, by telephone on 20 March.

  Malcolm Rennie and Brian Peters
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) when he next plans to discuss with the(a) Indonesian and (b) Australian Governments the deaths of Malcolm Rennie and Brian Peters; [103923]

  (2) whether the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Indonesian and East Timor papers from 1975–76 released in late 2002 represent all the Indonesian and East Timor papers held by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; [103966]

  (3) how many diplomatic written communications were sent or transmitted (a) by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the British Embassy in Jakarta and (b) by the British embassy in Jakarta to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in (i) 1975 and (ii) 1976 concerning Indonesia and East Timor; [103965]

  (4) what recent discussions he has had with UN officials concerning the UN investigation into the deaths of Malcolm Rennie and Brian Peters; [103962]

  (5) if he will make a statement on the (a) Foreign and Commonwealth Office telegram of 28 October 1975 and (b) Foreign and Commonwealth Office telegram number 394 of 24 October 1975 sent from the British embassy in Jakarta to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on the deaths of Malcolm Rennie and Brian Peters; [103964]

  (6) when the UK Government first made representations to the Indonesian Government about the deaths of Malcolm Rennie and Brian Peters. [103963]
  73W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have no plans at present to discuss the deaths of Brian Peters and Malcolm Rennie with the Indonesian and Australian Governments.

  The Permanent Under Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office discussed the UN investigation into the Balibo murders with the UN Special Representative of the Secretary General (SRSG) to East Timor in November 2002. The SRSG explained that the investigation is unable to proceed until the Indonesian Government permits the interviewing of Indonesian witnesses. I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 25 February 2003, Official Report, column 434W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), for details of when we last raised this matter with the Indonesian authorities.

  The FCO papers from 1975–76, released in November 2002, show that the Australian Government led on this issue as all five journalists were based in Australia and were working for Australian TV stations at the time of their deaths. The Australian Government raised the case with Indonesia but their attempts to obtain clarification had only limited success.

  We are unable to provide details of when the British government first made representations to the Indonesian government about the deaths of Malcolm Rennie and Brian Peters. There would be disproportionate costs involved in researching the answer, as we would have to look through around 25 years' of files, and if, as is possible, the relevant papers were put on a consular file, these files would have been destroyed seven years after the last action they record.

  The FCO has released all its files from 1975–76 relevant to the Balibo murders. No papers were withheld from the files that were released, but minor deletions were made to a few documents in accordance with Sections 3(4) and 5(1) of the Public Record Acts. The hon. Member may wish to consult the files at the Public Record Office. I do not wish at this stage to comment on the decisions made by the then Government on their handling of the Balibo murders.

  North Korea
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with United States, European and Asian counterparts on North Korea in the last month. [104683]

  Mr. Rammell
  During this period, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has regularly discussed North Korea with his counterparts in the United States, the European Union and with colleagues in the UN Security Council. I have also held discussions with the President of the Republic of Korea, and with counterparts from the United States, Japan, China, Russia and Australia. We have argued for a consistent message from the international community calling on North Korea to commit itself fully to international non-proliferation agreements, and to respond to the invitation to discuss in a multilateral forum the security concerns it has raised.

  Torture
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he takes to combat torture; and what plans he has to change the means of combating torture. [104328]

  Mr. Rammell
  International action against torture is a priority for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. An anti-torture initiative to tackle torture throughout the world was launched in October 1998. Phase three of the initiative was launched on 26 June 2002. As part of this initiative, which included diplomatic activity, support for regional organisations and practical projects, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office launched two rounds of worldwide lobbying for the universal ratification of the UN Convention against Torture. Since we began lobbying 25 states have ratified. We plan to launch a third round of lobbying this year focusing on implementation of obligations as well as ratification. Last year the UK Government also undertook a widespread lobbying campaign to support the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture. We believe the Protocol offers the best means available to establish an effective international mechanism to combat torture through mandatory visits by national and international independent monitoring committees to places of detention in signatory states. The Optional Protocol was adopted at the UN General Assembly in December 2002. The UK Government are now working to secure early ratification.

  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office continually updates its strategies for combating torture. This year an expert panel on torture prevention was set up to consolidate the work of the past four years and to advise on future strategy.

  UN Resolutions
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what United Nations resolutions have been passed on(a) Iraq and (b) Israel since August 1990; and if he will make a statement on their respective implementation. [100074]

  Mr. Rammell
  Information about United Nations resolutions passed on Iraq and Israel since August 1990 can be found on the UN website at: www.un.org.

  Full and active Iraqi co-operation with UNMOVIC and the IAEA is essential to implementation of UNSCR 1441 and previous relevant resolutions.

  We continue to support all efforts to resume the Middle East Peace Process, including through the work of the Quartet, of which the UN is a member.

SCOTLAND

  Firefighters' Dispute
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many meetings of the civil contingencies committee she has attended since the start of the firefighters dispute. [104603]
  75W
  Mrs. Liddell
  It is not Government practice to provide details of the frequency of these meetings or personnel attending. However either myself or officials of my Department have been regular attendees.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when, since 1 January, she has had discussions with the First Minister of Scotland; and what the minuted agenda subject matter discussions were with respect to each meeting. [104606]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I meet the First Minister both formally and informally regularly and last did so formally on 10 February. Our discussions cover a wide range of important and topical issues. Under exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information the agenda, subject matter and discussion are confidential.

  Pre-Budget Report
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when seminars she has established or plans to establish with key industry figures in Scotland as part of the pre-Budget report will take place; whom she will be meeting on each date; and which Scottish Executive Ministers will be in attendance on each date. [104607]

  Mrs. Liddell
  On 2 December 2002 I held seminars with representatives of Scottish business and with the Scottish Trades Union Council to discuss the Chancellor's pre-Budget report. On 24 February my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and I jointly hosted a further seminar to discuss macro-economic policy and the Chancellor's pre-Budget report with representatives of Scottish business and trade unions. Scottish Executive officials were present at all these events.

  These seminars are elements within a continuing programme of contact and dialogue, which I undertake with key stakeholders in the Scottish economy to ensure that the Government's economic policy takes account of Scottish interests and concerns.

  Scotch Whisky
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans she has to discuss with the Chancellor of the Exchequer representations she has received for a cut in excise duty on whisky. [104604]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have regular discussions with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequor on a range of matters of importance to Scotland. I have drawn the attention of my right hon. Friend to the views of the whisky and spirits producers on excise duty rates on their products.

CABINET

  Civil Defence
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the budget is for civil defence in(a) East Sussex and (b) Eastbourne in 2003. [103912]
  76W
  Mr. Alexander
  Central Government provide funds for local authority emergency planning in England and Wales in the form of Civil Defence Grant. This is allocated to those authorities with a statutory duty for Civil Defence (all-purpose local authorities, county councils, Fire and Civil Defence Authorities and London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority) to enable them to carry out their emergency planning functions.

  East Sussex County Council has been allocated £208,288 for 2003–04. As a shire district with no statutory duty for Civil Defence, Eastbourne Borough Council does not receive any direct funding from central Government.

  The Civil Defence Grant is just part of central Government funding for planning for and responding to emergencies. Central Government provide substantial funds to other local responders, including the emergency services and health authorities.

  Local authorities often supplement the central Government contribution from their general funds, recognising the importance of civil protection in their community. I understand that East Sussex County Council has budgeted to spend an additional £45,000 from their own general funds in 2003–04 and Eastbourne Borough Council £11,000.

  Departmental Telephone Directory
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office 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. [102025]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Cabinet Office internal telephone directory is held in an electronic form on the Department's Intranet and it is regularly updated. A printed copy has not been published since August 1999 and could now be provided only at disproportionate cost.

HEALTH

  Ambulance Trusts
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many Ambulance Trusts have submitted statistics to the Government about the length of time spent waiting at accident and emergency departments; and if he will publish those. [100159]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 4 March 2003]The information requested is not available centrally.

  Asthma
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many practice nurses are trained in asthma management(a) in Warrington and (b) in the north-west region; and how many trained nurses per head of population each figure represents; [102662]

  (2) how much Warrington Primary Care Trust will spend in 2002–03 on asthma care. [102660]
  77W
  Jacqui Smith
  During 2002–03, Warrington Primary Care Trust provided £100,000 in respect of the rapid respiratory team. The PCT also invests in drugs for the care and treatment of asthma. These drugs are also used for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and as such it is not possible to separate the drug costs for asthma from COPD. In addition, there will also be costs associated with hospital admissions, out-patient attendance and the asthma clinics which are organised by all general practitioner practices in Warrington. However, a breakdown of these costs is not available.

  Data for the number of practice nurses trained in asthma management for the north-west area are not held centrally. A survey was undertaken by Warrington PCT in December 2002. 22 practices, or 73 per cent. responded and confirmed that between them there were 30 asthma trained nurses. This represents 0.15 nurses per 1,000 total population for the Warrington area based on the Warrington PCT December 2002 survey.

  Source:

  Warrington Primary Care Trust.

  Long-term Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the conclusion of the NHS Ombudsman relating to the single assessment process (SAP) in the report "NHS funding for long-term care" that the associated guidance does not suggest whether or how the SAP could provide a basis for, or contribute to, the assessment of eligibility for continuing NHS care. [103150]

  Jacqui Smith
  Guidance on the single assessment process already states that comprehensive assessments should be completed for people where the level of support and treatment likely to be offered is intensive or prolonged. We have indicated that, prior to the issue of a section 2 notice (notice from the national health service to say that a patient requires social services on discharge from hospital), the NHS must carry out an assessment, informed by the single assessment process for fully funded NHS continuing care.

  Pharmacies
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many pharmacies dispense methadone to drug addicts; and how many of these are independent pharmacies. [104442]

  Mr. Lammy
  Pharmacies which are included on the pharmaceutical lists of primary care trusts are required by their terms of service to dispense any medicines which are prescribed on a national health service prescription form. That includes dispensing methadone to drug addicts. At 31 March 2002 there were 9,756 such pharmacies, of which 4,666 were neither in health centres nor in chains of more than five pharmacies.

  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of additional costs in terms of general practitioner practice time arising from the report by the Office of Fair Trading on pharmacies. [104445]

  Mr. Lammy
  We are committed to expanding the role and services community pharmacists offer through, for example, closer working with other primary healthcare 78W
  professionals including general practitioners. We are carefully considering the impact the Office of Fair Trading's recommendation would have on these objectives and other healthcare professionals in order to inform the Government's response.

  Renal Units
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans there are to establish new renal units in 2003; how many new renal units have been established since 1997; how many renal units providing dialysis there are; and how many adults(a) received and (b) required dialysis in 2002. [103485]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 20 March 2003]In England, we are supporting an expansion of renal dialysis capacity, including the development of new satellite renal units, to address the increasing prevalence of established renal failure and to improve patient access to local services.

  The latest information on renal services is from the 1998 renal survey. It shows there were 52 main renal units and 73 satellite units in England, dialysing a total of 13,405 patients. A further survey has been commissioned and the results of this will be available next year. Every patient with established renal failure who will benefit from kidney dialysis should receive treatment.

  Scoliosis
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision has been made for treatment of children with scoliosis. [103817]

  Jacqui Smith
  A range of services for the treatment of scoliosis is available across the country and spinal corrective surgery for children is undertaken at over 40 hospitals. A need to consider the organisation and disposition of resources necessary for treatment has been recognised and this is being taken forward by a project board, which is currently reviewing provision.

  Smoke-free Public Places
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the British Medical Association's report, "Towards Smoke-free Public Places". [93685]

  Ms Blears
  We welcome the report which provides a clear and helpful assessment of the issues involved in dealing with environmental tobacco smoke.

  We want to work with businesses and others to achieve real change, highlighting and building on best practice. We want to build on the work already undertaken under the Public Places Charter and are funding local tobacco control alliances to work with local employers to tackle passive smoking.

PRIME MINISTER

  Environmental Policies
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the ability of the present
  79W
  structure of Government Departments, and allocation of responsibilities, to deliver sound environmental policies across Government. [104555]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 8 January 2003,Official Report, columns 268–69W.

  Iraq
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to the answer of 19 March 2003,Official Report, column 785W, on Iraq, in which column in the debate on 18 March 2003, the answer is to the second and third parts of the question. [105029]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer of 18 March 2003,Official Report, column 768, and the answer I gave the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith) today.

  Master of the Queen's Music
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the procedure for announcing the appointment of the Master of the Queen's Music. [104394]

  The Prime Minister
  The appointment of the Master of The Queen's Music is a Royal Household appointment.

  Meetings (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Prime Minister how many meetings he has had with representatives of(a) the DUP, (b) the UUP, (c) the SDLP and (d) Sinn Fein since 13 January. [104644]
  80W
  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 19 March 2003,Official Report, column 785W.

  Nuclear Weapons Technology and Capacity
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the countries and groups, to which he referred pursuant to his oral statement of 18 March 2003,Official Report, column 768, on Iraq, which are trading in nuclear weapons technology and capacity. [104223]

  The Prime Minister
  We have consistently said publicly that we have serious concerns about the proliferation activities of a number of countries. Much of the information on which such concerns are based comes from intelligence reporting.

  It is not Government policy to comment in detail on intelligence matters.

  Thames Gateway (Ministerial Committee)
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the(a) dates, (b) name of the chair, (c) composition and (d) items on the agenda of each meeting of the ministerial committee on the Thames Gateway since it first met. [104221]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the Written Ministerial Statement I made on 6 February 2003,Official Report, column 19WS. It is established practice under exemption two of Part 11 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information not to disclose information relating to the proceedings of Cabinet Committees.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Owner Occupation
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what percentage of over-60 households were owner occupiers in(a) 1997, (b) 2001 and (c) 2002, broken down by region of the UK. [103423]

  Mr. McNulty
  The information requested is in the following table.

  Proportion of households with head aged 60 or over who are owner occupiers by Government Office Region and country

  Percentage

  Government Office Region and Country

  1997

  2001

  2002

  North East

  57

  59

  61

  North West

  66

  72

  72

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  63

  65

  65

  East Midlands

  68

  72

  71

  West Midlands

  68

  71

  72

  East

  68

  74

  73

  London

  60

  63

  65

  South East

  73

  76

  78

  South West

  74

  77

  79

  England

  67

  71

  72

  Wales

  71

  74

  74

  Scotland

  52

  58

  62

  Northern Ireland

  63

  70

  69

  United Kingdom

  66

  70

  71

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey:

  Great Britain—Office for National Statistics

  Northern Ireland—Department of Enterprise Trade and Investment

  Policy Action Teams
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many policy action teams reports have been(a) published, (b) implemented and (c) reviewed since 1997. [104893]

  Mrs. Roche
  18 Policy Action Team Reports were published in 1999 followed by a major review, National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal: Policy Action Team Audit, in January 2001. These documents can be found at: www.socialexclusionunit.gov.uk. The reports are currently being further reviewed by the Neighbourhood Renewal Unit to ensure progress has been made on the agreed recommendations that they contained.

  Awards
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister(a) how many awards were made in the last financial year and (b) what their administrative costs were for the (i) New Deal for Communities Grant programme, (ii) Community Chest Grant programme, (iii) Tenant Participation Grant programme, (iv) Rough Sleepers Grant programme and (v) Special Grants programme. [99945]

  Mrs. Roche
  The information is as follows:

  New Deal for Communities (NDC):

  There are 39 New Deal for Communities (NDC) Partnerships, who each received NDC grant in 2001–02. The 39 NDC Partnerships spent £65.3 million on projects. They spent £17.3 million on their management
  82W
  and administration. Spending on management and administration costs is likely to be higher in the early stages of the programme, but over the 10-year lifetime of the NDC Programme each NDC Partnership is allowed to spend 10 per cent. of its overall grant on management and administration.

  Community Chest:

  Neighbourhood Renewal Community Chest Awards and Administrative Costs for the last Financial Year.

  GO

  Awards made

  Admin costs (£)

  Spent on awards (£)

  East

  16

  6,491

  43,625

  East Midlands

  126

  31,225

  322,088

  London

  613

  193,353

  1,140,200

  North East

  389

  107,030

  981,149

  North West

  535

  86,189

  1,188,887

  South East

  60

  39,653

  281,267

  South West

  52

  12,194

  105,857

  West Midlands

  180

  110,735

  1,107,346

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  203

  63,585

  543,312

  Total

  2,174

  539,720

  4,713,731

  A number of these figures are estimates

  Tenant Participation, Grant:

  In 2001–02 515 Tenant Participation Grant Awards were made with admin costs of £1.617 million. These are the best estimates. Admin costs include an element for ODPM costs.

  Rough Sleepers Grant programme:

  In 2001–02 the RSU made 487 grant awards. The total administrative cost of running the Unit in that year was £1.33 million.

  Special Grants Programme:

  Special Grants Programme (SGP) funding totalled £1.7 million in 2001–02 with 40 individual grants awarded. Costs for the management and administration of the SGP were approximately £40,000.

  Commercial Leases
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will introduce legislation to outlaw private clauses in commercial leases; and if he will make a statement. [103223]

  Mr. McNulty
  In the early 1990s, there was considerable concern about the use of confidentiality clauses in commercial leases. However, the University of Reading 2000 report for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on leasing flexibility found that use of confidentiality clauses in commercial leases was rare.

  Banning confidentiality clauses in commercial leases would be a serious interference with freedom of contract, which the Government would not undertake lightly. Nevertheless the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister would be concerned at any re-emergence of this practice, under which landlords concealed concessionary terms given to tenants from the general market in order to sustain unrealistically high rents.

  The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors have issued guidance to surveyors that parties to commercial leases should avoid unnecessary secrecy in their transactions, in the interests of market transparency. In

  83W
  the first instance the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister would look to the professional bodies to discourage the use of confidentiality clauses.

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what research he is conducting into the effectiveness of Government guidance on upward-only rents for commercial premises; and if he will make a statement. [103224]

  Mr. McNulty
  The property industry's 2002 Code of Practice for Commercial Leases in England and Wales commits landlords and their funders to provide a choice of leasing terms whenever possible, including alternatives to upwards only rent review clauses.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister awarded a contract last July to the University of Reading to gauge the impact of the Code. This will help the ODPM to assess, at the end of a two-year period, whether to continue relying on voluntary measures to produce more choice and flexibility in the property market or to introduce legislative controls.

  The university will assess, over a two-year period, whether the Code has provided a more flexible commercial property market. The contract requires the university to submit a final report by 31 December 2004 with an interim report by 31 December 2003. The specific objectives of the research are:

  (a) to evaluate changes in commercial property market conditions over the review period (April 2002–April 2004);

  (b) to measure flexibility in the commercial property leasing market over the review period, using the findings of the University of Reading report on the 1995 Code of Practice* as a baseline;

  (c) to measure the degree of choice in the commercial property leasing market over the review period, focusing particularly on the availability of alternative options to upward only rent reviews;

  (d) to measure the degree of awareness of property matters among occupiers of commercial property, concentrating particularly on small businesses; and

  (e) to assess how far the 2002 Code of Practice had influenced the commercial property leasing market over the review period.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has made it clear that if the research shows there are no signs of change, legislation will be on the agenda.

  * Monitoring the Code of Practice for Commercial Leases (2 vols), The University of Reading in association with Sanderson Townend and Vail Williams Chartered Surveyors, for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, London, April 2000, 36.

  Communities Plan
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will place in the Library the environmental constraint maps for each zone of change in the Communities Plan. [103289]

  Mr. McNulty
  Major growth in the four growth areas identified in regional planning guidance for London and the rest of the South East will be planned in partnership with local authorities and other stakeholders. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has arranged for copies of the growth studies for the three newer growth areas to be placed in the Library of the House. In the Thames Gateway work on environmental constraints is under way in conjunction with the Environment Agency. Consideration will be given to its publication when the work is further advanced.

  Entertainment
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the estimate is of the total spending of his Department in all forms of entertainment in each year from 1994–95 to 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [92413]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was created on 29 May 2002. From 1 June 2002 to 31 January 2003, Ministers and the Permanent Secretary and their Private Offices spent an estimated £3,350 on entertainment, working lunches, dinners and awaydays with stakeholders.

  All expenditure on official entertainment is made in accordance with published departmental guidance on financial procedures and propriety, based on the principles set out in "Government Accounting".

  Home Ownership
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what schemes his Department is promoting to help council tenants move into home ownership; [103264]

  (2) what plans he has to encourage tenants of registered social landlords to move into home ownership. [103265]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government continue to support a number of schemes which help both local authority and housing association tenants to purchase their social rented home or which free up social housing for re-letting to others in housing need by assisting tenants to buy an alternative home. These are described as follows:As announced in "Sustainable Communities: building for the future" on 5 February, the Housing Corporation is heading a Task Force to look at all the programmes that support sustainable home ownership. An announcement on the Task Force and the terms of reference is being made today.
  Existing schemes include the Right to Buy which enables secure tenants of local authorities to purchase their rented home with a discount. Secure tenants who have transferred with their homes from local authorities to housing associations have a 'preserved' Right to Buy.
  Eligible housing association tenants of properties built or acquired with public funds since 1 April 1997 may purchase their rented home with a discount through the Right to Acquire scheme.
  Some housing associations offer the voluntary purchase grant scheme. This enables tenants of older housing association properties to purchase their home with a discount at the discretion of their landlord.
  In addition, tenants of both local authorities and housing associations can benefit from the Homebuy equity loan and shared ownership (part buy/part rent) schemes. Both schemes are offered by housing associations and funded by the Housing Corporation, although local authorities do fund a few of these schemes.
  Cash Incentive Schemes are currently operated by some local housing authorities so they can give grants to their tenants to assist them in buying a property in the private sector. These schemes have the effect of releasing local authority accommodation for letting to those in housing need.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the regional bodies which have the power to precept on local authority council taxpayers, indicating
  85W
  (a) which have a national power and (b) where they have specifically local powers; and to which areas they apply. [102172]

  Mr. Leslie
  There are no bodies that can issue precepts on local authority council taxpayers nationwide.

  County councils issue precepts which are met by council taxpayers in those counties. The Greater London Authority has power to issue a precept which is met by council taxpayers in Greater London.

  All English Police Authorities (except the Metropolitan Police Authority) and Metropolitan County Fire and Civil Defence Authorities have powers to issue precepts which are met by taxpayers in the districts within their areas.

  There are also a large number of bodies which have the power to issue levies or special levies to local authorities within their areas. The most important are:
  The Environment Agency (which levies county, metropolitan district and London borough councils and the Common Council of the City of London, if any part of their areas is comprised in a local flood defence district);
  Passenger Transport Authorities which levy district councils in the former metropolitan counties;
  Waste Authorities which levy councils in parts of Greater London, Merseyside and Greater Manchester;
  The London Pensions Fund Authority which levies London borough councils and the Common Council of the City of London;
  National Park Authorities, which levy county and district councils, the whole or part of whose areas fall within a National Park;
  The Broads Authority, which levies district and county councils in Norfolk and Suffolk;

  Statutory homeless households

  In accommodation arranged by local authorities under homeless legislation—31 December 2002

  All homeless households

  Homeless households with dependent children

  Households on the Housing Register 1 April 2002

  Number accepted as eligible, homeless and in priority need September to December 2002

  All types of temporary accommodation

  Bed and breakfast accommodation only

  All types of temporary accommodation

  Bed and breakfast accommodation only

  Barking and Dagenham

  2,668

  159

  736

  72

  67

  45

  Barnet

  7,030

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Bexley

  3,487

  123

  230

  31

  150

  22

  Brent

  14,746

  253

  3,498

  498

  3,119

  341

  Bromley

  3,592

  208

  516

  196

  1—

  117

  Camden

  8,147

  327

  1,901

  218

  1,267

  85

  City of London

  623

  11

  32

  11

  24

  3

  Croydon

  6,890

  260

  3,263

  432

  2,521

  241

  Ealing

  8,289

  259

  1,979

  651

  1—

  516

  Enfield

  7,264

  233

  2,483

  179

  2,223

  83

  Greenwich

  6,876

  263

  268

  0

  1—

  1—

  Hackney

  8,930

  296

  2,285

  193

  1—

  1—

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  6,044

  219

  1,600

  610

  1,198

  307

  Haringey

  12,585

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Harrow

  3,992

  93

  1,624

  51

  1,386

  20

  Havering

  1,888

  49

  314

  0

  221

  0

  Hillingdon

  6,041

  153

  1,845

  451

  1,352

  209

  Hounslow

  6,369

  156

  1,086

  319

  1—

  111

  Islington

  8,161

  355

  1,364

  94

  895

  25

  Kensington and Chelsea

  8,294

  94

  968

  280

  1—

  1—

  Kingston upon Thames

  3,971

  96

  715

  9

  39

  0

  Lambeth

  14,228

  434

  2,021

  543

  1,285

  193

  Lewisham

  15,368

  193

  1,243

  0

  1—

  0

  86W

  The Lea Valley Regional Park Authority which levies London borough councils, Essex and Hertfordshire county councils, Thurrock council and the Common Council of the City of London;
  Internal Drainage Boards which can issue special levies to billing authorities, all or part of whose areas fall within the internal drainage districts for which the Boards are responsible (which are such areas within the areas of the regional flood defence committees as will derive benefit, or avoid danger, as a result of drainage operations).

  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proposals he has to create lower council tax bands for residents of park homes. [104436]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is aware of the concerns about the current width of band A from people who live in lower value dwellings like park homes. We have announced we will have a council tax revaluation in England in 2007 based on 1 April 2005 values and ahead of that we will listen to the views of local government and taxpayers about council tax bands. We will decide on any changes to the banding structure nearer to the time of the revaluation.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many families are(a) in housing need, (b) in bed and breakfast hotels and (c) homeless, broken down by London borough. [103369]

  Mr. McNulty
  Local authorities in England report the numbers of households on their waiting lists (excluding tenants awaiting a transfer) as at 1 April in their Annual Housing Investment Programme returns. Their activities under the homelessness provisions of the Housing Act 1996 (as amended by the Homelessness Act 2002) are reported on their quarterly P1 (E) housing returns to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The latest reported information is given in the following table:
  87W

  Statutory homeless households

  In accommodation arranged by local authorities under homeless legislation—31 December 2002

  All homeless households

  Homeless households with dependent children

  Households on the Housing Register 1 April 2002

  Number accepted as eligible, homeless and in priority need September to December 2002

  All types of temporary accommodation

  Bed and breakfast accommodation only

  All types of temporary accommodation

  Bed and breakfast accommodation only

  Merton

  4,361

  43

  175

  53

  128

  15

  Newham

  13,942

  328

  3,814

  811

  1—

  1—

  Redbridge

  5,671

  166

  1,837

  258

  175

  175

  Richmond upon Thames

  3,763

  94

  525

  38

  32

  15

  Southwark

  6,164

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Sutton

  1,653

  93

  428

  77

  335

  32

  Tower Hamlets

  7,837

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Waltham Forest

  10,283

  246

  1,032

  39

  790

  12

  Wandsworth

  3,923

  262

  1,442

  456

  964

  150

  Westminster

  3,709

  264

  2,623

  759

  1—

  151

  1 Not reported.

  Note:

  Local authorities have different practices far compiling and managing housing register/waiting lists, which means that direct comparisons between authorities can be misleading.

  Sources:

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Housing Investment Programme (HIP) annual returns.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister P1(E) housing activity returns (quarterly).

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his estimate is of the total expenditure b y his Department on ministerial travel(a) in the UK and (b) abroad in each year from 1995–96 to 2002–03 (estimated); and if he will make a statement. [92421]

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

  New Deal for Communities
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the funding for the New Deal for Communities for each Government office of the region in financial year 2003–04. [104642]

  Mrs. Roche
  The 2003–04 figures are still being finalised. However the current draft allocations are as follows:

  £ million

  Region

  London

  51

  South east

  12

  South west

  11

  East

  10.5

  East Midlands

  24.5

  West Midlands

  30.5

  Yorkshire and Humber

  25.5

  North west

  52.5

  North east

  23.5

  Property Prices
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the average price for each property type in each region of the UK was in the last quarter of(a) 2002, (b) 2001 and (c) 1996 in (i) cash, (ii) real and (iii) percentage increase terms. [103422]

  Mr. McNulty
  The average prices by property type and by region are shown in the following tables. The figures for England and Wales are derived from Land Registry data, covering all transactions. Figures for Scotland and Northern Ireland are estimated on the basis of sample data from the Survey of Mortgage Lenders.

  Q4 1996—cash prices

  £

  Detached bungalows

  Semi-detached

  Terraced

  Flats

  North East

  85,460

  48,335

  34,793

  32,456

  North West

  94,995

  50,721

  32,458

  45,677

  Yorks and Humber

  88,439

  48,611

  35,085

  41,199

  East Midlands

  79,333

  43,996

  33,460

  32,964

  West Midlands

  94,683

  51,040

  38,692

  38,307

  East

  101,653

  60,625

  49,907

  39,982

  London

  208,157

  105,553

  94,967

  84,026

  South East

  134,922

  71,053

  56,715

  45,814

  South West

  94,610

  57,255

  46,899

  45,267

  Wales

  74,505

  46,011

  37,164

  41,224

  Scotland

  89,702

  49,096

  38,381

  31,471

  Northern Ireland

  70,862

  46,104

  31,167

  30,681

  89W

  £

  Cash prices

  Real (Q4 1996) prices

  Q4 2001

  Detached bungalows

  Semi-detached

  Terraced

  Flats

  Detached bungalows

  Semi-detached

  Terraced

  Flats

  North East

  120,931

  63,641

  46,818

  53,867

  107,154

  56,391

  41,485

  47,730

  North West

  145,790

  74,270

  46,634

  76,400

  129,181

  65,809

  41,322

  67,696

  Yorks and Humber

  127,203

  67,729

  49,263

  75,777

  112,711

  60,013

  43,651

  67,144

  East Midlands

  132,270

  70,603

  55,562

  66,188

  117,201

  62,559

  49,232

  58,647

  West Midlands

  165,451

  83,250

  64,041

  73,460

  146,502

  73,766

  56,745

  65,091

  East

  194,194

  120,352

  98,347

  80,787

  172,070

  106,641

  87,143

  71,583

  London

  411,805

  223,100

  203,044

  176,701

  364,891

  197,683

  179,913

  156,571

  South East

  267,490

  147,133

  118,336

  101,329

  237,017

  130,371

  104,854

  89,785

  South West

  185,883

  110,239

  93,480

  86,703

  164,706

  97,680

  82,831

  76,825

  Wales

  115,617

  65,416

  49,865

  67,672

  102,446

  57,963

  44,184

  59,962

  Scotland

  116,019

  68,816

  56,625

  55,450

  102,802

  60,976

  50,174

  49,133

  Northern Ireland

  100,793

  75,455

  57,637

  69,705

  89,310

  66,859

  51,071

  61,764

  £

  Cash prices

  Real (Q4 1996) prices

  Q4 2002

  Detached bungalows

  Semi-detached

  Terraced

  Flats

  Detached bungalows

  Semi-detached

  Terraced

  Flats

  North East

  149,636

  77,622

  55,978

  65,249

  129,315

  67,081

  48,376

  56,388

  North West

  177,638

  92,484

  55,161

  93,873

  153,514

  79,924

  47,670

  81,125

  Yorks and Humber

  160,334

  84,611

  59,602

  91,029

  138,560

  73,120

  51,508

  78,667

  East Midlands

  167,758

  91,826

  72,057

  82,659

  144,976

  79,356

  62,271

  71,434

  West Midlands

  202,082

  103,271

  79,951

  85,100

  174,639

  89,247

  69,094

  73,543

  East

  236,113

  149,217

  123,974

  107,290

  204,048

  128,953

  107,138

  92,719

  London

  500,987

  269,859

  242,687

  208,609

  432,951

  233,211

  209,729

  180,280

  South East

  314,831

  180,015

  146,505

  123,238

  272,076

  155,569

  126,610

  106,502

  South West

  234,369

  141,089

  119,168

  114,839

  202,541

  121,929

  102,985

  99,244

  Wales

  140,670

  79,082

  60,419

  78,220

  121,567

  68,343

  52,214

  67,597

  Scotland

  135,731

  80,557

  68,959

  68,125

  117,298

  69,617

  59,595

  58,873

  Northern Ireland

  126,308

  87,593

  67,275

  94,093

  109,155

  75,698

  58,139

  81,315

  Q4 1996 to Q4 2002

  Percentage change in cash prices

  Percentage change in real prices

  Detached bungalows

  Semi-detached

  Terraced

  Flats

  Detached bungalows

  Semi-detached

  Terraced

  Flats

  North East

  75.1

  60.6

  60.9

  101.0

  51.3

  38.8

  39.0

  73.7

  North West

  87.0

  82.3

  69.9

  105.5

  61.6

  57.6

  46.9

  77.6

  Yorks and Humber

  81.3

  74.1

  69.9

  120.9

  56.7

  50.4

  46.8

  90.9

  East Midlands

  111.5

  108.7

  115.4

  150.8

  82.7

  80.4

  86.1

  116.7

  West Midlands

  113.4

  102.3

  106.6

  122.2

  84.4

  74.9

  78.6

  92.0

  East

  132.3

  146.1

  148.4

  168.3

  100.7

  112.7

  114.7

  131.9

  London

  140.7

  155.7

  155.5

  148.3

  108.0

  120.9

  120.8

  114.6

  South East

  133.3

  153.4

  158.3

  169.0

  101.7

  118.9

  123.2

  132.5

  South West

  147.7

  146.4

  154.1

  153.7

  114.1

  113.0

  119.6

  119.2

  Wales

  88.8

  71.9

  62.6

  89.7

  63.2

  48.5

  40.5

  64.0

  Scotland

  51.3

  64.1

  79.7

  116.5

  30.8

  41.8

  55.3

  87.1

  Northern Ireland

  78.2

  90.0

  115.9

  206.7

  54.0

  64.2

  86.5

  165.0

  Q4 2001 to Q4 2002

  Percentage change in cash prices

  Percentage change in real prices

  Detached bungalows

  Semi-detached

  Terraced

  Flats

  Detached bungalows

  Semi-detached

  Terraced

  Flats

  North East

  23.7

  22.0

  19.6

  21.1

  20.7

  19.0

  16.6

  18.1

  North West

  21.8

  24.5

  18.3

  22.9

  18.8

  21.4

  15.4

  19.8

  Yorks and Humber

  26.0

  24.9

  21.0

  20.1

  22.9

  21.8

  18.0

  17.2

  East Midlands

  26.8

  30.1

  29.7

  24.9

  23.7

  26.8

  26.5

  21.8

  West Midlands

  22.1

  24.0

  24.8

  15.8

  19.1

  21.0

  21.8

  13.0

  East

  21.6

  24.0

  26.1

  32.8

  18.6

  20.9

  22.9

  29.5

  London

  21.7

  21.0

  19.5

  18.1

  18.7

  18.0

  16.6

  15.1

  South East

  17.7

  22.3

  23.8

  21.6

  14.8

  19.3

  20.7

  18.6

  South West

  26.1

  28.0

  27.5

  32.5

  23.0

  24.8

  24.3

  29.2

  Wales

  21.7

  20.9

  21.2

  15.6

  18.7

  17.9

  18.2

  12.7

  Scotland

  17.0

  17.1

  21.8

  22.9

  14.1

  14.2

  18.8

  19.8

  Northern Ireland

  25.3

  16.1

  16.7

  35.0

  22.2

  13.2

  13.8

  31.7

  90W 91W
  Notes:

  1. Changes in the Retail Prices Index (RPI) between Q4 1996, Q4 2001 and Q4 2002 were used to convert cash prices to real (Q4 1996) prices. The relevant RPI figures were Q4 1996: 154.0, Q4 2001: 173.8, Q4 2002: 178.2.

  2. Transaction prices below £1,000 have been excluded from the figures—because they are deemed to be at below market values. One or two transactions above £20 million have also been excluded so as not to distort the average prices within each category.

  3. Note that the average price of flats in Northern Ireland for Q4 1996 is based on the prices recorded not only in Q4 1996 but also in Q3 1996 and Q 11997. This is because the sample for Q4 1996 alone was too small.

  Seaside and Country Homes Scheme
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 3 March 2003,Official Report, column 875W, on the Seaside and Country Homes Scheme, if he will place in the Library a copy of the guidance issued by HOMES. [103271]

  Mr. McNulty
  A copy of the Guidance will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Social Exclusion Unit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to his written ministerial statement of 5 March 2003,Official Report, columns 82–83WS, on Social Exclusion Unit projects, whether he plans to publish the report on helping people into work in the most deprived areas in England before the end of 2003. [104532]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister expects that the final report of the Social Exclusion Unit project on employment and enterprise in deprived areas will be published in 2004.

  Supporting People Partnership
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many staff work on the Supporting People Partnership helpline; how many staff in his Department work on administrating and implementing the Supporting People Partnership to local authorities and service providers; and at what cost. [89241]

  Mr. McNulty
  One and a half members of staff manage the Supporting People helpline, aided by other Office of the Deputy Prime Minister staff who are able to provide expert replies to specific points raised by the helpline questions. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has 19 members of staff working directly on the Supporting People programme and has engaged a further 35 people from different organisations and sectors, to help stakeholders engage fully with the new programme. Direct running costs for Supporting People are approximately £480,000.

  Tunbridge Wells and Kent Councils
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many public service agreements were entered into by(a) Tunbridge Wells borough council and (b) Kent county council; and what level of funding has been provided that is contingent on them in each of the past two years. [104691]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government have not entered into a Local Public Service Agreement with Tunbridge Wells borough council. The Government signed a Local Public Service Agreement with Kent in February 2001. During the financial year 2001–02 Kent were paid a grant 92W
  of £1,000,050 and issued with Unsupported Credit Approvals of £5 million. No funding was provided during 2002–03.

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many local partnerships were formed by(a) Tunbridge Wells borough council and (b) Kent county council to implement central Government initiatives; and what the level of funding for each was in each year since 1997. [104692]

  Mr. Leslie
  Tunbridge Wells borough council has not formed its own local strategic partnership to implement Government initiatives, however, in September 2001, it along with Tonbridge and Mailing and Sevenoaks Councils decided to work together to form an area partnership for the west Kent region, since many service providers and interest groups cover areas much larger than a single district.

  Kent county council has developed a countywide strategic partnership as a forum to encourage cross tier partnership working. The county strategic partnership grew out of the Kent Association of Local Authorities.

  Neither Tunbridge Wells borough council nor Kent county council are in receipt of Neighbourhood Renewal Funding—the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's funding programme that supports the development of strategic partnerships. There are only 88 areas in England that qualify to receive this specific funding, by virtue of being especially deprived as ranked by ward on the Government's Indices of Deprivation. Those 88 areas contain 82 per cent. of the most deprived wards in England, none of which fall in the Kent county council area.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Bail Records
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on her plans to link the courts' computer systems in order to improve past bail records information. [104109]

  Yvette Cooper
  Links between the police and the Magistrates courts case management systems already exist in some areas. The implementation of NSPIS Case Preparation system (the police's new case management application), together with the implementation of a standard national software application in Magistrates' courts will extend these links across England and Wales over the next three years.

  We plan to join together the existing and developing IT systems in a staged development, using an `information walkway' known as the Criminal Justice Exchange to link individual systems. It will enable the

  93W
  courts and other criminal justice agencies to share case data—including information relating to bail—electronically.

  This is part of a major IT and business change programme over the next three years for which £834 million of new money has been provided in the SR2002 settlement for the CJS as a whole.

  External Reports
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will list(a) the title and subject, (b) the total cost to the Department

  Completed reports commissioned and published by LCD Research Unit: by year of Publication

  Title/Subject

  Research Costs £

  Report Date

  Researcher/Author Details

  1997

  Monitoring the rise in the small claims limit: litigants' experiences of different forms of adjudication.

  24,789

  December 1997

  John Baldwin—University of Birmingham

  >Delay in the Criminal Justice System

  4,498

  December 1997

  Satnam Choongh—University of Warwick

  Resolving Civil Disputes: choosing between out-of-court schemes and litigation

  5,564

  December 1997

  Tamara Coriely and Tom Williams—TPR Social and Legal Research

  Law And Economics: State of the Art and Questions for the Future

  4,000

  December 1997

  Anthony Ogus and Rachel Ammas—University of Manchester

  Regulating Legal Services

  9,000

  December 1997

  Robert Baldwin—London School of Economics and Political Science

  Judicial Appointments Commissions: The European and North

  2,250

  December 1997

  Kate Malleson—London School of Economics

  American Experience and the possible implications for the United Kingdom

  8,400

  December 1997

  Cheryl Thomas—Wolfson College, Oxford University

  The Division of Marital Assets Following Divorce with Particular Reference to Pensions

  4,900

  December 1997

  Antony Dnes—University of Hertfordshire

  Legal Aid Delivery Systems: which offer the best value for money in mass casework? A Summary of International Experience

  1,750

  December 1997

  Tamara Coriely—TPR Social and Legal Research

  Ethnic Monitoring of Defendatns Appearing at Leicester Magistrates' Court in 1995

  3,100

  December 1997

  Home Office and Professor Philip Bean Loughborough University

  1998

  Rationing and Cost-Containment in Legal Services

  8,000

  March 1998

  Robert Dingwall, Paul Fenn and Jackie Tuck University of Nottingham

  The Empirical Analysis of Litigation: a Survey of the Economics Literature

  8,000

  March 1998

  Neil Rickman—University of Surrey

  Contracting for Legal Services under different Costs Rules

  6,200

  March 1998

  Gwyn Bevan—London School of Economics and Political Science Paul Fenn—University of Nottingham Neil Rickman—University of Surrey

  Costing Fast Track Procedures Through Hypothetical Studies

  96,000

  June 1998

  Tamara oriely, Farah Butt and Avrom Sherr—Institute of Advanced Legal Studies

  The Central London County Court Pilot Mediation Scheme

  23,152

  July 1998

  Hazel Germ UniversityCollege London

  An Economic Analysis of a Proposal to Reform the Discretionary Approach to the Division of Marital Assets in England and Wales

  4,000

  September 1998

  Antony W. Dnes

  A Study of the services provided under the Otton Project to Litigants In Person at the Citizens Advice Bureau at the Royal Courts of Justice

  10,693

  September 1998

  Joyce Plotnikoff and Richard Woolfson—Consultants in Management, IT and the Law

  1999

  Marriage, Cohabitation and the Law: individualism and obligation

  71,906

  February 1999

  Jane Lewis—University of Nottingham

  High Divorce Rates: the state of the evidence on reasons and remedies

  79,150

  February 1999

  One plus One Marriage and Partnership Research

  Reducing delay in the Criminal Justice System—the views of the Defence Lawyers

  15,200

  March 1999

  Lee Bridges and Marc Jacobs—University of Warwick

  An Empirical Analysis of Standard Fees in Magistrates court Criminal Cases

  6,000

  August 1999

  Paul Fenn—University of Nottingham Alastair Gray-Wolfson College, Oxford University Neil Rickman—University of Surrey

  A regional study of local authority and court processes in homelessness cases

  30,989

  September 1999

  Trevor Buck—University of Leicester

  Children and Civil Litigation

  24,654

  December 1999

  Judith Masson—University of Warwick

  94W
  and (c) the commissioned author or organisation of each external report commissioned by the Department in each year since 1997. [103720]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I have understood "external report" to mean a report produced at the request of my Department by a person, group or organisation external to my Department, and which is publicly available. This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, information on completed reports commissioned and published by LCD Research Unit is set out in the following table. The costs quoted exclude in-house publication costs and incidental LCD staff time in assisting the researchers and managing the contracts.
  95W

  Completed reports commissioned and published by LCD Research Unit: by year of Publication

  Title/Subject

  Research Costs £

  Report Date

  Researcher/ Author Details

  2000

  Assumptions about Lawyers in Policy Statements

  11,075

  February 2000

  Phillip Lewis—Wolfson College, Oxford University

  Factors affecting the decision to apply for Silk and Judicial Office

  9,652

  June 2000

  Kate Malleson—London School of Economics Fareda Banda—School of Oriental and African Studies

  The Effects on Magistrates of Learning that the Defendant has a Previous Conviction

  33,940

  December 2000

  Sally Lloyd-Bostock—University of Birmingham

  2001

  The introduction of a question on ethnic background into the Civil Justice System

  41,076

  October 2001

  Sara Candy and Vanessa Stone—BM R B

  2002

  Court-based ADR Initiatives for Non-Family Civil Disputes: The Commercial Court and the Court of Appeal

  19,500

  March 2002

  Hazel Genn—University College London

  A Civil Justice Audit

  57,515

  March 2002

  Joanna Shapland—University of Sheffield

  Judges' Case Management Perspectives: The Views of Opinion Formers and Case Managers

  12,500

  April 2002

  Joyce Plotnikoff and Richard Woolfson—Consultants in Management, IT and the Law

  Professionalising Lay Justice: The Role of the Court Clerk in Family Proceedings

  39,507

  April 2002

  Joan Hunt—Wolfson College, Oxford University

  It's Only Parking, but Report of a Research Project on the Applicability to other Adjudicative Settings of Organisational Arrangements at the London Parking Appeals Service

  25,246

  May 2002

  John Raine and Stephanie Snape—University of Brimingham

  The impact of conditional fees on the selection, handling and outcomes of personal injury cases

  48,354

  August 2002

  Paul Fenn—University of Nottingham Alastair Gray—Wolfson College, Oxford University Neil Rickman—University of Surrey And Howard Carrier—University of Nottingham

  The impact of sources of finance on personal injury litigation: An empirical analysis

  43,800

  August 2002

  Paul Fenn—University of Nottingham Alastair Gray—Wolfson College, Oxford University Neil Rickman—University of Surrey

  The Lay and Judicial Perspectives on the Expansion of the Small Claims Regime

  21,000

  Septemebr 2002

  John Baldwin—University of Birmingham

  The Impact on Courts and the Administration of Justice of the Human Rights Act 1998

  42,298

  October 2002

  John Raine—Univesity of Birmingham And Clive Walker—University of Leeds

  Safety and Child Contact: An analysis of the Role of Child Contact Centres in the context of Domestic Violence and Child Welfare Concerns

  41,434

  December 2002

  Rosemary Aris, Christine Harrison and Cathy Humpreys—University of Warwick

  Housing Possession Cases in the County Court: Perceptions and Experiences of Black and Minority Ethnic Defendants

  83,735

  December 2002

  Sarah Blandy, Caroline Hunter, Diane Lister and Judy Nixon—Sheffield Hallam University

  2003

  Significant Harm: Child Protection Litigation in a Multi-Cultural Setting

  210,834

  February 2003

  Julia Brophy—University of Oxford

  Ethnic Minorities in the Criminal Courts: perceptions of fairness and equality of treatment

  208,675

  March 2003

  Roger Hood—University of Oxford And Stephen Shute—University of Birmingham

  IT Contracts
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will list IT contracts in the Department 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. [99004]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information is as follows:

  LOCCS (various court-based IT systems): The EDS (LOCCs) contract was awarded to EDS in September 1996, to provide IT systems to Crown and county courts. The lifetime cost of the contract is assessed at £124 million, and expenditure in 2001–02 totalled £33 million.

  The initial rollout of equipment to courts was completed in August 2001. The contract was fully functional from award. The contract includes
  96W
  provisions to test software prior to release, and to fix software 'bugs' which are attributable to supplier software.

  The LOCCS rollout was completed to time, and subsequent major work programmes have been delivered to time.

  ARAMIS (Resource Accounting and Management Information System): This is a PFI contract for the provision of accounting, financial, HR/payroll and management information services. It was awarded in December 1997 and runs until January 2007. Its current anticipated life-time cost is £192 million, which includes enhancements to the service.

  Most services have IT elements and are delivered across an IT infrastructure provided through the contract. However, the IT system elements of the contract are not separated out from the main business functions. All the services are being provided within the lifetime of the contract, and major work programmes

  97W
  have been delivered to time. Debugging of the IT system elements is a process which continues through the lifetime of the contract.

  Libra (magistrates courts IT systems): The contract signed in July 2002 varied from the original contracts. It included the provision of Libra infrastructure and Office Automation only. These have been successfully rolled out to over 90 per cent. of the magistrates courts. Five (of 42) MCCs remain in the rollout programme and these will be completed by spring 2003. The Office Automation software consists of 'off-the-shelf Microsoft Office software which does not require debugging.

  The original contracts for Libra included provision for a bespoke case management software application for magistrates courts. This is now being sourced through two other contracts, the combined value of which is expected to be £86 million. These contracts include provisions to test the software prior to release, and to fix software "bugs" which are attributable to supplier software.

  The contract with Fujitsu Services for the delivery of Libra has been varied twice since initial completion in December 1998. This has resulted in changes to the baseline making it inappropriate to compare spend to date across an original and two variants of the contract. The actual spend against the contract can be summarised as follows:
  Original ICL Contract Dec 1998: Total contracted charges expected to arise over contract life of 10.5 years—£184 million.
  Negotiated ICL Contract May 2000: Total contracted charges expected to arise over contract life of 14.5 years—£319 million
  Negotiated Fujitsu Services Contract July 2002: Total contract charges expected to arise over contract life of 8.5 years—£232 million

  Libra Project
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what the costs of her Department's Libra project are(a) as originally estimated and (b) as currently planned. (97711)

  Yvette Cooper
  The costs of the Libra project are set out in the National Audit Office's report: "New IT systems for Magistrates Courts: The Libra project" published on 29 January 2003 as ISBN:0102920362. Officials gave evidence on this report to the Public Accounts Committee on 10 February 2003.

  The headline costs are published in the report and show the original total project cost as at December 1998 to be £194 million. The fully delivered project is expected to cost £390 million. This £390 million breaks down as:
  Contract costs: £318 million (£232 million for the infrastructure contract with Fujitsu Services and an estimated £86 million for the two separate contracts for core application services and system integration.
  Internal project costs: £12 million
  Additional costs: £60 million (required for staff, legal and procurement advisers, costs for migration, extended legacy system costs and other enhancements to the infrastructure service which are yet to be contracted for)

  98W
  The project cost at December 1998 cannot be directly compared with the current proposal; since December 1998 the contracts underpinning the project have been subject to a number of changes in costs, timescales and scope, and these are described in the NAO Report. The project's current costs have been subject to independent, external, benchmark assessments providing assurance that they are in-line with other comparable projects in the public sector and private industry.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Low-income Families
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the Office of National Statistics took responsibility for providing data on low income families. [98679]

  Malcolm Wicks
  There has been no change in responsibilities for data on low income families. The latest edition of Households Below Average Income statistics was published on Thursday 13 March at 9.30 am by the Department for Work and Pensions.

  The Office for National Statistics announces release dates of National Statistics series produced by all Government Departments, in the monthly ONS publication 'Updates'.

  Post Office Card Accounts
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people have been registered for Post Office card accounts. [100448]

  Malcolm Wicks
  As at 21 February 2003, a total of 77,648 customers have requested a Post Office card account.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he wall make a statement on the decision to delay the issue of personal invitation documents for the post office card account. [91139]

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) for what reason the distribution of automated credit transfer personal invitation letters was delayed; [91292]

  (2) when (a) tax credit and (b) benefit claimants will be able to use the Post Office card account. [91293]

  Malcolm Wicks
  As my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, set out in his written answer of 3 December 2002 to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable),Official Report, columns 735–36W, the Government have decided to build up the number of benefit customers arid pensioners that we pay through the Post Office card account gradually, starting from April 2003. This is to ensure that the systems supporting the Post Office card account are reliable and robust, and have proved themselves in live running, before we start to pay large numbers of customers through them. My Department's current plans for issuing Personal Invitation Documents meet our intention that, subject to acceptance of the card account service, we can start to pay some people through the Post Office card account from April 2003.
  99W
  The Inland Revenue plan to start to issue Personal Invitation Documents to tax credit customers at an appropriate point of few months after April 2003. Once tax credit customers have received their Personal Invitation Documents they will then be able to complete the Post Office application form for a card account. Tax credit customers who have a Post Office card account for their DWP benefits can start to use it for their tax credits immediately.

  None of this will affect people's choices, and in the intervening period until they receive their Personal Invitation Documents, tax credit customers opting for a Post Office card account will be paid by giro and DWP customers by order book or giro.

  Automated Credit Transfer
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to publish the results of the Operational Readiness Review of the transfer of benefit payments to automated credit transfer. [91289]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The gated review process within the Department allows for a number of formal reviews. These reviews will ensure that senior officers obtain qualitative information to determine the readiness of the project to proceed to implementation of the changes. The outcomes of the reviews are working documents and there are currently no plans to publish these reports.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on(a) the objectives of the forthcoming media campaign against benefit fraud and (b) its planned budget. [101552]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Targeting Fraud campaign is part of our long-term strategy to underline our message that benefit fraud will not be tolerated.

  Evaluation shows that public attitudes are moving in the right direction as a result of the campaign. We have adapted our strategy to keep messages fresh as we respond to the evaluation of the advertising. We will be considering the future development of the campaign in the light of the evaluation of the latest phase, which ran from September 2001 to March 2002.

  Expenditure on the pilot phase of the campaign was £2.2 million spanning the financial years 1999–2000 and 2000–01. The initial spell of national advertising in March 2001 cost £4.6 million and £8.9 million was spent on the campaign running from September 2001 to March 2002.

  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many individual cases of benefit have been written off in the last five years; and what their financial value was. [98426]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 25 February 2003]As part of our strategy to reduce losses from fraud and error and improve the collection of debt, in April 2001 we established the Debt Management organisation within the Department. The key priorities of Debt Management include achieving an increase in overall recoveries and a long-term reduction in debt stocks, and 100W
  improving the financial control of processes and the overall efficiency of debt organisation through the establishment of specialised Debt Centres.

  In the financial year 2001–02 approximately 102,000 individual overpayments with a total value of £54 million were written off for a variety of reasons, including cases where recovery would have caused excessive hardship, or would not have been cost effective.

  In addition, under the easement package agreed with HMT approximately 390,000 overpayments worth approximately £95 million that were identified as non recoverable from the outset were written off on the basis of an average value rather than an actual calculation. Information for earlier years is not available.

  Child Support
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many mothers with care have exercised their right not to give the name of the father of a child for which they are applying to receive or receiving maintenance since the CSA became operational; and if he will disaggregate this by the reason given by the mother for not giving the father's name. [95012]

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

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Frank Field, dated 24 March 2003:
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent parliamentary question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.
  You ask how many mothers with care have exercised their right not to give the name of the father of a child for which they are applying to receive or receiving maintenance since the Child Support Agency became operational; and if he will disaggregate this by the reason given by the mother for not giving the father's name.
  I do not have the information to answer this fully. I do however have some relevant information in relation to sole parents who are in receipt of "prescribed benefits". They are obliged to provide information to the Agency. Some parents may not wish to involve the Agency because they have a genuine fear of violence or intimidation from the other alleged parent, or where there are child welfare issues, which would mean that it would not be prudent to contact the other parent. We do not press the parent with care to provide information about the other alleged parent if there are reasonable grounds to believe that to do so may harm or distress the parent with care or any child living with her—this is known as "good cause".
  I do not have figures relating to periods before April 1997. Since then approximately 650,000 applications have been made for "good cause". Around 79 per cent. of those accepted, or 120,000 cases, were on the grounds of a genuine fear of violence or intimidation. I do not know how many of these applications were from mothers rather than fathers.

  Departmental Staff Survey
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will place in the Library a copy of the results of his Department's 2002 staff survey. [103991]

  Mr. McCartney
  A copy of the results has been placed in the Library.

  European Social Funding
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much and what proportion of European Social Funding was allocated to voluntary and charitable sector organisations supporting people and groups facing disadvantage in the labour market in(a) 2001 and (b) 2002; and what such funds have been committed for 2003. [100060]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The amount and proportion of European Social Fund money allocated to voluntary and charitable sector organisations in Great Britain was(a) £134.5 million (22.2 per cent.) in 2001 and (b) £143.4 million (16.2 per cent.) in 2002. The amount and proportion of funds committed to the sector so far in 2003 is £28.2 million (15.6 per cent.).

  Helpline Operators
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will place in the Library the script followed by operators on each of the Department's helplines; [95237]

  (2) if he will place the scripts followed by operators on each of the Department's helplines in the Library. 1102991]

  Mr. McCartney
  Most of the Department's helpline staff do not follow rigid scripts. Some parts of their conversations with customers may be scripted (for instance the manner in which customers are first greeted or the questions required to establish the caller's identity), and staff may be guided by a series of prompts to ask questions about particular topics, but the large bulk of conversations with customers are not scripted as such. I would be happy to arrange for the hon. Member to visit one of our centres or to sit in on a training session for these staff to help him appreciate the nature of the work done and why it is not feasible to place scripts in the Library. However, a script is used by the Direct Payment centre and a copy has been placed in the Library.

  Percentage

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–00

  2000–01

  Government Office Region

  Pre-1996

  Post 1996

  Pre-1996

  Post 1996

  Pre-1996

  Post 1996

  Pre-1996

  Post 1996

  Pre-1996

  Post 1996

  London

  23

  47

  19

  49

  19

  48

  19

  44

  21

  39

  North West

  19

  49

  25

  50

  26

  50

  30

  48

  34

  43

  West Midlands

  19

  45

  22

  45

  21

  46

  21

  44

  21

  40

  North East

  31

  41

  33

  43

  35

  41

  38

  37

  46

  30

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  27

  42

  24

  49

  25

  48

  26

  47

  28

  44

  East Midlands

  31

  41

  27

  48

  28

  47

  26

  46

  26

  43

  Eastern

  15

  49

  11

  56

  11

  56

  10

  57

  10

  52

  South East

  18

  44

  15

  52

  16

  50

  17

  46

  19

  43

  South West

  21

  44

  16

  52

  15

  52

  16

  47

  21

  42

  Total

  22

  45

  21

  50

  21

  49

  22

  46

  26

  41

  Note:

  1. The data refer to households claiming Housing Benefit (HB), which may be a single person, a couple or a family. More than one benefit household can live in one property, for example two or more adults in a flat or house share arrangement.

  2. Pre-1996 reduced rent determinations apply to cases where the accommodation is deemed to be too large for the household or where the rent is exceptionally high for the accommodation.

  3. Post-1996 reduced rent determinations include restrictions under the local reference rent (LB.R) and single room rent (SRR) schemes only. The LRR was introduced in January 1996 and a revised scheme introduced in October 1997. The SRR was introduced in October 1996.

  4. Cases subject to reduced rent determinations as a consequence of both pre-1996 and post-1996 restrictions have been included under the restriction that reduces the rent to the lowest amount.

  5. Estimates assume that all cases are subject to all determinations in place at the time. In practice, some cases will have transitional protection from the post-1996 restrictions, so will not have their actual rent restricted. This will be particularly likely in the early years when more cases would have transitional protection.

  Housing Benefit (Rent Restrictions)
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of housing benefit recipients in private regulated and deregulated tenancies were subject to reduced rent determinations in each region in England in each year since 1996 as consequence of(a) pre-1996 restrictions and (b) post-1996 restrictions. [91687]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Rents for tenancies in the regulated private rented sector are subject to regulatory controls through the Rent Service and Rent Assessment committees as well as subsidy controls within housing benefit. Decisions on restrictions on the amount of benefit paid in these cases are made by local authorities and no information is collected on the number of restrictions that are applied.

  Claims from tenants in the deregulated private rented sector are generally referred to the rent officer for a determination. Housing Benefit Management Information System data provided by local authorities show the numbers of these tenants whose claims to housing benefit are assessed under the local reference rent and single room rent schemes. These data do not distinguish between cases where rent is restricted following a rent officer determination and those where it is not (for example because the actual rent is sufficiently low, or the person claiming has transitional protection).

  However, using information from rent officer statistics, it is possible to e estimate the proportion of deregulated private rented sector cases referred by local authorities where housing benefit would be restricted if the overall claim was successful. Estimates are in the table.

  Estimated proportions of deregulated private rented sector cases referred to the rent officer which would be subject to reduced rent determinations under pre-1996 and post-1996 restrictions if the housing benefit claim was successful, by English Government Office Region.
  103W
  6. The data relate to all referrals made over a year. They will differ from the HB caseload in that some claims will not be successful (for example, because the person's income is too high) and because some people may claim more often than others (for example, because they move house, or leave and then return to benefit). The figures will therefore over-rep resent short duration claims.

  7. Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

  Source:

  Rent Officer data (England and Wales) for April to March of each year.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of housing benefit claimants in the private rented sector were subject to restrictions as a result of rent officer determinations that the rent was(a) above the local reference rent but below the reasonable market rent, (b) above the reasonable market rent and ( c) over-large for the occupying household, for each English region, in the most recent year for which figures are available. [91688]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Housing Benefit Management Information System data provided by local authorities show the numbers of tenants in the deregulated private rented sector whose claims to housing benefit are assessed under the local reference rent and single room rent schemes. These data do not distinguish between cases where rent is restricted following a rent officer determination and those where it is not (for example because the actual rent is sufficiently low, or the person claiming has transitional protection).

  However, using information from rent officer statistics, it is possible to estimate the proportion of deregulated private rented sector cases referred by local authorities where housing benefit would be restricted if the overall claim was successful. The latest available estimates are in the table.

  Estimated proportions of deregulated private rented sector cases referred to the rent officer which would be subject to reduced rent determinations if the housing benefit claim was successful, by types of restriction, by English Government Office Region in 2000–01.

  Percentage

  Rent above local reference rent and single room rent but below reasonable market rent

  Rent above reasonable market rent

  Over large accommodation

  London

  14

  38

  8

  North West

  13

  46

  19

  West Midlands

  19

  23

  19

  North West

  8

  36

  32

  Yorks and Humber

  14

  32

  26

  East Midlands

  17

  26

  26

  Eastern

  23

  20

  19

  South East

  16

  31

  14

  South West

  15

  31

  16

  Total

  15

  34

  18

  Notes:

  1. The data refer to households claiming housing benefit (HB), which may be a single person, a couple or a family. More than one benefit household can live in one property, for example two or more adults in a flat or house share arrangement.

  2. Where a HB claim was first made before October 1997, or October 1996 for SRR cases, the case will have transitional protection from LRR and SRR restrictions. Rent officer data do not distinguish between these cases, and the estimates therefore represent the proportion of referrals where the rent would be restricted assuming that all referrals were liable to such restriction.

  3. The data relate to all referrals made over a year. They will differ from the HB case load in that some claims will not be successful (for example, because the person's income is too high) and because
  104W
  some people may claim more often than others, for example, because they move house, or leave and then return to benefit. The figures will therefore over-represent short duration claims.

  4. Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

  Source:

  Rent Officer data (England and Wales) for April 2000 to March 2001.

  Jobcentre Plus
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will place the reports of the mystery shoppers who have visited Jobcentre Plus centres in the Library; and if he will make a statement on the use of mystery shoppers by Jobcentre Plus. [102777]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 13 March 2003] The use of mystery shoppers in Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the Acting Chief Executive, Clare Dodgson. She will write to the hon. member.

  Letter from Clare Dodgson to Mr. Oliver Heald, dated 21 March 2003:
  As Jobcentre Plus is an Executive Agency, I have been asked to reply to your question concerning the placing of mystery shopping reports in the Library, and the use of mystery shoppers by Jobcentre Plus. This falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Acting Chief Executive of the Agency.
  It may be helpful if I explain how the mystery shopping programme is used within Jobcentre Plus, and how our performance is currently reported internally and externally.
  Mystery Shopping is a recognised process used in both public and private sector organisations, as a method of providing an independent measure of the service received by customers.
  Within Jobcentre Plus we have a Customers' Charter based not only on the 6 Whitehall Service standards, but also after consultation with our customers, includes elements of service that are important to them. We use a mystery shopping programme to measure how well we deliver service against the standards and commitments we have set, and results are used by my managers to direct improvements in their performance.
  The Jobcentre Plus programme is one of the biggest in the UK and all main parts of delivery are included. Each quarter every Jobcentre Plus location receives a number of different mystery shopping contacts. This means that nationally we produce in excess of 6,500 individual reports every quarter.
  These reports are then aggregated into individual site performance summaries and District and national reports. In accordance with Jobcentre Plus overall performance reporting arrangements, we publish details of District results on the Jobcentre Plus website each quarter (www.jobcentreplus.gov.uk) and a copy of this has been placed in the Library. The individual office reports provide detailed feedback from the shoppers that managers will use to identify areas for improvement. The content of the questionnaires used in the mystery shopping programme are commercial in confidence and I am therefore unable to place copies in the House of Commons Library.
  I would also like to reassure you that while we use the Mystery Shopping programme to measure service delivery against defined standards, we regularly review those standards and seek the views of our customers and other stakeholders.
  We have just completed the first National Customer Satisfaction survey, which explicitly asks customers to comment on their level of satisfaction with the different elements of customer service. It also asks them to tell us what is important and

  105W
  where we are not meeting their expectations. We expect to be publishing the findings from this survey in the late spring and will use the information this gives us to focus our improvement efforts.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will make a statement on the grounds for the decision by the London Region of Jobcentre Plus to reduce the number of staff working in its local office network; [101745]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact on service delivery of the reduction by the London Region of Jobcentre Plus of staff working in its local office network. [101746]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the acting Chief Executive of the Jobcentre Plus, Clare Dodgson. She will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Clare Dodgson to Mr. John McDonnell, dated 21 March 2003:
  As Jobcentre Plus is an Executive Agency, I have been asked to reply to your questions concerning the reduction of staff numbers in Jobcentre Plus. This falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Acting Chief Executive of the Agency.
  The national roll-out of Jobcentre Plus is bringing together the old separate Jobcentres and Benefit Offices to form our new integrated offices, which will provide both services in one place. Staff movement between different roles is an ongoing feature of the development of this new service.
  As part of our drive for efficiency and this modernisation of our services, Jobcentre Plus is reducing staffing levels in line with agreed workforce planning targets. This has included the migration of some staff to vacancies elsewhere within Departmental Agencies. It was clear, as part of these plans, that London Region would need to release the overwhelming majority of its temporary staff, approximately 5% of its workforce. Union officials have been kept informed of progress throughout the year.
  The radical modernisation of our services as part of the Jobcentre Plus roll-out will inevitably lead to some disruption. However, we are managing these changes to minimise any negative impact on the delivery of our services to customers.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 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. [103590]

  Mr. McCartney
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office in response to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on 22 January 2003,Official Report, column 334W.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps were taken in the 1970s to publicise the introduction of Home Responsibilities Protection with particular reference to its implications for those women with an election to pay married women's reduced rate national insurance contributions. [92155]
  106W
  Mr. McCartney
  Because it was considered that some married women might wish to revoke their election to pay reduced rate contributions in order to benefit from Home Responsibilities Protection, a special insert was placed in child benefit order books to draw their attention to this. This was in addition to the information in leaflets and other media.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will place in the Library copies of the literature and materials sent to(a) individual women, (b) employers and ( c) placed in Social Security offices in connection with each of the large-scale publicity campaigns run by his Department in (i) 1977, (ii) 1989 and (iii) 2000 aimed at married women who had a valid election to pay national insurance contributions at the reduced rate; and if he will make a statement on the other methods his Department used to advertise the changes to the system in each of these years. [90623]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply.

  The literature and material in respect of the pre-2000 publicity were placed in the Library of the House on 25 May 2000 and 20 January 2003 following a series of Parliamentary Questions in respect of this issue—Official Report, volume 350, column 584W and volume 398, column 86W.

  I have today placed in the House Library, copies of the mailshot and press release issued in October 2000.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many letters were issued to married women who had a valid election to pay national insurance contributions at the reduced rate in each of the large-scale publicity campaigns run by his Department in(a) 1977, (b) 1989 and (c) 2000; and if he will list the criteria that were used to identify those women who were sent a letter. [90624]

  Mr. McCartney
  In 1977, no letters were issued to married women who had a valid election to pay National Insurance contributions at the reduced rate. Women were targeted via their employers, and flyers were enclosed with their payslips alerting them to the changes.

  In 1989, the publicity campaign was aimed at some 400,000 women. They were sent letters to inform them that they could be better off paying standard rate National Insurance contributions because of the proposed change to the National Insurance structure. The criteria used to select these women were that their National Insurance account showed an open reduced rate election, they had paid reduced rate National Insurance contributions in the 1986–87 and/or 1987–88 tax years and that they were generally low earners in which case the standard rate contributions would be less than the reduced rate.

  In 2000, nearly 2:53,000 letters were issued. These women were identified by scanning the National Insurance Record System computer. All those who had a valid election to pay the reduced rate were sent a letter.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will answer(a) questions 90623, 90624 tabled on 9 January and 95041 tabled on 28 January, on

  107W
  married women's pensions, (b) questions 91289, 91290, 91291 and 91292, on automated credit transfer, tabled on 13 January, (c) question 91293, on post office card accounts, tabled on 13 January, (d) question 92155, on Home Responsibilities Protection, tabled on 16 January and (e) question 95275, on the implication of the abolition of the half-test on married women, tabled on 29 January. [104656]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Replies have been given to the hon. Member.

  Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 28 January, ref 91305, on married women's pensions, (1)(a) what criteria were used to determine which women were invited to claim, (b) how many such women were invited to claim, and (c) how many responses he received; and if he will place in the Library (i) a copy of the promotional material relating to the publicity campaign and (ii) a copy of the letter sent to the women identified from the database trawl: [95041]

  (2) what steps his Department took to alert women below state pension age of the implications of the abolition of the half-test for the advisability of their remaining on the married women's reduced national insurance rate. [95275]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 31 January 2003]The women invited to claim a Category A pension where they had previously failed the married women's half-test, were determined by using the following criteria, that:

  (i) they were now entitled to a Category A pension of at least 25 per cent.;

  (ii) no Category A pension had previously been awarded because of a failure to satisfy the half-test; and

  (iii) results of previous claims had been fed back to Newcastle Records specifically as either "Claim disallowed" or "No title established" because of the half-test.

  Information on how many women were invited to claim and how many responses were received is not available. However, it was estimw:ed that some 25,000 married women would benefit from the change.

  A copy of leaflet NI256 issued as part of the publicity campaign has been placed in the Library. Other publicity material and actual copies of the letters sent to women are no longer readily available as over time they have become obsolete.

  There is a distinct difference between the married women's' half-test and the married women's reduced national insurance rate contributions in that the half-test provided women with entitlement to a State Pension in their own right but the married women's reduced national insurance rate contributions do not.

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans the Government have to promote(a) take-up of the new Pension Credit and (b) take-up of the credit by the poorest and most isolated pensioners. [104594]
  108W
  Mr. McCartney
  To support the take-on of pension credit a marketing campaign has been developed that seeks to address the specific needs of pensioners and those who support them such as family and friends.

  The core of the campaign involves contacting all pensioner households by direct mail and inviting them to make their applications by telephone. In this way we can support and complete the application form for them. The Pension Service will start writing to pensioner households to invite applications in April 2003 and plan to complete this activity in June 2004. This systematic approach will be supported by regional and national advertising around the launch of Pension Credit and when it becomes payable.

  By working with local partners, The Pension Service will he able to help vulnerable pensioners or those who need to overcome barriers that might prevent them from applying.

  To ensure pensioners do not lose out, a 12 month backdating provision will exist until October 2004. This will allow applications to be backdated to October 2003 where entitlement exists.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the potential impact of combined pension forecasting on encouraging people to save for their retirement. [104571]

  Mr. McCartney
  The purpose of the combined pension forecast is to provide people with good information about their current and future retirement incomes in order to help them make better informed decisions about their needs in retirement and raise awareness of the importance of making adequate provision.

  The pilot phase of the combined pension forecast initiative provided us with an indication of the potential impact of the statement on recipients. Individual detailed results demonstrating the impact of the combined statement and their potential to encourage people to save more for their retirement are commercially sensitive. We do not have the permission of all the participating companies to release all the data. It would, therefore, be inappropriate to publish this information. However, in total some 98 per cent. of those who received a forecast found it useful and 31 per cent. sought further information about increasing their pension provision.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will adjust council tax benefit and housing benefit for pensioners to ensure that council tax and rent increases do not exceed any increase in the state retirement pension. [94052]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We want all pensioners to have a decent and secure income in retirement and to share fairly in the rising prosperity of the country. The Government's first priority has been to help the poorest pensioners and from April 2002, we are spending an extra £6 billion a year in real terms on pensioners as a result of policies introduced since 1997.

  In general, people receiving council tax benefit or housing benefit have any increases in their rent or council tax paid in full.
  109W
  The only exceptions to this are for people living in expensive properties in council tax band 'F' or above (council tax benefit is restricted to the level of band `E'), and for people in the private rented sector who have their housing benefit capped because of the level of their rent. However, these affect only a very small proportion of pensioners.

  Housing benefit and council tax benefit are targeted at those people with the lowest incomes who are in most need of financial support. We have no plans to extend the availability of these benefits more widely.

  Pensioner Income
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his most recent estimate is of the number of pensioners with an income of(a) £200 to £210, (b) £211 to £220 and (c) £221 and above who are in receipt of council tax benefit and housing benefit in Northampton. [100787]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The available information is in the table.

  Pensioners with a weekly income of £200.01 or more receiving housing benefit and/or council tax benefit in the East Midlands Government Office Region by income band in May 2001

  Weekly income

  Housing benefit recipients

  Council tax benefit recipients

  £200.01 to £210.00

  6,000

  8,000

  £210.01 to £220.00

  5,000

  7,000

  £220.01 and above

  28,000

  34,000

  Notes:

  1. Information is not available for Northampton borough council area.

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

  3. The data refer to households claiming housing benefit which may be a single person, a couple or a family. More than one benefit household can live in one property, for example two or more adults in a flat or house share arrangement.

  4. Pensioners are defined as households where the benefit recipient or their partner is aged 60 or over.

  5. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  6. Figures for any non-responding authorities have been estimated.

  7. The figures exclude any extended payment cases.

  8. Council tax benefit figures exclude second adult rebates.

  9. There will be a significant overlap between the figures as a number of people receive both housing benefit and council tax benefit.

  10. Income figures are derived from those declared for the assessment of income-related benefits (including disregarded income) and net earnings from employment and self-employment.

  Source:

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System Annual 1 per cent. sample, taken in May 2001.

  Post Office Accessibility
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what discussions he has had with members of organisations representing people with disabilities on ensuring that cash machines used to access benefits at post offices will be accessible for disabled people; and if he will make a statement; [102790]
  110W
  (2) what steps he is taking to ensure blind and partially sighted people are able to withdraw benefits in cash from a post office. [102791]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 13 March 2003]The detailed arrangements for collecting cash from bank accounts or the Post Office card account at Post Office branches are the responsibility of Post Office Limited. Post Office Limited have already acknowledged that some people may have problems using the PIN pads that have recently been in stalled in post office branches. The Post Office are now taking immediate action to address this and have invited the RNIB and other disability groups to work further with them.

  All Customers will be given information about all of the account options available and it will be for them to consider which account best meets their needs and circumstances. The Department meets regularly with external interest groups including RNIB, RNID and Disability Alliance to discuss all issues surrounding Direct Payment.

  Scotland
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many times he has visited Scotland on official duties each year since 2000; and what meetings were held on each occasion. [103596]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Since my appointment as Secretary of State, I have visited Scotland once in 2002 and once this year. As the hon. Member will be aware, my predecessor my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) resides in Scotland.

  In line with exemptions 2 and 7 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, it is not the normal practice of Governments to release details of specific meetings or their content, as some of these discussions may have taken place on a confidential basis.

  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 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. [103597]

  Mr. McCartney
  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.

  Verification Frame work
  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the effect the removal of benefit period; for pensioners from October will have on the operation of the Verification Framework. [100745]

  Mr. McCartney
  One of the key elements of the Housing Benefit reforms announced in October 2002 was the removal of benefit periods for pensioners and 112W
  people of working age. Officials have consulted with the Local Authority Associations on proposals for the replacement of benefit periods, and are in the process of finalising the new arrangements. These proposals include work on the impact on the Verification Framework, both for pensioners and working age customers.

  We expect to announce the new arrangements shortly.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Employment Project
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith)
  In the 2002 Pre Budget Report the Government announced their intention to try new measures to help people stay and advance in work. These new measures, aimed at helping retention and advancement in work, will be introduced from October 2003 to 2007 in Jobcentre Plus Districts in south-east Wales; Renfrewshire, Inverclyde, Argyll and Bute; Gateshead and South Tyneside; Derbyshire; Manchester and north-east London.

  Across the six areas, we estimate that around 13,000 people will benefit from:
  Support from an Advancement Support Adviser who will help interested lone parents receiving Working Tax Credits and working less than 30 hours a week; lone parents who volunteer for the New Deal for Lone Parents; and interested, unemployed customers who are eligible for New Deal 25 plus;
  Financial incentives to encourage retention and advancement that will be fully disregarded for tax and benefit purposes.

  These measures, including the use of random assignment, will be evaluated comprehensively by independent qualitative and quantitative research.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  EC Directives (Electronic Communications Networks and Services)
  The Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness (Mr. Stephen Timms)
  It is the Government's intention to implement the four EC Communications Directives by the required deadline of 25 July 2003 through the legislation contained in the Communications Bill (particularly Part 2 of the Bill) and the orders and regulations to be made under that legislation. It should be perfectly feasible for the Bill to receive Royal Assent and for the necessary orders and regulations to be made in time to ensure that the Directives are implemented by the required date, especially as the Bill was published in draft and has been subject to extensive consultation and legislative scrutiny, and has been amended in the light of the views expressed.

  However, the timetable is tight and there may be circumstances in which it cannot be met. As it would not be an option to fail to implement the Directives by 25 July, if the Bill has not been passed in time the Government would need to bring forward Regulations under the
  2WS
  European Communities Act 1972 to ensure that our obligations were met. Such Regulations would, for the interim period until the Bill is passed and brought into force, have broadly the same effect as many of the provisions contained in Part 2 of the Bill. I have therefore just published a consultation document setting out the contingency plan for such interim implementation. Copies of the document, which includes drafts of the Regulations, have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and the document is available on the internet: http://www.communicationsbill.gov.uk/. Interested parties should respond to my Department by 15 May 2003.

  The consultation document also includes the General Conditions that would be made by the Regulator once the Bill has been passed—following up an initial consultation by Oftel in May 2002. Interested parties should respond to Oftel, also by 15 May 2003.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parliamentary Pensions
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Ben Bradshaw)
  The Parliamentary and Other Pensions Act 1987 requires the Government Actuary to make triennial reports on the financial position of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund. His latest report, dealing with the position of the Fund as at 1 April 2002, is published today and a copy of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund Valuation Report (HC445) has been laid in the House. It includes his recommendation on the rate of Exchequer contributions to be made to the Fund, which the Act requires the Government to follow.

  The new rate of Exchequer contribution will be implemented in accordance with the requirements of the Act from 1 April 2003. As the report explains, the increase is almost entirely due to a combination of the contribution holiday enjoyed by the Exchequer for the last 13 years and disappointing investment returns. Since 1990 the Exchequer has been making reduced contributions to the Fund to take the benefit of recurrent actuarial surpluses on the Fund for taxpayers. The current Exchequer contribution of 7.9 per cent. of salary compares with a figure of 18.6 per cent. which would have been required in the absence of a surplus in the Fund. As foreseen in the Government Actuary's last report on the Fund, based on the position at 1 April 1999, the surplus on the scheme has now been exhausted in this way and Exchequer contributions must revert to a level reflecting the long run costs. In common with other pension funds, the Fund has been affected by poor stock market performance over the three years covered by the Government Actuary's report. This, together with the contribution holiday, has contributed to produce a deficit in the Fund of some £25 million.

  The Report also reflects some developments since the introduction of the option for Members to accrue pension benefits at a faster rate in return for higher Member contributions to the Fund. The Government

  3WS
  took the advice of the Senior Salaries Review Body on how that option could be introduced to the scheme in a way that did not increase costs to taxpayers overall. The Review Body advised that the change could be made cost neutral if, in addition to higher Member contributions, the balance of costs falling on the scheme were met in the first instance through higher Exchequer contributions which would be taken into account and set off against the Review Body's recommendations from the next review of MPs' pay and allowances. The Review Body intends to take this into account and it will also be addressed in Government evidence to that review.

  The underlying long-term ongoing cost of the pension scheme (as funded by both Exchequer and member contributions), has risen from an average of 24.6 per cent. of salaries at the time of the last valuation (1 April 1999) to 28 per cent. of salaries, an increase of 3.4 per cent. The net cost of the pension accrual rate improvement to the scheme, at 4.6 per cent. of salary, is lower than the Government Actuary's original estimate of 5.1 per cent. because not all Members have opted for the higher accrual rate. Members who have opted for the higher pension accrual rate now pay contributions of 9 per cent. of salary, while those opting to remain on the lower accrual rate continue to contribute 6 per cent. of salary. On average, Member contributions are now 8.7 per cent. of salaries. Technical factors account for the reduction of 1.2 per cent. which would have been seen had the benefit improvement not taken place.

  The Government Actuary has recommended an increase in the level of Exchequer contributions from the current level of 7.9 per cent. of pay, to a new level of 24 per cent. of pay. The increase of 16.1 per cent. may be broken down as follows:

  removal of contribution 'holiday ' 10.7 per cent.

  extra contributions to eliminate deficit 4.7 per cent.

  overall increase in scheme costs 0.7 per cent.*

  *The overall increase in scheme costs is shown above as 3.4 per cent. Of this, 2.7 per cent. is covered by the increase in Member contributions, leaving 0.7 per cent. to be borne by the Exchequer.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Indices of Deprivation 2000
  The Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women (Mrs. Barbara Roche)
  I wish to inform the House that we will not be able to publish the updated Indices of Deprivation on the original timescale of July this year.

  The Indices of Deprivation 2000 (ID 2000) combine statistical indicators, on economic, social and housing issues into a single score for each ward in England. This enables all wards to be ranked relative to one another according to their level of deprivation. The Indices are used by Government and other agencies to identify areas where there are concentrations of deprived people. They are, for example, used in the allocation of substantial resources aimed at renewing deprived neighbourhoods. For all these reasons it is therefore important for the Indices to remain a robust way of identifying the most deprived areas. They were last revised in 2000; more recent and detailed data have now become available and last year we began consulting across and outside Government for views on how best to strengthen and update the ID 2000.

  The two-stage consultation period began in November 2002 and was due to be completed by the spring to allow publication in July 2003. We received over 200 responses to the recently concluded Consultation on the Stage One Report with many useful suggestions, including confirmation of the need for data on crime to form part of the revised Indices.

  The timing has been affected by the lack of crime data to form this crime domain. The required data are unlikely to be available until later this year. Additional research is also needed on how to move away from using wards, as the basic geography of the Indices, to one based on geographic units that are more consistent over time and in terms of size. This will allow us to identify areas where very small pockets of deprivation exist and to track change over time. There is more work to do on other aspects such as take-up of means-tested benefits and affordability of housing.

  To investigate these issues in full will involve additional research and analysis so we have decided to delay the second stage of the consultation. We hope to complete this during the autumn with a view to publishing the revised Indices of Deprivation in the winter.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Manchester.

Gulf War Illnesses
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as honorary parliamentary adviser over many years to the Royal British Legion and a co-opted member of the United States Congressional Committee of Inquiry into Gulf War Illnesses.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what new help they are considering for Gulf War veterans with still undiagnosed illnesses and the dependants of those who have died from Gulf War illnesses since the conflict.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, the Government assist Gulf veterans who are ill through the Gulf Veterans' Medical Assessment Programme; by providing pension and other benefits to them and the dependants of those who have died; through the Veterans Agency's War Pensioner's Welfare Service; by giving medical treatment through the NHS and Defence Medical Services and by funding scientific research. Gulf veterans may also benefit from new arrangements introduced as part of the Government's Veterans Initiative.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, my noble friend, to whom I am grateful, appreciates that few pray more fervently for our troops now embattled than the brave men and women who went before. How many of them receive war pensions for their still undiagnosed illnesses? Is my noble friend aware how concerned they are that we still await, 12 years on, even an interim report on Porton Down's study of whether it was safe to give them 14 and more vaccines in Gulf War I? When will the report emerge? And is it not disturbing that well over 40 per cent of our troops now in action have refused the anthrax vaccine, implying that many fear the vaccine more than Saddam Hussein's weaponry?
Lord Bach: My Lords, my noble friend asks three questions, the first of which is how many war pensions have been paid for undiagnosed illnesses. That information is not available. War pension is not paid for individual conditions or illnesses. Awards of war pension are for any disablement that can be accepted as causally related to service, the amount paid dependent on the overall assessed level of disablement.
454
A Gulf veteran's pension may be made up of a number of different complaints. For example, complaint one could be undiagnosed illness; complaint two, bad knee; complaint three, post-traumatic stress disorder; and perhaps complaint four, asthma. The complainant will be given one pension for all these complaints on the basis of his percentage of disablement.
As for the interim results from the Vaccines interactions research programme, I visited Porton Down last Friday and was therefore able to check up on the interim results. Preliminary results will be available very shortly. A presentation is being made at Heriot-Watt University on 1st April which will report results on behaviour, sleep and other matters. Preliminary immunology results will be presented between 12th and 16th April at the meeting of the Edward Jenner Institute for Vaccine Research. Those results will be made available to Parliament.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, how many Gulf War veterans are now in this situation, with illnesses still not diagnosed? What progress is being made to identify such disorders including those thought to be illnesses associated with deserts?
Lord Bach: My Lords, on the first question, the noble Lord will know that the Gulf Veterans' Medical Assessment Programme has seen more than 3,300 patients. The programme has two main purposes, the first of which is to provide the patient with a diagnosis of his or her medical condition and recommend appropriate treatment. Secondly, the programme gathers statistical information which will be made available as a resource for researchers.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, the Minister said that he will make available to Parliament the information on test results. What steps will the MoD take to disseminate that information to all those who are suffering or believe themselves to be suffering from Gulf War syndrome?
Lord Bach: My Lords, these are the interim results and they will be announced to Parliament. The timetable after that is as follows. The programme will be completed by August 2003 and written up by December 2003. After peer group review, which is very important in this case, it will be published in 2004. How the actual report and its conclusions are made known to Gulf War veterans is yet to be decided.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I declare an interest as the national chaplain to the Royal British Legion. The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, has already mentioned our troops who decided that they do not wish to avail themselves of immunisation against anthrax. Can the Minister confirm that any of our servicemen or women who, having refused that vaccination, are then tragically killed or injured in the event of' anthrax use in Iraq will in fact still receive compensation that may be the entitlement of all servicemen and women in those circumstances?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I must put the record straight. Our records show that as of 12th March

455
around 56 per cent of those offered immunisation against anthrax opted to receive it. That figure has steadily risen since the programme was relaunched in May 2001. We are confident that the majority of personnel now in the Gulf will opt to receive immunisation and we expect take-up to improve still further. The 56 per cent figure is an overall figure which includes some personnel not deployed in the Gulf at the present time. We estimate—it is an estimation—that overall up-take among personnel currently deployed to the Gulf is around 70 per cent. Those who do not receive the anthrax vaccination will be protected in precisely the same way as others.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, does the Minister believe that it is acceptable that it has taken 13 years to come up with the report?
Lord Bach: My Lords, a great deal of research has been done into the illnesses undoubtedly suffered by Gulf War veterans. There is dispute as to whether or not Gulf War syndrome exists. At least £8.5 million has been spent on research. These matters take a considerable amount of time. Not all the research was begun in the first few years after the first Gulf War ended. Much of it has been undertaken in the past few years.

Rail Freight: Working Time Directive
2.44p.m.
Lord Bradshaw Lord Bradshaw asked Her Majesty's Government:
What will be the competitive impact on rail freight in Great Britain of the implementation of the Working Time Directive later this year.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the working time regulations will apply to all member states and all companies from 1st August 2003. The effect of the proposals on transportation costs is estimated to be minimal, based on the regulatory impact assessment, which was published as part of the consultation document—extension of the working time regulations to the excluded sectors—in October 2002.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and for the letter which he sent me. First, who among railway management was consulted about the directive as in 1998 there was no one overall who could be consulted? Secondly, as regards the hierarchy within which drivers and other people can be, or should have been, trained, is the Minister aware that the companies at the top of the hierarchy such as GNER can recruit whereas those at the bottom such as the freight operators will be left with no drivers at all? Thirdly, is it not irrational to move from a safe
456
mode of transport towards a much less safe mode of transport in terms of road safety, and is that not contrary to the Government's policy?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I understand that the original railways social partners agreement of 1998, which was agreed by the industry and unions across Europe in 1998, involved the full participation of this country. Therefore, the industry has known about the partnership, which was included in the horizontal amending directive, for some five years. In terms of the impact, I wonder whether the industry has looked carefully at the derogations, which are substantial in this case in terms of night work and other areas for mobile workers; that is, train drivers. Until one has worked through that, it is difficult to assess whether the measure will have a major impact. There is no evidence to show that it should have a major impact. As regards the road freight industry, the draft regulatory impact assessment concluded that the measure would not affect the relative position of companies in tradable sectors.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, why did the Government themselves not carry out an industry impact assessment before agreeing to the directive?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I understand that the noble Baroness asks why we did not talk to the industry about the impact of the measure. There has been endless consultation. Consultation on the working time directive started in 1993. Consultation took place in 1998 on the railways social partners agreement and on the horizontal amending directive. Regulatory impact assessments have been undertaken of that. Major consultation is also being undertaken on the draft regulations.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I believe my noble friend said that the cost of the measure to the railway industry—I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group—based on the regulatory impact assessment would be minimal. Is he aware that at a meeting of representatives of the railway industry and his officials in January which I had the honour to attend, we were told that the impact assessment covered hospital doctors, maritime workers and railway workers with one global figure for the lot? The industry was asked desperately for information to enable the Government to work out what the regulatory impact assessment should cover. Does my noble friend agree that more work needs to be done before he can state that the measure will have no impact whatever on the industry?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, our assessment of the cost to the transport industry as a whole is £100 million. It is difficult to obtain a precise figure for the rail freight industry as it is difficult to obtain the precise number of workers from employment surveys. Given that there are about

457
715,000 transport workers but only 10,000 railway freight workers, it is fair to say that the impact is likely to be minimal.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the problems with the supposedly level playing field of Europe is that it is more in the nature of a race course where the member states impose their own handicaps in terms of their willingness to abide by the particular regulations? Is it not the case that the British feel—I think that it is certainly true of the road hauliers—that they will be disadvantaged in trading terms by reason of the fact that the British on the whole tend to honour regulations which many of their European competitors do not?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, that is a common cause of complaint for which there may be some justification. We are talking about the railways not the road haulage industry. I believe the noble Lord will find that the same complaint is made on the part of other European countries. I believe that there is nothing to suggest that overall we do significantly better than others in terms of implementing the measures we are discussing.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that we tend to lose sight of what the directives are really all about? They are about a better life for workers in various industries, are they not? Should we not be glad that our Government, a Labour government, have gone along with the directives?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I very much agree. Given that that important social legislation has been around for 10 years and it has taken five years to implement the railways social partners agreement, a complaint about how long it had taken to implement would be much easier to understand than one that states that the legislation has been rushed through.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, how will the new directive be policed? How many people will be involved?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot give figures as to how many people will police the directive. It replaces normal employment legislation. I shall write to the noble Earl and give him the figures.

Heavy Goods Vehicle Operator's Licence
2.51 p.m.
Baroness Walmsley Baroness Walmsley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to amend the remit of the heavy goods operator's licence to enable overall traffic impact to be taken into consideration.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we believe that local authorities are best placed to deal with
458
planning and local traffic matters, and that their current powers are sufficient. They may also object to traffic commissioners against applications for goods vehicle operators' licences. When deciding such applications, traffic commissioners have wide powers, including the consideration of the suitability of the operating centre itself and any exit or entrance leading from a public road. We have no plans to amend the existing licensing system.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer, but is he aware that once a licence has been granted, the local authority has no power in the matter? Will he accept that we have a democratic deficit, as the law does not allow elected representatives of the local community to have any say in proposals to vary the terms of a licence? For example, is he aware that, in the town of Alsager in my area, the town council is being told that it has no power at all in the matter, even though a recent proposal to vary the terms of a licence will actually double the heavy goods traffic on the B road through the town?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, surely an issue of that kind should be dealt with by the local authority's own powers. It can make traffic regulation orders to stop heavy lorries using unsuitable roads by imposing weight or dimension restrictions. That is how a local authority can avoid an addition of heavy traffic. It should not and could not be done through the heavy vehicle operator's licence. Of course, there is a provision for a review of such licences every five years and, on those occasions, local authorities have the same say. I should add that local authorities can appeal to the Transport Tribunal against decisions of the traffic commissioners.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, is the Minister aware that although the regulations allow the traffic commissioners to take into account the question of exit and entrance to a road, they cannot take into consideration the suitability of the road because it is the public highway and assumed to be suitable? Would he consider amending the powers of the traffic commissioners so that they may take into account the whole of the route over which a lorry will pass? That is what affects people, and that is the matter about which people are complaining.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, what noble Lords are asking for is a duplication of controls. The traffic commissioners obviously have responsibility for the technical aspects of vehicle operation. They also have responsibility for the operating centre, which is where the vehicles are kept, leave from in the morning and go back to when they have finished work. However, everything else that the noble Lord wants can be controlled by traffic regulation orders, which are the responsibility of local authorities.
Surely a liberal democratic party ought at least to believe in local autonomy, and say that the issue should continue to be under local democratic control

459
rather than under the control of appointed traffic commissioners. I am astonished at the idea that the situation should be called a democratic deficit.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, matters are in fact under the control of local authorities, but it is up to the police to enforce them. They have to follow a lorry for the whole distance restricted, which is absolutely impossible given that police resources are at present so overstretched.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I did not hear a question.

Emergency Telephone Calls
2.55 p.m.
Baroness Sharpies Baroness Sharpies asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether any 999 telephone calls are answered by a call centre in New Delhi.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, no 999 telephone calls are answered by a call centre in New Delhi. They are all directed to the appropriate emergency service by a network of call centres in the UK.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, a while ago I was by driven by a very charming Indian who on a previous occasion had witnessed a bad accident. When he dialled 999 and informed the operator that he was on Western Avenue, the operator said that he did not know where that was. When asked where he was situated, the operator replied, "New Delhi".
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, that could have been an Indian in another part of the country, and it could have been a joke. I am assured categorically that no calls are handled otherwise than in the UK. Two centres have been put out by BT, one in Bangalore and one in New Delhi, but they are to deal with the company's directory inquiries and conferencing work.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, would the Minister care to have a bet with me that practically no one in this Chamber knows what to dial instead of 999 in Europe?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I would be happy to take that bet because I am well briefed to answer the question, but the noble Baroness may be right about the rest of the House.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, what arrangements are being made, if any, to combine the
460
call centres for the ambulance service, the fire service and police, as has been suggested? Is that proposal going forward?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not know the answer, but the matter does not have anything to do with call centres for BT. It is to do with the emergency services—
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, it is to do with 999.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Yes, my Lords, but it is not to do with the BT part of the matter, which is handling calls to the emergency services.
Lord Addington: My Lords, will the Minister give us the assurance that the person one speaks to when one phones 999 will have a good knowledge of the locality from which one is phoning, and of the local accent? Someone from South Wales might struggle with a Northumbrian accent, for instance.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there is a code of practice between the PTOs and the emergency services on how such calls should be handled. I do not believe that they are handled on a local basis. The call is routed to the first free operator, and that operator may be in another part of the country, so calls do not necessarily go to the locality. That is judged to be the best and speediest way to handle them. There is a forum for such issues, but that is believed to be the best route.
Lord McNally: My Lords, although the idea of dialling 999 is deeply embedded in our culture and history, does the service keep track of modern technologies? For example, has there been any study of being able to text, e-mail or use other new technologies to summon assistance?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not know whether any research of that kind is being done. I will make inquiries and let the noble Lord know what is in train.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, is the Minister aware that lots of people, including several whom I know, have phoned 999 for the police when someone has been in their home and been told that they are in a queue? Will he give that the attention that it needs?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, does the noble Baroness's question relate to the police or to the telephone operating service? If it is to the latter, then clearly I would appreciate examples being given so that the matter can be investigated. If it concerns the police, then obviously it is an issue that the police themselves need to investigate.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that what matters is not necessarily where the call is answered but the response times of the

461
emergency service? Can he say what tracking is done to ensure that those who dial 999, for whatever reason, receive the attention that they require?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I have not done any tracking but, as I said, there is a code which covers the matter. Presumably, if people have any sense that the system is not operating correctly, they should make the appropriate complaint.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, is the Minister aware that huge numbers of calls are made following accidents? For example, 1,000 calls can be made in connection with one accident. More than anything else, the police would be assisted if calls were divided between the urgent and the less urgent. Is progress being made on the realisation of a 555 number for less urgent calls so that the public divide their calls between the two?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as I understand it, the Question concerns whether calls are being dealt with in New Delhi. I believe that I have answered that. Further questions on the exact way that calls are handled in all situations are outside the scope of the Question.

Business
3.1 p.m.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient time after 3.30 p.m. my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House will repeat a Statement on Iraq and the European Council.

London Local Authorities and Transport for London Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Corruption: Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Commons message of 11th March be now considered, and that a committee of seven Lords be appointed to join with the committee appointed by the Commons, to consider and report on any draft Corruption Bill presented to both Houses by a Minister of the Crown;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following be named of the committee:

L. Bernstein of Craigweil,

L. Campbell-Savours,

L. Carlisle of Bucklow,

B. Scott of Needham Market,

462

L. Slynn of Hadley,

L. Waddington,

B. Whitaker;

That the committee have power to agree with the Commons in the appointment of a chairman;
That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom:
That the reports of the committee from time to time shall be printed, notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
That the committee do report no later than four months after the presentation of any such draft Bill;
And that the committee do meet with the committee appointed by the Commons today at half-past four o'clock in Committee Room 3A.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to; and a message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Voting Age (Reduction to 16) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill
3.2 p.m.
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again 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 2 [Referendum question]:
Lord Greaves Lord Greaves moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 2, line 36, at end insert—
"( ) In those parts of the region that currently have both county and district councils the following additional question shall be asked—
"Do you agree with the proposal to reorganise the county and district councils in your area into a single unitary tier of local government?"."
The noble Lord said: With Amendment No. 40, at the beginning of our third day in Committee, we return to a question that we have already discussed at considerable length, and therefore I shall be brief. In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 47 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee.
In Amendment No. 40, we suggest that the matter of the referendum for a regional assembly in a region can be tackled in another way. The amendment proposes a second question, which asks simply whether people agree that, in addition to having a regional assembly, their local government should be reorganised on a unitary basis in their area.
Amendment No. 47 concerns a slightly different, but related, issue. It states:
"Where there is a proposal to reorganise local government in any electoral area, only persons entitled to vote at the election of councillors for such area shall be entitled to vote on such a proposal".
This has two parts to it, the more minor being that anyone who is not entitled to vote in local elections in an area would not be able to vote. The more important part would exclude from the vote all electors who do not live in the area to be reorganised. Therefore, the amendment would tackle the problem, which we discussed at some length, of people in areas such as Tyneside and Wearside, which are already unitary, being able to vote on whether the counties of Northumberland and Durham in the North East, for example, should be unitary. The same applies to all the other regions.
It seems to us to be a fundamental matter of democratic competence that the people responsible for deciding what kind of local government structure they have should be the local government electors for that area. We shall no doubt debate this matter again and again as the Bill goes through its various stages in your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: We have already discussed the whole business of decoupling, and it seems to me that this is another variation of that. However, we are absolutely at one with Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches in that we regard these two issues as quite distinct. One concerns the matter of regional assemblies and whether people believe that they should have them, and the other concerns whether people want wholesale reorganisation of their local authorities.
In considering the eight areas, we know that no one single area would not undergo a fairly major upheaval of local government if they answered "Yes" to the question of a referendum—or, rather, if the Secretary of State decided that there should be a referendum. In answer to that, I believe that the Minister used the word "mantra". I read much of what the Minister in another place said on the issue. The Government's argument is, "We don't want another tier of government".
It is possible that when local people understand— again, I use the Minister's words—that the "price to pay" for regional assemblies is that their local government arrangements must undergo major upheaval, then it will become a very different argument. People will understand that by saying "Yes" to the simple question of a referendum, they will be giving way to upheaval in local government.
464
I read very carefully the Constitution Committee report on this matter, and I read it even more carefully when it was brought to our notice by the Minister. I believe that that is something he may regret by the end of the debate. The Constitution Committee was also concerned about this issue. I believe that there is at least an argument for saying that, in order for people truly to have a choice about regional government, they should truly have a view about how it should be arranged within their area. They should not have to take as read that an answer to one question indicates an answer to another.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I have listened with increasing anxiety to what my noble friend Lady Blatch has said throughout the passage of the Bill thus far. She has alerted me to the fact that this is a far more deep-rooted and sinister measure than it appears on the surface. The Bill has a most innocent title, but I cannot help feeling—I shall not go into it at length now—that it is the death knell of county councils. I hope that that is not the Government's intention, but that is how increasingly it seems to me.
I am always imperfectly informed about the relationships and the decision-making that goes on between the Front Benches. I tend to be rather unhappy about them. Am I right in thinking that an agreement has been reached between the usual channels that this Committee stage should end precipitately this evening? I shall give way immediately if the noble Lord can clear up the matter.
Lord Rooker: No, that is not right. I must be very careful about my use of words. The Committee stage will finish not this evening but today. Today will finish only when this House adjourns. The proceedings will take as long as they take, and it does not matter to me whether that is tomorrow or the day after. It will still be "today" if we do not adjourn. That is what was agreed.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am obliged to the noble Lord. I was correct in my suspicion. The Minister will continue with the Bill, but he did not say whether the situation has been agreed through the usual channels. I would like to know whether that is so.
Lord Rooker: I am not the business manager. As I am instructed, the Committee stage of the Bill will finish today, but in parliamentary terms today ends when the Committee adjourns. Noble Lords who have been Members of the another place will know that the day is as long as the Committee wishes to make it; it is not limited to 24 hours.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My memories of another place are more distant than those of the noble Lord, but I assure him that in this respect they are undying. I am well aware that if necessary and if convenient for the government of the day, one day can last all eternity. I have long nurtured the suspicion that my noble friends on the Front Bench—the nicest possible people—long ago lost their sense of smell and from

465
time to time are unable to detect the downright guile of the Government. I believe that this is one of those occasions. The Bill appears increasingly full of menace. As I understand it, today will go on for ever until we have agreed to the Bill. I make the protest now because I believe that that is wrong. If there has been any shadow of an agreement between the two Front Benches, I am deeply sorry but I regret profoundly that my noble friends believe that in the business of legislation they can dispense altogether with the sense of smell that nature gave them.
Baroness Hamwee: Can the Minister confirm that the pro forma for responses to the soundings exercise does not include a reference to the reorganisation of local government? That being so, why not, given that the Government present this as inextricably intertwined with the establishment of regional assemblies? The notes that accompany the pro forma refer to reorganisation. They say at paragraph 16:
"we may look at a range of other factors, which are set out in the Bill"—
of course, the Bill is not part of the soundings document—
"in order to choose which regions are to have a local government review. These may include the potential effects on the two-tier (county and district) local authorities in a region …and the differences between regions of those effects".
It also states:
"The effects of a review on the two-tier local authorities in the region (taken as a whole) are likely to vary between regions".
Interestingly, the paper goes on to say in paragraph 25:
"These soundings are initially to inform the Secretary of State's decision on which region(s) should be subject to a local government review".
Perhaps the Minister can explain to the Committee the approach to the soundings exercise in that regard, given that the Government have chosen to combine those two elements so inextricably.
Lord Rooker: I promise that I shall never be deflected from providing the Committee with information on which to have a debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said that I shall regret pointing out that a Select Committee of your Lordships' House published a report. I do not regret that at all. It is freely available; it is not a secret report. It is the property of the House and I referred to its contents last week. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said that people have lost their sense of smell. I repeat that the Government do not have a majority in the Committee.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: The noble Lord should not misinterpret me. I did not say "People had lost their sense of smell". I said that with deep regret and immense lamentation my noble friends on the Front Bench, or those in the usual channels, had lost their sense of smell. I made the comment very personal.
3.15p.m.
Lord Rooker: The noble Lord certainly did. In some ways I was trying to depersonalise it. In the past 18
466
months I have learned that this place works on agreement and that the Government cannot impose their wishes because they do not have a majority here. The basic premise is that the House will not adjourn today until the Committee stage has concluded, however long it takes. I have no idea how long that will he, but the longer the better because it will give me a better chance to put the Government's robust case for the Bill.
This is a package. If one buys the elected regional assembly, one buys the local government changes that go with it. As I have said several times, at the time of voting in a referendum people will know the consequences for their local government structure and it will be up to them to make the decision. If they are more wedded to their local government structure than to the proposed regional assembly, they will vote no in the referendum as that is the way in which to preserve the present situation. It is as simple as that.
The pro forma raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, contains nine questions and 29 explanatory paragraphs. The soundings document is all about asking people whether they want a referendum. Paragraph 17 states that,
"A review will inevitably have some effect on the local authorities in two-tier areas".
There is no secret about the consequences of the policy. It is also clear in the White Paper. This has not been sprung on the Committee or on the establishment outside to whom the soundings paper was sent. It concerns the level of interest in holding a referendum. That is the question that is asked in the pro forma. The consequence of elected regional assemblies is single-tier government because we are not prepared to countenance another tier of government. I make no apology for that.
We have said that we would need rationalisation, because without it we would be adding to the complexity of the structure of government with regional assemblies. We want a clear division of responsibilities between the different tiers of government and clear links of accountability so that the electorate are not fobbed off, as they sometimes are, with different tiers of authorities. Voters will take into account the implications when they vote.
Repeatedly I have said that booklets will be posted through every door so that every household of voters will be fully aware of the consequences for regional government and other factors before they vote. I do not believe we can be more reasonable than that. There is nothing suspicious about it. It is not revolutionary. For local government reorganisation to be subject to a vote by people in the area concerned would be revolutionary, but we are a reforming government not a revolutionary government.
Lord Greaves: I thought that the Minister was about to claim that they are a revolutionary government as they allow people to vote on local government reform. The problem is that it is tied up with other matters. We are not afraid of revolution where appropriate. On the length of time that we may sit—clearly I cannot speak

467
for the Conservative Front Bench—we are in favour of finishing the Committee stage today. We are adamant that the Bill must be scrutinised properly; we are not adamant that people should make the same speeches today that they made last Thursday and the week before. We shall attempt not to do that but I cannot promise. Politicians are foolish if they promise that they will not say anything.
The noble Lord did not respond specifically to Amendment No. 47, although it is an alternative approach. I have no doubt that we shall return to the matter at a later stage.
In responding to Amendment No. 40, the Minister once again repeated the mantra: "We are not prepared to countenance it and that's that". The House may have an alternative view. Parliament will decide the state of this legislation and we are not prepared to be bludgeoned or blackmailed by the Government into not doing what we think is right.
The Minister referred to "clear lines of accountability" and to "not being fobbed off with two tiers". Yet again, as last week, it sounds as though the Government are not just rooting for unitary local authorities where there is regional government, but for unitary local authorities full stop. In the future we may have to probe whether the Government's agenda is to have unitary authorities everywhere regardless of whether one has regional assemblies. That is the pure logical outcome of what the Minister said.
Having said that, I am tempted to test the opinion of the Committee. I am advised that it might be best to do so at a later stage in the passage of the Bill. So, on a distinctly temporary basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 41 had been withdrawn from Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 42 not moved.]
Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 2, line 36, at end insertl—
"( ) Any statement under subsection (2) shall be accompanied by an estimate by the Electoral Commission of their best estimate of the total annual cost of paying for the proposed regional assembly and the regional administration in the referendum area."
The noble Lord said: Given previous discussions in Committee, it is important for the electorate to know the costs of establishing regional government. The White Paper Your Move, Your Choice stated that the cost of running a regional elected assembly would be around £25 million per year. The real cost will be for the reorganisation of local government.
When the referendums are held, the local government reorganisation will have been sorted out. The Government say that they want the electorate to vote on whether they want a region and whether they want the local government to be reorganised in that area. We have been told that there will be a year's process of looking at local government reorganisation in the area. Therefore, if one is establishing unitaries in
468
a county there will be an approximate cost. We feel very strongly indeed that the public should be told the costs of reorganisation.
The cost of running the assembly will be the cost of the Members, the staff and establishing a building for the assembly. The cost of reorganisation will be considerable. As we have said during these debates, it will be probably up to £2 billion nationally. Certainly, where one has a preponderance of two-tier authorities there will be a tremendous amount of reorganisation. Even in, for example, Yorkshire and Humberside where authorities are mainly unitary there will be considerable costs of reorganisation. We wish the public to be aware of the cost of reorganisation as well as the cost of setting up regional assemblies. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: Can the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, explain whether in proposing that there is an estimate for paying not just for the assembly but also the "regional administration" he can distinguish between the cost of regional administration under the aegis of a regional assembly and regional administration full stop? We have regional administration now. I am sure that the noble Lord does not intend the public to be confused by the inclusion of existing costs with future costs.
Lord Hanningfield: Perhaps I may clarify the matter. The amendment refers to "the proposed regional assembly". It is those costs. I accept the comments of the noble Baroness that there is presently the cost of running a regional office. However, we are talking about the costs of running a proposed regional assembly, the newly established body that will be set up after the referendum.
Baroness Hanham: Is it the Government's intention to allow any regional assembly to build new headquarters? With the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and London, untold millions were invested into new headquarters, which are probably basically unnecessary and certainly in regional government terms should be unnecessary.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I shall deal with Amendment No. 43 first. It asks that the Electoral Commission's estimate of the total annual cost of paying for the proposed regional assembly be looked at. The Electoral Commission has no expertise and no background. It is not part of its function to provide the figures. Estimated figures have been provided, as the noble Lord said, by the Government in Your Region, Your Choice. As he said, the Government's estimate at the moment is running costs of £25 million per year. Around £5 million of that will be directly offset by staff transferring from existing bodies.
The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, raised the question of local government reorganisation. He argued that this will cost money. It may. We cannot approach the matter and issue sensible figures until the boundary reports appear.
Lord Hanningfield: That was my point. By the time the referendum is held, the work will have been done.

469
Therefore, the figure might be approximate but it could be estimated to the next £10 million. A figure will be available by the time we reach the referendum of what the local government reorganisation might cost. That was the point. I accept it is not available now, but it will be after a year's work and before the electorate vote. Therefore, that figure should be made available to the electorate at that stage, as well as the potential costs associated with running the regional assembly.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I was about to say that later on we shall publish a full summary of our proposals, including costings for elected regional assemblies before any referendum to ensure that voters are well informed. Throughout the debate we have made the point that we are determined to give the electorate as much information as possible so that they can not only make an informed decision but will know—to use the vernacular—what they are letting themselves in for on a costs basis.
I was asked about assembly buildings. We do not want massive new buildings throughout the regions. We very much hope that where regional assemblies are wanted by the electorate they will be able to house themselves in existing buildings.
The Earl of Onslow: In his forecasts of the costs of regional assemblies will the noble Lord attach a footnote which states that all costs since the rebuilding of this Palace in the 1840s to the building of the Scottish regional assembly have gone at least four times over estimate?
Baroness Blatch: In response to my noble friend's question about buildings, we were told that London, Wales and Scotland would not have large buildings. There was nothing in those Acts of Parliament to say, "Thou shalt not build large monuments to yourselves". Therefore, what guarantee can the noble Lord as a Minister of the Government give us that none of these regions will build a new building? I do not think it is possible for the noble Lord to give that assurance across the Dispatch Box.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: It is not our plan that there should be new regional buildings. As my noble friend Lord Rooker said right at the beginning, and I repeat half his mantra: "There is no new money". Regional assemblies will not be able to afford to build brand new buildings, as happened in Scotland and Wales.
3.30p.m.
Lord Waddington: The Minister used the word "hope": he hoped that they would accommodate themselves in existing buildings. Is that the end of the matter? Can they divert existing funds into new buildings, rather than use them for worthwhile purposes? What powers do the Government have or will they take to prevent abuses such as have already occurred in places such as London? It is an abuse that
470
authorities should use our money, the council tax payers' money, on bricks and mortar when they should be using it on services.
Baroness Hamwee: I am sorry, but I cannot stand it any longer. I declare an interest as a Member of the Greater London Assembly. I have several points to make, but shall endeavour to restrict them. The building occupied by the Greater London Authority was commissioned by central government. One may have plenty of complaints about that, but as a matter of fact, it was not commissioned by the mayor or the assembly and it came in within budget.
We have not seen the legislation regarding finance, but we have heard the phrase, "No new money". The chances must be that the finance regime for regional assemblies will be that of or close to that of local government. All of us with experience of spending funds locally will be accustomed to ring-fencing, now ear-marking, and so on of the funds made available. As the regional assemblies will not have tax-raising powers, the chance of them having the dosh to build monuments to themselves, even if they wanted to, is remote.
But if the regional assemblies are to do a good job of undertaking strategic government, they do not need iconic, massive, grand, glorious buildings, but they need offices that are fit for purpose to enable the delivery of good regional government.
Baroness Blatch: On the point made by the noble Baroness—that regional assemblies will not have tax-raising powers—I have reread carefully what Mr Raynsford said in another place, and they will have precepting powers. I pay rates, council tax, in London. My council tax has risen phenomenally under the Greater London Authority. My rate demand for the coming year has risen by just over 29 per cent. What is to stop regional assemblies using precepting powers to build large buildings?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My noble friend Lord Rooker, who is sitting behind me, says, "common sense".
To address the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, it would be politically unwise for a regional assembly to move moneys from services into a new building. Of course that could happen, but in a world of sensible decision-making, it is unlikely that the regional assembly in the North East, North West, Cornwall, or wherever, would say, "What we need as a sort of virility symbol is a brand-new building. We shall raid social services for the money to build it". I simply do not believe that that will happen.
We must return to the amendment. It says nothing about the cost of reorganisation. It is all about the cost of running the assembly. With all due respect, the amendment does not achieve the laudable aim of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield.
Lord Hanningfield: I must repeat where we stand on the amendment. The amendment covers both the cost

471
of managing the regional assembly and the cost of reorganising local government. We have just discussed the cost of running the regional assembly. There will obviously be costs. There are no buildings at present; most assemblies are peripatetic—they move around and operate from offices in different places—and would have to have some buildings. Whatever they are, they will cost.
But the big expense, from which we seem to have moved away, is the cost of reorganisation. Even in the North East, which comprises Durham and Northumberland, that will amount to tens or hundreds of millions of pounds. Such costs must be known to the public at the time.
The Minister said that information would be issued at the time of the referendum. That would be after reorganisation had been considered, so information about the cost would then be available. Will the Minister clarify whether the information issued by the Government or whoever at the time of the referendum would contain figures as well as details of what the assembly would do—a matter to which we shall return later? That has not been clarified.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: As I mentioned a moment ago, one of the Government's themes throughout our three-day debate has been that we are anxious to give the electorate as much information as possible. I hope that many people will be consulted about the information and will have the opportunity to have an input. One piece of information will be the costs about which the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, is asking.
I cannot at present say what will be the detailed costs, but I can give the noble Lord an undertaking that part of the package of proposals—which, as my noble friend Lord Rooker said, will go through the letterbox of everyone throughout the land—will be figures addressing the issue of local government reorganisation raised by the noble Lord in his speech. The noble Lord must understand that at present we can say nothing about the matter prior to a boundary report, so I hope that he will be satisfied with my undertaking and withdraw the amendment.
Lord Waddington: I thank the Minister for giving way again. In his reply to me, was he not saying no more than that on this occasion hope will triumph over experience? We know that public funds have been used to build grandiose structures to house representatives. Is there no hope on this occasion of the Government taking powers to prevent such abuse? That was the burden of my question.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: The answer to that specific question, with which I have sympathy, is that none of us on either side of the House would want great edifices built in whatever part of the land. If I may, I shall take that specific point away and return later with a considered view on it.
Baroness Hanham: The Minister has made some fundamental commitments. I should like to be sure
472
what we have. Throughout our discussion during the first and second day of Committee, we have been trying to ensure that information will be made available. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has from time to time said that certain information will be made available, but the fact is that if we had not started to pick at the matter, we should have had no idea about what information was or was not to be provided in the booklet.
Can the Minister assure me that the various matters that we have raised will be included in the consultation booklet? That might save us a bit of time. We now know that the costs of reorganisation and of running a regional assembly will be included in information given to electors before they vote in a referendum. Is that correct?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I repeat that we shall provide a great deal of information to the electorate. That proposal has not just popped up out of the blue—my noble friend Lord Rooker has said over the past three days that every elector would receive an information booklet through the door. I have given an undertaking that the pack will include information on the running cost of the assemblies. I cannot go further than that; it would be foolhardy of me to do so. In the same way as the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, has no idea what those costs will be, I do not know either. Noble Lords are on the verge of questioning my good will in what I say to them. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: The noble Lord seems to have confused the question. We are asking for information to be given to your Lordships' House now or at a later stage. I, for one, am in no way reassured by the noble Lord's undertaking that masses of information will pour through everyone's letterbox. Most people do not value much of the information that comes through their letterbox. We seek information in your Lordships' House as soon as possible.
The Earl of Onslow: I wish to comment on that important point. The noble Lord sounds reasonable, but he is waffling. He is not answering very simple questions: whether or not certain things will happen, yes or no. Some of us on this side of the Committee who think that the scheme is pretty crazy anyway are at least, I hope, open to conversion. When we get such waffle from the noble Lord about what is happening, it raises our suspicions. He seems not to know the answers to our questions, and, as a Minister of the Crown, he should do.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I know when I am waffling; I do not feel that I am doing so now. I am giving the Committee as much information as I can at present. I emphasise once more that we recognise that the cost of running the assemblies is a significant matter. The pack will give voters as much information as possible about the running costs of the assemblies. I cannot go further than that.

473
I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, picked up the earlier point of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, that, apart from the running costs, his primary interest was the cost of local government reorganisation running up to regional assemblies or their establishment. I thought that noble Lords accepted my point that we cannot begin to approach those figures until we know the results reached by the Boundary Commission. Once we have them, we will do our best to construct the figures that everyone in this House wants.
Lord Hanningfield: We had many questions, to which the Government tried to give some answers. We have had an interesting debate on the amendment. We must accept that some of the figures that we seek are not available now. Our point is that they must be available over the next year before any referendum. We need to know the costs of running the regional assemblies, possible building and setting-up costs, and, particularly, the costs of local government reorganisation, which will dwarf any regional assembly running costs. It is estimated that the reorganisation of local government in England—I accept that the noble Lord will say that it will involve only one area to start with—involving a mixture of reorganisation to create one tier, will be over £2 billion. Unless the Government made available extra money, that amount would have to come out of funds for services such as provision for the elderly and schools. Such figures must be clarified.
I hope that the Government will indicate further where we will go in later stages. Report stage is coming up. I hope that the Minister can indicate more clearly how the Government will inform the public and what information they will give them. We will have to look again at the question to be put to the public in a referendum. I am sure that we will return to all those subjects over the next few weeks. Given that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
3.45 p.m.
Clause 3 [Entitlement to vote]:
Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 2, line 38, after "vote" insert "in response to question 1, under section 2,"
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 45, 46, 48 and 49. Amendment No. 48 is not very applicable because it relates to Amendment No. 26. These amendments would clarify who votes in the referendums. We feel strongly that this is a constitutional issue; therefore, the electorate voting on whether there should be a regional assembly should be that which votes in a parliamentary election. It is an odd thing for a Member of the House of Lords to say because it excludes us from voting in the referendum—rather like turkeys voting for Christmas. But, as I said several times, we are establishing constitutional change in England, which should be decided by those who decide on Parliament.
We tabled Amendment No. 48 because, if we were successful in getting a dual question comprising a question on a regional assembly and one on the reorganisation of local government, the people who vote on the local government component should be those who vote in local government elections.
On Amendment No. 49, Clause 3 gives the Secretary of State enormous powers to override the electoral register. Why is the Secretary of State taking so much power to disregard alterations to the register of electors? That could mean that the Secretary of State could refer back to an earlier register for the purposes of the referendum, which might enable people who had moved elsewhere to vote. We tabled Amendment No. 49 to understand why the Secretary of State wants to take such enormous powers. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: I shall do my best to answer the noble Lord's perfectly reasonable questions. Clause 3 sets out the franchise of those entitled to vote in a referendum on the establishment of an elected assembly. The basic rule is that the person entitled to vote from the date of the referendum is entitled to vote at a local government election for any area within the region concerned. That can be modified. Amendment No. 45 would replace that provision with the parliamentary franchise.
Noble Lords are talking up the situation and claiming that great constitutional change is occurring in the country. It is a technical adjustment of democratic accountability and scrutiny.
A noble Lord: Oh!
Lord Rooker: Oh, yes, yes. Let me put it this way: the changes are not as important as setting up the Scottish Parliament with primary legislation powers or establishing the National Assembly for Wales with secondary powers. Yet the local government franchise, not the parliamentary franchise, was used for those bodies. There could be no more massive constitutional change than the devolution of primary legislative powers from Westminster to Edinburgh, yet the local government franchise applied in that case. Let us not talk it up way beyond what it is and make a mountain out of a molehill.
It is important that Members of your Lordships' House should participate in the elections. I cannot see why the Committee would rule out allowing Members of your Lordships' House to vote in an English regional referendum, even though it was OK for them to vote in the referendums in Scotland and Wales and in the elections to the Greater London Assembly We should maintain a degree of consistency.
I have some sympathy with the reasoning behind Amendment No. 46. However, as I said, there should be a common approach to all sub-national referendums, which is what, effectively, a regional referendum is. In local government and parliamentary elections, we recognise that those who are resident in a place have, to a greater or lesser degree, an interest in and an attachment to the area that is worthy of

475
representation. Those who have a residence in a region, even if it is a second home, will still have an interest in how the region is run.
Amendment No. 48 suggests that only people living in two-tier areas should be able to vote for a future local government structure. I have already made it clear that we do not believe in a separate question on local government restructuring. It would not be useful to go down that road again. Amendment No. 44 is consequential.
Amendment No. 49 has a degree of substance, so I shall give a slightly longer explanation. As we said, Clause 3 sets out the entitlement. It is intended that the franchise will be the same as for local government elections. Amendment No. 49 would remove subsections (2) and (3). There is no sinister motive underlying those subsections. They are there so that the basic rule in Clause 3(1) can be made to correspond to the provisions of the Representation of the People Act 1983, in particular, Section 13B. Those provisions require certain alterations to the register of local government electors to be ignored after the final nomination day for the purpose of a local government election. The section also covers other elections but not referendums. The final nomination day is the last day on which nomination papers may be delivered to the returning officer for the purpose of the election. For local government elections, that is the 19th day before the day of the election, according to election rules.
I shall give an example that shows why we need subsections (2) and (3). Without those subsections, there would be no mechanism for setting a cut-off date for registration for referendums, which is administratively necessary. Furthermore, there might be a combination of a referendum with a local government election. In that situation, it is sensible that there should be no disparity between those who can vote in the referendum and those who can vote in the local government election. Otherwise, running a combined poll would be a problem.
Subsections (2) and (3) also have precedents. For example, there is similar provision in Sections 3(2) and 4(2) of the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Act 1998 and Section 45 of the Local Government Act 2000. The Committee will be aware that the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform did not comment adversely on the provisions. I assure the Committee that the procedure for making such regulations will be subject to affirmative resolution in both Houses.
The Earl of Onslow: I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will not press the amendment. This is a serious constitutional issue—I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on that point—and it could
476
be argued that only Members of your Lordships' House should be allowed to vote on the issue and not anybody else.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): Hear, hear.
The Earl of Onslow: However, as that is probably not going to happen, in spite of the vocal approval expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, from the Government Front Bench, I hope that we will all be allowed to vote. After all, voting early and voting often is a good idea. There is nothing wrong with that. We should trust the people, including your Lordships.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I cannot resist the temptation to get to my feet again. I have great respect for the noble Lord, but he takes advantage of slower-moving older people such as myself. He said that we should not talk it up into a big constitutional issue, but I should be delighted to hear him do a thorough job of talking the issue down into an unimportant, mundane non-constitutional issue.
At the moment, I am so misguided as to fear far-reaching consequences. I would be grateful to the noble Lord if he could dislodge my suspicions. Those are firmly implanted, having been well sown by my noble friend Lady Blatch—I could wish for no greater authority—and by my noble friend Lord Waddington, who, with his considerable eloquence and experience, has gone a long way to convince me that it is not as simple an issue as the noble Lord would have me believe.
Baroness Blatch: The Minister was provocative in telling us that it is not a constitutional issue and that those of us who think it is are wrong. We are in good company on the issue. The Select Committee on the Constitution said:
"We considered that the bill raised significant constitutional issues which we wish to explore further".
It also referred to certain areas of concern:
"the asymmetrical model of regional government which the bill implies…; the proposal to hold referendums at different times in different regions; the criteria which would have to be met to trigger a referendum in a particular region; public participation in consultation, and the provision of information to voters before a referendum; the lack of a turnout threshold in any referendum; the potential for changing boundaries and the independence and powers of the Boundary Committee; and the funding of Regional Assemblies and their independence from central government".
The committee recommended:
"We draw these matters to the attention of the House as raising questions of principle about principal parts of the constitution".
If that is not a good recommendation from the Select Committee, I do not know what is.
The integrity of England as a country is at stake. The integrity of Scotland is intact because Scotland has its own Parliament. Wales has its own Assembly. We have already started to break up England by establishing London government. Almost certainly,

477
we will lose our historic counties because of the regional assemblies, and there is a real constitutional issue in the Bill.
As I said, when the Bill is passed by Parliament it will trigger a great deal of executive action, none of which needs to be approved by Parliament. The implications for the future of England in the United Kingdom as a whole makes the time that we spend on the Bill very important.
Lord Rooker: I do not disagree with that last point. The time spent on the Bill is useful. I do not wish to burden the House by going back to the Select Committee report to which I referred last week. However, as far as I am aware, we can satisfy the Committee on the issues that are raised.
If there were a major issue about the franchise, it would have been dealt with when the Scottish Parliament, the Greater London Authority and the Welsh Assembly were set up. I cannot accept that the Bill is of major constitutional importance in the sense that that phrase has been used in the past three days. 'The precedent is there in the other bodies. I have already said that, whatever anyone might claim for them, the English regional assemblies will not be as important in the constitutional framework as the bodies in Scotland and Wales, which pass secondary and primary legislation.
I have said, "No new money. No new powers. No new tier of government". The Bill is a technical adjustment, a reform of democratic accountability. It will not destroy England or obliterate it, which is the preposterous claim made by the Opposition. Nothing could be further from the purpose of the Bill.
Lord Hanningfield: I thank the noble Lord for those replies. The Government can take it that there is much unease—particularly about the way the questions will be answered. There is a theme running through all the amendments about the question that is asked, and who votes for it. I am sure that we will come back to these issues at Report and later stages.
I wish to go back to subsection (2) of my Amendment No. 49. The Minister gave a detailed explanation of why that was there. It still gives the Secretary of State enormous powers—not just for these referendums, but for other ways of disregarding electoral registers. Although he gave a detailed explanation, which we shall see when it is written up, I am sure that we shall want to look at it again. I do not see why the Secretary of State should have such wide powers which would apply to other elections. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

European Council: Iraq
4.1 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, with the leave of your Lordships, the House now having resumed, I will repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place earlier this afternoon.
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a Statement on the European Council which I attended in Brussels on 20th and 21st March; and report on the conflict in Iraq.
"This meeting was the fourth of the special summits on economic reform in the European Union. But, of course, the summit was dominated by Iraq.
"I should like to place on record what I know will be the heartfelt gratitude of the entire House for the valour of British servicemen and women.
"I send the deepest sympathy of the Government and the whole House to the families of those who have died. They gave their lives for our safety. They had the courage to take the ultimate risk in the service of their country, and of those who value freedom everywhere in the world. We owe them an immense debt.
"I would also like to extend my condolences and those of our nation to the families of the American personnel who have sadly been lost in recent days.
"We are now just four days into this conflict. It is worth restating our central objectives. They are to remove Saddam Hussein from power and ensure Iraq is disarmed of all chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programmes. But in achieving these objectives, we have also embraced other considerations. We want, to do this campaign in a way that minimises the suffering of ordinary Iraqi people, brutalised by Saddam; to safeguard the wealth of the country for the future prosperity of the people; and to make this a war not of conquest, but of liberation.
"For that reason, we did not, as some expected, mount a heavy bombing campaign first, followed by a land campaign. Instead, land forces were immediately in action, securing oil installations, gaining strategic assets and retaining them, not destroying them. The air campaign has been precisely targeted. Of course there will have been civilian casualties. But we have done all we humanly can, to keep them to a minimum. Water and electricity supplies are being spared. The targets are the infrastructure, command and control of Saddam's regime not of the civilian population. And we are making massive efforts to clear lines of supply for humanitarian aid, though the presence of mines is hindering us.
"By contrast, the nature of Saddam's regime is all too plainly expressed in its actions. The oil wealth was mined, and deep-mined at that. Had we not struck quickly, Iraq's future wealth would even now be burning away. Prisoners are being paraded in

479
defiance of all international conventions. Those who dare speak criticism of the regime are being executed.
"Let me now give the House some detail of the military campaign.
"In the south, our aim was to secure the key oil installations on the A1 Fawr peninsula; to take the port of Umm Qasr, the only Iraqi port to the outside world; and to render Basra, the second largest city in Iraq, ineffective as a base for military operations by Saddam against coalition troops. In the West, in the desert, our aim is to prevent Saddam from using it as a base for hostile external aggression. In the north, our objective is to protect people in the Kurdish autonomous zone, to secure the northern oil fields and to ensure the north cannot provide a base for Saddam's resistance.
"Then, the vital goal is to reach Baghdad as swiftly as possible, thus bringing the end of the regime closer.
"There is a limit to how much I can say about the detail of our operations, especially those involving Special Forces, as I am sure the House understands. But, with that caveat, at present, the British and US troops have taken the Al Fawr peninsula. That is now secure. The southern oil installations are under coalition control. The port of Umm Qasr, despite continuing pockets of resistance, is under allied control; but the waterway essential for humanitarian aid may be blocked by mines and will take some days to sweep. Basra is surrounded and cannot be used as an Iraqi base. But in Basra there are pockets of Saddam's most fiercely loyal security services, who are holding out. They are contained but still able to inflict casualties on our troops and so we are proceeding with caution. Basra international airport has been made secure. The western desert is largely secure. In the north, there have been air attacks on regime targets in Mosul, Kirkuk and Tikrit. We have been in constant contact with the Turkish Government and the Kurdish authorities to urge calm.
"Meanwhile, coalition forces led by the American 5th Corps are on the way to Baghdad. As we speak, they are about 60 miles south of Baghdad near Karbala. It is a little way from there that they will encounter the Medina division of the Republican Guard who are defending the route to Baghdad. This will be a crucial moment.
"Coalition forces are also advancing on Al Kut, in the east of Iraq. The two main bridges over the Euphrates, south of Baghdad, have been taken intact. This is of critical significance.
"The air campaign has attacked Iraqi military installations, the centres of Saddam's regime and command and control centres. A total of over 5,000 sorties has taken place.
"Thousands of Iraqi soldiers have surrendered. Still more have simply left the field, their units disintegrating. But there are those, closest to Saddam, that are resisting and will resist strongly.
480
They are the elite that are hated by the local population and have little to lose. There are bound, therefore, to be difficult days ahead, but the strategy and its timing are proceeding according to plan.
"At the European Council, there were of course deep divisions over the coalition action. That is well known. But it is not that all of European opinion is one way. On the contrary, there was both understanding and support for the British position from many nations represented at the Council, and near unanimous endorsement from the 10 accession countries who joined our Council on Friday afternoon. In any event, whatever disagreements about the conflict itself, Europe came together to set out clearly its wishes and responsibilities in post-conflict Iraq.
"The Council agreed the need to be active in the humanitarian field, to ensure that the oil revenues are held for the Iraqi people by the UN and that the Oil for Food programme continues.
"The Council further agreed that the UN Security Council should give the UN a strong mandate for post-conflict Iraq and make sure that the new administration is one that is representative, careful of the human rights of the Iraqi people and allows the people to live at peace inside Iraq and with its neighbours.
"In addition, the Council stressed the vital importance of the Middle East peace process and the publication of the road map drawn up by the US, EU, Russia and the UN, and now endorsed by us all. I reported on the talks we had had, both with the US Administration and the Palestinian Authority. I welcomed the appointment of Mahmoud Abbas as Palestinian Prime Minister. I also welcomed the US intention to publish the road map for peace as soon as the Prime Minister and his government are in place.
"I know it seems out of place, but I should say one word on the conventional subject matter of the summit. Though overshadowed by Iraq, this summit on economic reform regained some momentum. In the last few months, energy liberalisation, a single Europe-wide patent and a single Europe sky policy have all been agreed. An employment taskforce, due to report on ways to cut unemployment without generating new regulation, was agreed. This marks progress, though much remains to be done.
"To return to the conflict, there are, of course, difficulties that have arisen, tragedies and accidents. We grieve for lives lost. That is in the nature of war. And it is in the nature of today's instant, live reporting of war, that people see the pain and blood in vivid and shocking terms. But it is worth recalling the nature of what is not always apparent, what we do not see: a nation, degraded and brutalised by decades of barbarous rule, a country that is potentially rich but whose people go hungry and whose children die needlessly from malnutrition and disease; and a regime to whom repression, torture,

481
the abuse of human rights and the possession of weapons of mass destruction define their very nature.
"That is why we must achieve our objectives. Saddam will go; this regime will be replaced. The Iraqi people will be helped to a better future. The weapons of mass destruction, for which a peaceful Iraq has no use, will be eliminated. That we will encounter more difficult and anxious moments in the days ahead is certain. But no less certain—indeed, more so—is coalition victory".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.10p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for repeating the Statement. No one can underestimate the gravity of the present situation. I want to associate this side of the House unreservedly with the remarks that the Prime Minister has made about the conduct of our troops and about their courage and their skill.
Everyone in this House will be immensely proud of them and of all the coalition servicemen. Every time I hear reports in the media—too many, perhaps, for my taste—about the difficulties and failures of the campaign so far, I marvel at the outstanding scale of their progress.
War is an evil, dirty and dangerous business and no one ever pretended that it would be easy. No one ever believed it would be fought without serious loss. That has been tragically underlined in the past few days and we will no doubt face stiff tests of our resolve ahead. Will the noble and learned Lord lake to the families of those who have been killed, injured or captured in this campaign this House's deepest sympathy, appreciation and concern? Our resolve must be to ensure that the cause for which those brave young people sacrificed all goes on to prevail.
I must also record our condolences for the families of the journalists and others who have died. The death of Terry Lloyd brought back to television screens film he shot when he was the first man into Halabja after Saddam's use of chemical weapons against the people of that town. Nothing could more eloquently underscore the bestial nature of the Saddam regime. Amidst all the heartrending shots of the casualties of war that the Iraqi Ministry of Information allows us to see, nothing must dim our grasp of that central reality.
Can the noble and learned Lord confirm that the degrading treatment of coalition prisoners was a clear breach of the Geneva Convention and yet more proof of the nature of Saddam's regime? Will he assure the House that those who mistreat captured personnel will be brought to justice? On this subject, can he give the House any word on the fate of missing British personnel?
I do not wish to dwell on the conduct of the campaign. However, I repeat that we on this side have no doubt of the justice of the war and we respect the tremendous efforts being made by the coalition to avoid the loss of civilian life.
482
I want to ask three brief questions. Can the noble and learned Lord assure the House that the tragic loss of an RAF Tornado to friendly fire has been fully investigated and that those problems are now being successfully dealt with? Can he say something of the extent to which Iraqi regular forces are adopting civilian clothes and hiding in civilian areas as part of their overall strategy? And can he give us the la test information he has about the deployment of Turkish troops in northern Iraq?
Turning to humanitarian aid, one consequence of the bold strategy being pursued by the coalition is that large cities are being left neutralised, but not occupied, behind coalition lines. Does the noble and learned Lord agree that this presents new humanitarian challenges? Do the Government have plans to create humanitarian corridors to these cities or would the Red Crescent be allowed to cross coalition lines? What threat would be presented to that by Iraqi irregulars?
What is the current status of the Oil-for-Food programme? Can the noble and learned Lord Confirm that it has been suspended? Can he say something; of the coalition plans to open oil supplies again in the light of the continuing attempts by Saddam's forces to destroy oil installations? And what is the current state of the seaway to Umm Qasr? The Statement indicated that it was being cleared of mines, but when is it estimated that the first ships will come into port with humanitarian aid?
The whole House will be aware of the dreadful levels of malnutrition among the Iraqi people. Is it not further evidence of the brutality and cynicism of Saddam that part of his survival strategy is to disrupt the flow of humanitarian aid to his own long-suffering people?
There are now serious concerns about the condition of people living in the city of Basra. What steps can be taken to put this right? Could the noble and learned Lord tell the House how soon aid can be deployed in Iraq and who will be in charge of the delivery?
Against the background of these immense events, to spend much time on what was clearly a depressing and disappointing EU summit would be inappropriate. But does he share my disappointment that there was no shred of condemnation of the Saddam regime or any understanding of the justification for this war in 20 pages of presidency conclusions?
The Prime Minister again signed up in Brussels to words about the need to strengthen the capacity of the EU in the realms of common foreign and defence policies. Is there no recognition at all of how the present crisis has changed things—probably for good? Is no reassessment under way inside government about the reality of EU common defence and foreign policy ambitions? If not, I suggest it is high time that there should be.
Finally, can the noble and learned Lord confirm the latest position of the IGC on the Convention on the Future of Europe? When will that take place? Has it been delayed? Can the noble and learned Lord tell us anything about the status of this important constitutional issue?

483
In conclusion, I again underline the full confidence we have in the prosecution of the war by our Armed Forces. War is the last time in which to accentuate the negative, particularly when so much success has already been achieved.
4.17 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, I, too, thank the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made by the Prime Minister in another place. We are grateful for the efforts being made to keep Parliament fully informed and appreciate that it puts yet another burden on heavily burdened Ministers.
I share with the noble Lord the Leader of the Conservative Opposition a great sense of our grief for those who have been lost in battle and in particular for those who are missing because that puts a terrible strain on their families. Each loss is a tragedy for the family concerned and we, too, echo the hope that the Leader of the House will make known to the families concerned how great is the sympathy and feeling from all parts of Parliament about the losses.
We also share the concern about the loss of American lives and hope that the prisoners of war will be restored in good health, having been properly treated according to the Geneva Convention. Perhaps I may also put on record our deep sympathy for the Iraqi civilians who have lost their lives, or whose children or loved ones have done so in the course of the conflict.
With regard to the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, about the Patriot missile, I do not want to pursue the matter far because I understand the sensitivities, but I want to ask one question. I understand that it is relatively easy to distinguish between a missile and an aeroplane because of the high speed of the former compared with the latter. Given that there are no Iraqi planes at all in the air over any part of Iraq, perhaps we can be assured that the matter will be looked into. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will give the House some idea of when he hopes to be able to report that investigation and the steps taken to ensure that such incidents never happen again in the course of the conflict.
I turn to the difficult situation in Basra. Clearly, there was hope in some quarters that Basra would prove to be a relatively soft target and that there would be a strong response from people who have long defied, and greatly disliked, the regime of Saddam Hussein. It is obvious that there must be some strengthening troops in that city.
As to the humanitarian situation, it is very good news that emergency repairs have been undertaken to the water system, which had effectively been cut off. I understand that the electricity system has also been cut off. Has the ICRC been able to get into the city? Are there any reports on the humanitarian situation?
484
Given the statement made by President Bush yesterday that food aid would be reaching Basra within 36 hours of his return from Camp David— which means by tonight—what steps are being taken to get emergency supplies into the city? We appreciate that it is an extremely difficult situation with quite fierce battles still going on in Basra—we do not wish to ask for the impossible—but we hope that President Bush's promise will be kept.
Another particularly troubling situation is emerging on which the noble and learned Lord may be able to shed a little illumination. Again, we will fully understand if he cannot. There has been a conflict of information about the position of Turkish troops in the Kurdish area of northern Iraq. On the one side, Prime Minister Erdogan said yesterday that substantial numbers of Turkish troops will be going into that area—I believe that he mentioned the figure of 40,000—and that this action had been agreed by the United States. Shortly afterwards there was a statement to the effect that there were some 3,000 Turkish troops in northern Iraq who had been there for many years; it is not a new deployment. Clearly, if the Turks believe that they can rapidly deploy more troops into northern Iraq and are claiming that the United States Government have agreed to that, and if the Kurds are, at the same time, expressing deep concern about any such deployment, we could face a difficult situation in northern Iraq. Can the noble and learned Lord tell the House what is the truth—if, indeed, it can be determined by anyone?
I have two further questions, both of which refer to difficult problems. The first question relates to humanitarian aid—which is likely to be on a very large scale—at the point at which, please God, the war ends. The United States has said that the oil revenues from Iraq will be used partly for the reconstruction of Iraq. At the same time, it has been made clear by the European summit that it would hope to see the Oil for Food programme continue and that it perceives the relief of the people of Iraq being met from that source. We now understand that at least 1 billion US dollars-worth of contracts are being currently let by USAID exclusively to American firms and that they have been told that another 50 billion US dollars-worth of contracts will emerge gradually as the reconstruction of Iraq continues.
None of this would be disturbing if there were some agreement—or some understanding that there would be an agreement—on how the issue of the administration of Iraq is to be dealt with. My understanding is that the Prime Minister has pressed very hard for a United Nations element in the civil administration of Iraq after, it is to be hoped, a victory is achieved, whereas, at the same time, the United States has made it plain that that administration would be entirely under American command. It would appear that a difficult situation is coming down the track.
I understand also that the World Bank, the IMF and other major sources of funding can operate only under a UN mandate and not under a unilateral or bilateral national mandate.

485
Finally, I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord about the road map. All noble Lords will appreciate the Prime Minister's efforts to get an effective agreement on a road map and wish him all possible success. There are many problems but perhaps the noble and learned Lord will be able to answer a question which does not immediately affect the war. What amendments to the road map will be permissible and will there be a deadline after which no further amendments can be lodged? I understand that already many amendments have been lodged and that there is a danger that we might see incremental conditions being set by either side. This would simply mean the whole purpose and motivation of the road map being undermined by a series of detailed attempts by the two sides to strengthen it in their favour.
4.25p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for what they said about sending the sympathies of the whole House to those who have suffered in the way described.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, made a very good point about journalists. We frequently criticise journalists for their occasional undoubted deficiencies, but we cannot have a free society without a free press. The journalists and their colleagues were unarmed, in danger, and we all owe them a debt of civilisation, if I may put it that way.
The noble Lord is right—the degrading treatment of the prisoners of war is an undoubted breach of the Geneva Convention. Those responsible are guilty of criminal offences.
I can tell the House nothing about missing United Kingdom personnel. I have approached the issue in a cautious way because it is very easy with raw, unrefined intelligence to give misleading information. That would be a disservice to the House and an unnecessary cruelty to those who have deep concerns and worries.
Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness asked about the Tornado. The facts, as I have them, are that on 23rd March a Tornado GR4 was returning from an operational mission when it was engaged near the border with Kuwait by a Patriot missile battery. An investigation is under way. The MoD will provide further information when it is available. I am not able to put a timescale on that. Your Lordships would not expect me to.
The aircraft was fitted with a combat identification capability, part of which would have been the latest friend-or-foe transponder identification, which would have been tested prior to take-off and during flight. Other than that, I have no further details that I can share with your Lordships.
Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness asked about Turkish troops in northern Iraq. We are absolutely committed as a Government to Iraq's territorial integrity. We are in close contact with the Turkish authorities and the Kurds in northern Iraq. One has to remember that the Turks have been helpful
486
in the past because they have allowed aircraft which have been patrolling the northern no-fly zone—for some years now, let it not be overlooked—to use their bases. That degree of commitment to protecting the Kurds in the north from the regime in Baghdad is well recorded. We have called upon all concerned to do nothing to raise the temperature in that difficult situation. I cannot tell the noble Baroness the numbers because there are conflicting reports. As I have said, I prefer to be cautious.
I was asked about the Oil for Food programme. The noble Baroness is right—a new resolution would be needed to give the Secretary-General of the United Nations authority to continue to operate the programme. We hope that a new resolution will be passed soon.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is also right—the Oil for Food programme continues while the Government of Iraq remain in place. However, the Secretary-General of the United Nations has confirmed that he has withdrawn all his staff, so effectively—I take the noble Lord's point—Oil for Food has been suspended.
The noble Lord is also right to refer to new humanitarian challenges. I can give a little detail about what DfID is doing. Population movements in northern Iraq are of an unconfirmed 300,000 to 450,000 people. They are being absorbed mainly into local communities. There are few refugees confirmed at Iraq's borders but we are making preparations for camps. Water supplies to Basra were cut off for approximately 24 hours. They have been partially restored by Red Cross/Red Crescent teams.
DfID had deployed five humanitarian and civil/ military advisers to Kuwait, one to Tehran, one to Amman. There will be a liaison officer from DfID at the humanitarian information centre in Cyprus from today. The Red Cross/Red Crescent movement released Iraq appeals on 20th March totalling 159 million dollars. My right honourable friend Clare Short was in New York and Washington on 19th and 20th of this month underlining the importance, which I know your Lordships endorse, of a swift Security Council agreement on allowing the Secretary-General to take over authority for the Oil-for-Food programme. DfID has emergency health kits for 300,000 people for three months. There is a strongly co-ordinated effort on the lines referred to in the questions put.
As to the sea route into Umm Qasr, in the nature of things the sweep and the de-mining will take a few days. I cannot be more precise than that. I do not think anyone could reasonably expect that to be so.
The European summit was mentioned. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde expressed his disappointment that there was no detailed reference to Iraq. There are references, however, on page 31 of the Presidency Conclusions:
"The EU is committed to the territorial integrity, the sovereignty, the political stability and the full and effective disarmament of Iraq in all its territory, as well as to the respect for the rights of the Iraqi people, including all persons belonging to minorities".

487
There are other paragraphs about Iraq on the same page.
The final question put by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, related to the IGC. He wanted me to put forward a timetable. He will be amazed to know that I shall tell him that it has still not been decided. It is an extremely important question. It is my belief that we are looking at next year.
I think that I have dealt with all the general questions put. I have no further details on the contracts let by USAID. I have read reports. Many are internally self-contradictory. I am not sure that I should benefit the House by making any assertions of which I am not reasonably certain in my own mind.
Finally, the noble Baroness raised a specific question in relation to the MEPP and the road map—and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has been concerned about the matter. The question was: when will the road map be published? The answer is: as soon as possible after confirmation of the new Prime Minister in government. We want the road map to be published in those circumstances. As to what amendments to it are permissible, I have no answer other than that all parties will want to study it with great care. The noble Baroness's underlying point was that the dynamic behind that process—in which Her Majesty's Government have been extremely influential—is critically, centrally important. It will be a real and continuing tragedy for that part of the world, indeed for all of us, if we do not pursue that road map vigorously following the clear policy of Her Majesty's Government, which remains: two independent states able to live peacefully one with another.
4.33 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, whatever one's views might have been on the wisdom of this war—the House may know that I have expressed those views—now that the war has started, it is incumbent on those of us who had those doubts to refrain from doing or saying anything which will inhibit our Armed Forces in the exercise of the duties imposed on them by the Government. Therefore, I propose to say nothing whatever about the conduct of the war save that, to a layman, it seems to have been reasonably successful so far.
In giving his account of the European Union summit, my noble and learned friend said that there was a generally expressed view in favour of a strong United Nations presence in the administration of Iraq after the war. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, pressed that point and I want to reinforce it. Is it the policy of Her Majesty's Government that the UN should run the country and be the civil administration of the country in the period of reorganisation immediately after the war has ended? If it is, I assume that that is now the policy of the EU collectively, including the French. As the noble Baroness indicated, it raises the question: what is the view of the United States Administration on this? The prospect of Iraq
488
being turned into a satrapy of the United States of America, run by a military viceroy, is not one that I personally should find very attractive. The extent of UN involvement in the civil administration after the war is crucial. I should be grateful if my noble friend would expand on this matter.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for the tone and content of my noble friend's remarks. Paragraph 67, on page 31, of the Presidency Conclusions, states:
"We believe that the UN must continue to play a central role during and after the current crisis. The UN system has a unique capacity and practical experience in coordinating assistance in post-conflict States. The Security Council should give the United Nations a strong mandate for this mission".
We absolutely agree. A UN mandate will be required to provide legal authority for the reconstruction effort and—this was a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, with which I omitted to deal—it will be necessary to make possible the engagement of the international financial institutions and the wider international community.
We are prominent in the effort to ensure that a suitable United Nations mandate is put in place and are holding regular discussions with key partners to achieve that. I underline that our objective is, therefore, to get Security Council authorisation or an endorsement for an international presence which will include the United Nations, not a UN operation as such.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving prior permission for questions to be put relating to Clare Short's Statement in another place on humanitarian relief and reconstruction in Iraq—a Statement which is not to be repeated in this House.
First, on the humanitarian situation, can the Minister say how quickly a new UN resolution on food aid can be secured? Is it a matter of days, or weeks?
Secondly, what progress is being made to secure a wider UN resolution on the general post-war reconstruction of Iraq? The fact that the Americans are giving out contracts to companies hardly inspires confidence. The Secretary of State referred in her Statement to:
"the need to heal rifts in the international community if this resolution is to be procured".
What information can the Minister give the House?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. If her original introductory remark was slightly coded, perhaps I should tell the House that there was the possibility of taking both Statements in this place. It was decided—I hope to your Lordships' satisfaction—that I would feel able to go wider than the Prime Minister's Statement to deal with questions about humanitarian matters of which the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the noble Baroness were courteous enough to give me notice so that I could give the House as much information as I have.

489
I cannot say when the humanitarian resolution is likely to be brought about. All I can say is that we are working as hard as we can. We obviously want it sooner rather than later. I am in the same position regarding the wider resolution. I respectfully remind your Lordships that this is still very early days; we have had only four days of conflict. It is sometimes slightly premature to say what will happen after the conflict comes to an end. We do not know when it will end, or in what circumstances. We all hope that it will end very early, but it is difficult for me to speculate about precise timetables when none of us knows how long the conflict will last or the circumstances of its termination.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords. I thank the noble and learned Lord for addressing some of our humanitarian concerns. Our anxieties follow on from the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, regarding the humanitarian contingency and the reluctance of the United Nations to become involved. Can the noble and learned Lord tell us to what extent the Prime Minister attributes this to the continuing intransigence of the French, or is it due to the loss of confidence by the US Administration in the capacity of the UN to perform its role?
In the absence of a UN lead in the co-ordinating of the humanitarian relief' effort and plans for post-conflict Iraq, who will take the lead, given the understandable reluctance of aid agencies to work under the command of military forces? Does the Lord Privy Seal accept that the uncertainty over the role of the United Nations may hamper long-term relief efforts?
Following upon what the Lord Privy Seal said about the predicted refugee exodus from Iraq, I have seen reports that the Kurds are fleeing towns in the Kurdish region of northern Iraq and heading north. I think that all Members would agree that any large-scale population movement in this geopolitical tinderbox could have devastating humanitarian consequences. Does the noble and learned Lord agree with me that there is a danger that a large number of Kurdish refugees heading for the Turkish border could push the region into serious ethnic conflict? What is the Government's strategy for preventing such a humanitarian disaster?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. She is right about the potential of extreme danger in the northern Iraq region. Obviously, we are continuing our overflights in the Kurdish areas of northern Iraq. That should be a comfort to them; they have been quasi-autonomous for some years, due to the protection we have afforded them.
I do not think one can fairly blame French intransigence for the difficulties of post-conflict reconstruction and work. Perhaps I can give a little more detail. UNICEF, the Red Cross and the NGOs, to which the noble Baroness made particular reference, are working together to respond to any
490
water and sanitation system disruptions. The Red Cross is monitoring Baghdad's water supply and power; it has prepared equipment for emergency water distribution if necessary. The UN humanitarian co-ordinator, Ramiro Lopez da Silva, has a headquarters set up in Cyprus already. The UN office for co-ordination of humanitarian affairs has deployed staff in neighbouring countries.
The first donor NGO liaison meeting was held on 21st March in Kuwait. This will be a regular forum. UN humanitarian air services flights from Larnaca to bordering countries will begin this week. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees and the Jordanian Government have signed agreements to establish refugee camps in Jordan. UNHCR has pre-position stocks of tents, sheets, blankets and other supplies for over a quarter of a million people on the Iranian border. The World Food Programme has sufficient stocks in Iran to feed 100,000 for two months.
I am giving only brief details, but to say that nothing is being done by international organisations, of whatever sort, is unfair. The military are already delivering humanitarian supplies by land to Kuwait. Going back to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, we shall try to get a Royal Fleet Auxiliary ship to the deep-water port as soon as they can clear the waterway of mines. "Sir Galahad" is expected to be loaded tomorrow at Kuwait City and further cross-loaded at sea. That is likely to be the first shipment to get to Umm Qasr.
To go back to the noble Baroness's compendious point, we and the United States continue to urge restraint on Turkey. This, to put it at its most neutral, is an exceptionally sensitive situation. I agree with the noble Baroness; we are monitoring the situation closely and are in close contact with the Turkish authorities.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, in churches and places of worship all over the country, people have been praying for our troops. It was with great sorrow that we remembered yesterday those of our forces who have been killed and journalists who have been killed and injured. I know that my colleagues on these Benches would be grateful if our condolences to the bereaved were added to those of other Members of this House.
I endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said about those in Iraq who have lost their lives. War is always a tragedy and, yes, people are always killed and injured. Every human being who is killed and injured is, individually, a tragedy.
I am grateful to the Minister for his reassurances about humanitarian aid. We on these Benches are particularly concerned about the role of NGOs and organisations such as Christian Aid, which are ready, willing and able to help. I hope that the Minister can give us an assurance—as he has, I think, already begun to do—that the Government will give every support and encouragement to our own NGO organisations in this important humanitarian aspect.

491
One area has not been touched on. Yesterday I called together in Greater Manchester the senior faith and community leaders. Many of my colleagues have been doing that across the country, particularly in areas like mine where there are very large faith communities. At the moment we can be greatly reassured about the readiness of members of other faiths and ethnic communities to be as supportive as possible to us. I was greatly heartened and, indeed, moved yesterday by what was said not only by the other faith leaders but, in a meeting in celebration of Pakistan independence day, for the support that they were giving to our troops and their sorrow at the loss of life.
I should be grateful for an assurance from the Minister that the Government and, indeed, European countries are sensitive to the kind of reaction that we can expect from other faith communities the longer the war goes on. I do not want to say more than that because it would not be appropriate at such a delicate time. But there are, I believe, a few warning lights. If we are aware of them, we may be able to prevent those warning lights becoming red lights.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I shall, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester asked me to do so, add his condolences to the bereaved. I take his point about those in Iraq. Death knows no passport and no nationality. I echo what was said by the Archbishops of Canterbury, York and Westminster, the Chief Rabbi, the Moderator of the Free Churches and the Chairman of the Council of Mosques and Imams UK. They said:
"This is a conflict neither about religion nor between religions. We completely reject any attempt to misrepresent it in this way. As Christian, Jewish and Muslim religious leaders in this country, we believe that it is vital, amid so much uncertainty and turmoil, to resist any attempt to drive our communities apart".
I am happy to repeat that and endorse it, and I am grateful that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester raised the question in that way. He asks me for an assurance that we will give every support to our NGOs. I give that assurance. I can tell the House, in answer to his question, that DfID is fully involved in meetings with the NGOs. The allocation, even so far, to the Red Cross and the Red Crescent for pre-positioning food and other supplies is £2 million. Eight million pounds is going to the World Food Programme, £2 million to UNICEF, £1.75 million to UNHCR and £1 million to the World Health Organisation. We are paying careful attention to the NGOs' proposals, which are currently being assessed.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, what assurances were given by President Chirac and, for that matter, Chancellor Schroeder, about the rehabilitation of Iraq when the conflict ceases? My noble and learned friend has been kind enough to tell the House about the
492
assurances the Government have given to NGOs so far as this country is concerned. Has that been repeated by either of them?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis. His answer can be found in paragraph 67, on page 31. It is the third paragraph—I have read the first two. It concludes:
"We"—
that is, the Council as a whole—
"urgently need to address the major humanitarian needs that will arise from the conflict. The EU is committed to be actively involved in this field, in accordance with established principles. We support the UN Secretary General's proposal that the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people can continue to be met through the 'Oil for Food' programme".
On the regional front, on page 32, it concludes:
"We express solidarity with and stand ready to assist those countries that are faced with problems and risks as a result of the conflict, including possible refugee flows. The EU will actively engage in supporting regional stability".
Despite the differences that we have had with our allies—we should not forget that the French Government have been our allies for many decades—we must work together, not only in the European context but in humanitarian relief as well.
Lord Hooson: My Lords—
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, while I agree with the noble and learned Lord—
Noble Lords: Cross Bench!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene in my own cause, but I do not believe that we have had a contribution from the Cross Benches. The House's view seems to be that we should hear from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that intervention and for repeating the Statement made in another place. I share with the whole House the sense of sorrow and loss over the tragic accidents. I have written to the Chief of the Air Staff about the Tornado.
First, I commend the noble and learned Lord for his reluctance to dwell on raw and unassessed intelligence. I fully agree with him on that. It would be a great help if the Government could persuade the media of that too, as they are very active in assessing what they see in ways that can be upsetting and unnerving for the families and friends of people in the theatre. Anything that can be done to persuade the media in that area would be greatly appreciated.
Secondly, I believe that I heard the noble and learned Lord say in the Statement that the objective was to remove Saddam from power. Is it too early to ask what Her Majesty's Government would do in the event that Saddam fell alive into the hands of British Forces?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for the support given by the noble and gallant Lord.

493
He is right about unassessed intelligence. It has been a feature of announcements over many years that they are made and then have to be corrected. As he says, a great deal of distress is caused unnecessarily, and the corrected statement tends to impeach the validity of other statements that might be fully accurate. The media must take their own course, recognising the fact that each journalist is a citizen of this country and owes the same responsibilities as the rest of us.
On the face of it, Saddam is undoubtedly guilty of many crimes. There are alternative venues where he might be tried. If he is captured alive, he must suffer the sanctions of the criminal law in the same way as other criminals do.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord recollect—
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, we have come to the end of our time.

Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill
4.54 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 3.
[Amendments Nos. 45 to 49 not moved.]
Lord Greaves Lord Greaves moved Amendment No. 49A:
Page 3, line 4, at beginning insert "For the purposes of Part 1,"
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments 59A and 59B, standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Hamwee and myself.
We are moving on to a new subject—the counting of the votes and declaration of results in referendums. These are probing amendments, not least because two amendments say different things about the same matter, aimed at getting the Government to say what their thinking is on these matters.
The substance of the amendments is to be found in Amendments Nos. 59A and 59B and covers two areas. First, they state that the counting of the votes must take place at the level of the electoral area, such as the local government wards or county divisions. Secondly, the declaration of the result must be either by principal council area as well as the region as a whole, or by parliamentary constituency as well as the region as a whole.
The amendments would assist in the scrutiny of the results, so that people involved in the referendums, such as the counting agents, the political parties and campaign groups, can have some check on the accuracy of the results. If there is simply one great big announcement, it is difficult to know whether it is accurate. Indeed, the value of such a check can be seen from the European elections in London, in which the results for one borough were declared or sent in wrongly. The political party people were able to check that and get it corrected.
The second and perhaps more important reason for having the results declared at a local level, preferably by principal council area, is that of transparency. We would be able to see whether different parts of a region had voted differently and how those parts of the region voted that have two-tier local government and would be given unitary local government if the referendum were passed and the Government had their way.
We might use the North East as an example. With this amendment, we could see how the different districts in Northumberland voted, as opposed to the region as a whole—the metropolitan districts and unitary areas of the North East. It may be that even if Northumberland voted narrowly against a regional assembly and the region as a whole voted heavily in favour, the Secretary of State might decide on the basis of the referendum to go ahead with setting up a regional assembly in the North East. On the other hand, there might be a very small majority in the region in favour of a regional assembly while the existing two-tier local government areas—the shire counties—might vote heavily against it. In those circumstances, the Secretary of State might pause and think about the matter. He might come to the conclusion that the division of opinion in the region, even if there was a small majority in favour overall, was such that it would not be sensible to go ahead. There might be a great split between different areas.
These are hypothetical questions, because we have no idea how people are going to vote. Given the opportunity to vote for unitary local government and a regional assembly, the people of Northumberland and Durham might flock to the polls to vote for it. Areas such as Newcastle or Gateshead might decide that they do not want a regional assembly because it might undermine the status of the metropolitan councils, which are important to them.
As the effect on different local government areas will be so different depending on whether they are two-tier or unitary, we think that the results of the different areas should be announced. There are precedents for that. In Wales and in Scotland the results were announced by local authority area. Indeed, in Wales, we were all biting our nails awaiting the outcome of the vote in Gwynedd where, although the Government had more or less thrown in the towel, our people said. "No, it will be all right. Gwynedd is going to be okay''. Ultimately it was all right and the final result made the difference.
The results in Wales and Scotland were declared by local authority area, and we expect that these results will be handled in the same way. We have moved this amendment simply to get a commitment from the Government that that will happen. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Rooker: I can be very brief. There is no need to give the commitment which the noble Lord seeks because those arrangements are a matter of law. Section 128 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 makes clear provision for arrangements for the counting of votes in

495
referendums. That section requires counting officers to be appointed for each district or unitary district and for each counting officer to certify the number of ballot papers counted and the number of votes cast in favour of each answer to the referendum question. Of course there will be more than one polling station, but the fact is that the results will be available by local authority. That is the situation.
There are further complications in some of the amendments regarding parliamentary constituencies. Parliamentary constituencies are contained within local authority boundaries in the area that I come from, although I am aware that in some areas there is a cross-over. MPs always like to know how their constituents vote on any issue that affects them, but in this case it is local authorities that will be affected as they are the units which form the structure of local government. There will be no secret about the results. A breakdown of votes by local authority across the region will be made publicly available at the same time as, or very quickly after, declaration of the overall result.
We do not see the need for separate declarations of votes. As there will be no candidates, it is difficult to see who would attend the declaration. The information on votes across the overall region will not be hidden. As I said, that is provided for in law, which is why it is not dealt with in the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord has described the certification of each of the boxes and we understand that that has always been the procedure. If I understood what he just said, there will be no sectoral declarations. He also said that all of the procedure will be open and that everyone will know the result. However, people will not know the result unless they are at the count. Will there be a declaration of how each county or parliamentary area votes in my own area of East Anglia, which is composed of Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire, Hertfordshire, Essex and Bedfordshire? Or will there be simply one result and an announcement that, as in London, "X number of people voted. Y people voted in favour and Z people have voted against. Therefore there shall be a London Assembly"? If that is repeated, the intent behind these amendments will not be honoured as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, seeks. We would certainly support him in that.
If a region is being asked whether it wants a regional assembly and two or three of the county areas within a region vote "No" and the others vote "Yes", that result should be announced publicly. There should be a declaration of that view, which should be taken into account in deciding whether to proceed with a regional assembly.
Lord Rooker: That is exactly what I said to the noble Baroness. The results will be announced by the local authorities within the region. The returning officers will make it quite easy to see how the various local authorities have voted. If there are unitary and district authorities within a county, it will be easy to calculate
496
how the citizens of that county voted. It will be easy to calculate how citizens living in two-tier areas voted as against those living in single-tier areas because the declaration will be made by local authority. As I said, the legislation requires that counting officers be appointed for each district or unitary district, and the counting officers will certify the votes.
The results will not be announced at ward level; but that is not the issue. In parliamentary elections, one can take samples, but the results are not announced at ward level. In this case, the votes for and against will be made known at all levels of local government within the region. So it will be easy to see how the various parts of the region have voted. That is what I said, and I am a bit surprised that the noble Baroness interpreted it differently.
Lord Greaves: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. I think that we have cleared up the point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 50:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
"PROPORTION OF ELECTORS REQUIRED TO SECURE A MAJORITY
A majority in favour of the proposition will not be certified by the Chief Counting Officer unless a majority of those actually voting in the referendum in each of the counties, metropolitan counties or county boroughs comprising the region supports the proposition."
The noble Baroness said: This amendment moves somewhat in the same direction as previous ones. However, it is not about the declaration of the results but about the majority in each area. At Second Reading we discussed at length the balance between rural and urban and how one could be overruled by the other. I think it fair to say that rural areas fear that their views could be subsumed by the overwhelming vote in favour of regional assemblies in the urban areas. The existing proposals seem undemocratic because the vote of those living in shire counties could be well outweighed by those living in unitary authority areas in regions where the greatest proportion of the population lives in unitary areas. For example, the 90 per cent of the electorate who will decide whether people in North Yorkshire are to have a change in local government structure will have nothing whatever at stake because they already have unitary authorities.
The local government of shire areas would, without any safeguard, be voted on by the whole of a generally urban-dominated region rather than by the people of the areas concerned. That would be analogous to having the whole of the UK vote in the Scottish or Welsh referenda, a procedure which was never contemplated for those exercises. Our amendment gives the right of veto to any one county, metropolitan or county borough. If regional assemblies are to be imposed, there must be a majority vote in every area affected. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: I support my noble friend on Amendment No. 50. I think that her amendment is

497
better and simpler than my Amendment No. 119C which seeks to do very much the same thing. I think it important that a majority should vote and that a majority should vote in each district. I also believe it important that a majority of the electorate should be required to vote before a decision can be classed as valid. There is no doubt that devolution in Wales was voted on by a minority, and similarly in Scotland. Both Scotland and Wales have had devolution foisted upon them. Let us hope that regional assemblies are not foisted on people in the same way.
Lord Rooker: I shall stick to the maxim that I announced when we began this Committee stage: I shall answer the amendment on the Marshalled List and not what might be thought to be the idea behind it. This new clause is intended to mean that the chief counting officer could not declare the result of the referendum as being in favour of an assembly unless a majority of those voting in the referendum in the two-tier local authority areas in the region voted in favour. Moreover, whether a majority in the region voted in favour of the question could be extrapolated either from the counts carried out by counting officers—as I said in the previous debate: there will be no secrecy about it—or by the fact that a chief counting officer did not, in effect, certify that the majority had voted against or that the votes were equally split.
Where would that leave us? It is not as though the vote will not be announced. As I said, it will be announced by every local authority. The result will be available anyway.
The amendment seeks to prevent the wishes of a majority of people being overturned by what could be a minority of people. I realise that my next point will be considered fanciful. In the east of England 88 per cent of people live in rural areas with two-tier authorities but only 12 per cent of people live in urban areas. That is a mirror image of the example that was mentioned. It is not fair to pick out particular regions to suit ones argument. I have already said that of the eight regions in the country, four have a majority of two-tier authorities and four have a majority of single-tier authorities. In effect, the amendment is meaningless as it would not present the result being known. Everyone would know what the overall vote was in a region. The amendment would not prevent that information being made available. It is anti-democratic from that point of view, but I do not believe that it would achieve what the noble Baroness intends. As I say, I have discussed the amendment itself rather than what it is intended to achieve.
Baroness Hanham: The amendment may not be absolutely perfect but I believe that it is clear. We say that for every layer of government there must be a majority in favour of regional government and that if one area is against that is enough to negate the vote. That seems not unreasonable where the representatives of a number of tiers of government—the counties, the districts, the unitary authorities and the metropolitan areas—all vote but have different views and different ideas which may result in different
498
outcomes. That is the burden of the amendment. I cannot comment on the chief counting officer's certifying of the result but where the representatives of a number of tiers of government vote—I take the Minister's point that the vote could go the other way in some districts—and where there is an overwhelming vote from one particular part of local government that overwhelms the votes of others, that should not be allowed to be the deciding factor in the referendum. Such a vote should be negated and the chief counting officer ought to be able to declare that it is negated.
Baroness Blatch: Will the Minister return to a point that he mentioned a moment ago? I believe he said that 80 per cent of the people in East Anglia live in rural areas. Will he reconsider that point? I refer to the populations of Luton, Hemel Hempstead, Basildon, all the areas around the urban part of southern Essex, Peterborough, Norwich and Ipswich. I do not believe that 80 per cent of the people of East Anglia live in rural areas.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Rooker: I did not say that and there is no region of East Anglia, much though the noble Baroness may wish that there were. I referred to the east of England where 88 per cent of the population live in areas with two-tier authorities. This debate is about two-tier authorities and the perceived threat to the county councils. We do not accept that proposition but that is what is behind the debate, I believe that Yorkshire and Humberside were referred to. I suggest that the 88 per cent of people in the east of England who live in areas with two-tier authorities could outvote the 12 per cent of people in the east of England who live in areas with single-tier authorities. The 80 per cent of the population of the East Midlands who live in areas with two-tier authorities could outvote the 20 per cent who live in areas with single-tier authorities. However, I do not rest my case on that. As I said, of the eight regions in the country, four have a majority of two-tier authorities and four have a majority of single-tier authorities.
Lord Hanningfield: The Minister keeps repeating that statement. Certainly I should be content if the four referendums were carried out in the four areas where the majority of the population live in rural districts. What concerns us particularly is that in the areas we are discussing, particularly Yorkshire, Humberside, the North West and the North East, the rural areas can be dominated by the urban vote. Therefore, the people in those rural areas will not be given a fair say. I do not think that anyone is proposing elections in the east of England or the South East of England where there would be a massive majority against a regional assembly anyway as things stand at the moment. We are trying to defend the rights of people in places such as Northumberland, Cheshire, Cumbria and Durham, which seem to be ignored in the Government's proposals.
Baroness Hanham: I am not satisfied with the Minister's response and I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
5.14 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 50) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 83; Not-Contents, 152.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Jopling, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Astor, V.

Laird, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Lindsay, E.

Biffen, L.

Listowel, E.

Blaker, L.

Luke, L.

Blatch, B.

Lyell, L.

Bowness, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Bridgeman, V.

MacGregor of Pulham Market,

Brookeborough, V.

L.

Buscombe, B.

Marlesford, L.

Byford, B.

Marsh, L.

Caithness, E.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Montrose, D.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Moynihan, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Noakes, B.

Chalfont, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Park of Monmouth, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Craigavon, V.

Peel, E.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Denham, L.

Plumb, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rawlings, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rees, L.

Elton, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Fookes, B.

Rogan, L.

Fowler, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Freeman, L.

Sandwich, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Geddes, L.

Sharples, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Hanham, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Stewartby, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hogg, B.

Vivian, L.

Howe, E.

Waddington, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Wakeham, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Weatherill, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Wilcox, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Ahmed, L.

Carter, L.

Amos, B.

Chan, L.

Andrews, B.

Christopher, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Bach, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Barker, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Berkeley, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Crawley, B.

Blackstone, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Boothroyd, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Bragg, L.

Desai, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Dholakia, L.

Brookman, L.

Dixon, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Elder, L.

Burlison, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

500

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Falkland, V.

Methuen, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Michie of Gallanach, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Fearn, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Filkin, L.

Mishcon, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Mitchell, L.

Gale, B.

Morgan, L.

Gavron, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Golding, B.

Newby, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Northover, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Orme, L.

Goudie, B.

Parekh, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Paul, L.

Greaves, L.

Perry of Walton, L

Gregson, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Pitkeathley, B.

Hamwee, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Puttnam, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Harrison, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Haskel, L.

Richard, L.

Hayman, B

Richardson of Calow, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Rooker, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Roper, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Hooson, L.

Sandberg, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Sheldon, L.

Hoyle, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Simon, V.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Stallard, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Chancellor)

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Jacobs, L.

Thornton, B.

Jeger, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Jones, L.

Tordoff, L.

Jordan, L.

Turnberg, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Levy, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Lipsey, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Lockwood, B.

Walmsley, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Whitaker, B.

[Teller]

Whitty, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Wilkins, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

McNally, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord

Maddock, B.

Privy Seal)

Mar and Kellie, E.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.25 p.m.
Clause 4 [Referendum period]:
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 3, line 10, at end insert—
"( ) In determining the referendum period the Secretary of State must take advice from the Electoral Commission on the amount of time that should be allowed."
The noble Baroness said: The clause deals with the referendum period, for the purposes of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. It states that,
"the Secretary of State must by order determine the referendum period for a referendum held in pursuance of an order under section 1".
The referendum period is a significant window that must be defined. It will have an impact on matters such as the recording of election expenses and the publication of election material during the period. Yet the Government are allowed free reign to decide on the period of a referendum, in line with the 2000 Act.
The 2000 Act does not set a technical referendum period. It sets a timetable for designating assistance to the campaigns and arrangements for the date of the poll. The likely outcome is a period of 10 weeks. However, I emphasise that there is no set period. It is vital that the referendum period be correctly set. For that reason, it is important that there is some check on the power that can be wielded by the Secretary of State in setting the referendum period, or at least a minimum or maximum level.
There is a danger—I put it no higher—that a Minister might push through a referendum quickly, which would stifle debate or prolong a campaign in the hope of allowing the "Yes" promoters to prevail on the electorate. The preferable option is a campaign of reasonable length, long enough to get information to the voters and set by an independent body with expertise in electoral matters. For that purpose, we propose that the Electoral Commission is such a suitable body. I beg to move.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: As the noble Baroness says, the PPER Act does not expressly set out a period. Taken together, the official "Yes" and "No" campaigns and the date of the poll add up to a minimum period of 10 weeks. The Government's intention would be to set that 10 weeks as the period for a referendum on whether to establish an elected regional assembly.
We would of course discuss and be guided by the commission on the practical implications of the referendum period that we propose, given its role in the running of referendums. I hope that what I have said has reassured the noble Baroness and that she will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: Will the Minister help us with the procedure? Will he give us some idea of the expected time? I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, suggested that the work of the Boundary Committee would take about a year, but in some areas of the country it may work faster or slower. Is a minimum time expected for that exercise to take place?
Is there a minimum time between the completion of the Boundary Committee's work and when a referendum could be expected? We have already seen that the Minister is in great haste to get the Bill through, and we have suspicions on this matter. If an area of the country is designated and the work is undergone by the Boundary Committee in haste, with
502
the referendum held in almost equal indecent haste, is there any safeguard about the length of time for which consideration has to be taken of the conclusions of the Boundary Committee? Will there at least be some consultation with local people before matters are fixed in a referendum?
Lord Rooker: I shall do my best to help the noble Baroness. We have made it abundantly clear that we cannot say how long the boundary reviews will take because we do not know how many reviews the Boundary Committee will be asked to carry out. We shall not know that until we have seen the statement about the soundings, and we shall not know the result of that until the Bill has received Royal Assent. We do not know how many regions the committee will look at. Its resources will dictate how many reviews it carries out and how long they take. We have said that the process will take in the region of nine months to a year. When the committee has carried out a review, its report will have to go to the Secretary of State for consideration.
However, I can say to the noble Baroness that there is no possibility that we would set the date for the referendum on the day that the Boundary Committee issued its report on the review. In other words, the 10-week period could not start then because the Secretary of State would have to report to Parliament on his view of the Boundary Committee's report. It is what the Government do with the boundary review that counts and not the review itself.
Therefore, after the Boundary Committee has done its work, there will be a gap before the 10-week period—the minimum period referred to by my noble friend—can start. We cannot go beyond that until we know how many regional reviews there are to be. As we have explained, that will depend on the size of the resources and the results of the soundings.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation. However, I said that the Boundary Committee may take more or less than that amount of time. As part of my preamble to the question, I asked whether a minimum time would be set so that an assurance could be given ahead of the Boundary Committee's report that there would not be indecent haste between the committee reporting and the start of the referendum. In other words, it would be reassuring to us all if everyone knew that there would be a six, eight or 10-week gap before a referendum could be called at the conclusion of the Boundary Committee's work.
Lord Rooker: The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act does not provide for the Electoral Commission to give advice on the boundary review. We must not forget that orders will be brought forward in relation to this matter, and any order, by virtue of Clause 27(2), will be subject to an affirmative resolution of both Houses. Therefore, there cannot be any undue haste in this issue. The matter must be brought back to Parliament and the Secretary of State must make a statement. I cannot say whether it will be made in the House, although it may well be.

503
However, there is no possibility of a quick fix in relation to this issue. As I said last week, for a referendum conceivably to be held at some date in the autumn of 2004, it will be necessary for the Bill to receive Royal Assent at a reasonably early date—the noble Baroness seems to know the dates better than I do. If this and the other House so desire, that will be fairly early in May this year. It may appear ridiculous that Royal Assent should have to be sought so early. However, because of all the stages that must be gone through in order that there should be no quick fix and no undue haste, that is the necessary procedure. As I said, the matter must come back to Parliament for an order. Perhaps the noble Baroness would have been reassured if I had said that when I first rose. I cannot say how many weeks it will take for the order to be passed hut, because it will be dealt with as part of the parliamentary process, it will not be done overnight.
Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for his reply. I am afraid that I want to ask him one more question which was triggered by his comments. Can he say where in the Bill it is stated that the order laid before Parliament will be dealt with by affirmative resolution or is it now recorded in Hansard that that will be the case? Do we take that as the accepted process? If he can answer that query, I shall return to the other part of my question.
Lord Rooker: Clause 27(2) reads as follows:
"But a statutory instrument must not be made unless a draft of the order or regulations (as the case may be) has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House";
that is, by affirmative resolution.
Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister. I also thank his noble friend on the Front Bench for the information concerning the amount of time that will be given for the referendum. I believe he said that it would be a minimum of 10 weeks, but it could be a maximum of 52 weeks. Therefore, where do we obtain information concerning the stretch between the minimum and maximum periods? Most electoral campaigns have a timescale from kick-off to conclusion. It seems to me that these referendums will not operate under the same format in that we seem to be given only the minimum period. Perhaps we may have an idea of the timescale for the maximum period so that we can decide how appropriate it is.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I was under the impression that the thrust of the noble Baroness's amendment was to stop the Government moving quickly and filibustering everyone into a vote. I gave her an assurance about the 10-week period, but she is now asking a question which had not crossed my mind or the minds of my noble friend or our officials because the issue is not central to her amendment. However, as she has raised the question, I shall be happy to consider it.
Baroness Hanham: With the Minister's reassurance that I shall receive a reply to that question at some stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 52:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
"INSPECTION OF BOUNDARY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
(1) This section applies if the Secretary of State makes an order under section 1 to cause a referendum to be held in a region about the establishment of an elected assembly for the region.
(2) The Secretary of State shall by order provide that a copy of any recommendations made by the Boundary Committee under section 12 in respect of the region in which the referendum is held be made available for inspection by those persons eligible to vote at every polling place in the region and shall be enclosed with every postal ballot paper in respect of the referendum."
The noble Baroness said: We now return to a matter that we have discussed on a number of occasions, including earlier today—that is, the provision of information to voters. I am sure that no noble Lords will disagree that the maximum dissemination of information to the electorate is of inordinate importance. Indeed, we have now received some reassurance from the Minister that some information will be given.
However, from the debates which have ensued in this House and in another place concerning the Bill before us and the details of the elusive regional assemblies which they will allow to be established, it is clear that distrust and misunderstanding predominate, both in terms of the Government's intentions for the new regional bodies and the effect that they will have on transforming the local government structures which serve the needs of the general public.
The amendments that I propose here focus on transparency. Let the Government lay the facts on the table for all to see so that those voting in a referendum have access to the maximum amount of information and can make an informed decision. During the process of preparation for the establishment of regional assemblies, the Government have rightly decided to lay much of the burden of the detailed practicalities and enforcement of the Bill on to two bodies with expertise in their respective fields: the Boundary Committee and the Electoral Commission. The former is to provide a comprehensive local government review prior to any referendum to ascertain the suitable types of unitary authorities. The latter, under Clause 8, is responsible for providing information to the electorate to raise awareness of the arguments for and against.
Amendment No. 52 seeks to ensure that the recommendations of the Boundary Committee are available at every polling station so that the implications of voting "Yes" in the referendum, in terms of the reorganisation of local government, are published, displayed and made abundantly clear to every voter. Amendment No. 67 emphasises that, in raising awareness of the arguments, the Electoral Commission should describe the powers and functions of regional assemblies as defined in an Act but should do so without incurring unreasonable costs. This point returns to one that we raised under Clause 1—that is,

505
an Act should lay out the powers and responsibilities of regional assemblies before anyone is required to vote in a referendum.
I believe it is vital that these provisions are set out on the face of the Bill. Cost is an issue which has surfaced already in the debate and will do so again today. Reasonableness and proportionality must be maintained at all times when it comes to balancing the cost incurred by the Electoral Commission and the Boundary Committee and the efficiency and thoroughness of the work of those two bodies. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: We have two amendments in this group—Amendments Nos. 63 and 64. I appreciate that Clause 8(2) provides for steps to be taken by the Electoral Commission to disseminate information which the commission considers likely to promote awareness among voters about the arguments for and against each answer to the referendum question. I suppose that that is a long way of describing information relating to a "Yes" or "No" vote.
Our amendments refer specifically to the context of the "Yes" or "No" answers in relation to reorganisation of local government and the powers, functions and composition of the assembly. To a substantial degree we have covered that subject already in debate and the Minister has given many assurances. On a previous occasion I referred to problems in London where booklets have not been received as widely as they should have. Others outside his place may be affected by my colleague's concern.
On Amendment No. 67, cart the Minister say whether paragraph (b) would limit dissemination, given the words,
"so tar as that can be achieved without incurring unreasonable marginal cost"?
Lord. Rooker: In dealing with Amendments Nos. 52 and 67 first, I accept that people should not vote in ignorance of what is planned. That is why local government reviews should be conducted before a referendum. This may be nitpicking—I suspect that I am drafting opposition amendments for Report stage—but the public need to know not just what the Boundary Committee recommended but what the Government intend to do with the recommendations. I shall return to that. Placing such information at polling stations would be too late. It should be part and parcel of what is put through every letter-box.
Amendment No. 67 would scupper our timetable completely. I suppose that is the intention. It seeks to ensure that any information that the Electoral Commission issues to voters describes the powers, functions, duties and responsibilities as defined in an Act of Parliament. With the best will in the world there is no prospect of an Act of Parliament before the autumn of 2004. We may have a draft Bill—we shall use our best endeavours to achieve that so that we have the legislative proposals—but the idea of there being an Act of Parliament is an absolute non-starter. It just is not possible. Therefore, the amendment is designed
506
to scupper holding any referendums before the next general election. That is not consistent with our proposal.
The amendment is not clear, but is it intended that the Electoral Commission is not to describe the powers and functions in the absence of such an Act? It is difficult to understand how it will perform its functions under Clause 8 in the first referendums. This is a chicken and egg situation. If it requires a commitment from the Government that they will use their best endeavours to get draft legislation in front of the House and the voters before a referendum so that they can see our intention in relation to the functions, rather than there being simply a government statement about the functions and duties of assemblies, then I accept that we shall use our best endeavours to do that. We have made that clear in earlier debates.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that we have covered some of the amendments and I was tempted to ask why we are debating them again. I am here as long as I am needed. First, she said that my responses had been adequate but she qualified that and said that they were not adequate. I understand the concerns and I agree that it is important to air the types of issues dealt with in the amendments so that the voters, in a mature democracy, have a degree of information that is consistent with making judgments on the referendums.
However, we believe that the amendments are unnecessary because we cannot conceive of the Electoral Commission being able to carry out its function under Clause 8 without referring to the matters covered in the amendments. We have made it clear that prior to the referendum we intend to publish a statement of what the Government intend to do with the Boundary Committee recommendations so that that the information will be in the public domain, which is fundamental. We shall add to that the best available information about costs, functions, duties and responsibilities as well as the boundaries. It will be an important statement that will elevate the importance of the referendums, if there are to be any.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for his reply. I understand that to some extent we have covered the same ground. It is clear to me that gradually, through the course of this Committee stage, we shall come to grips with what information will be available to voters. It is important that before the public vote they are made aware of the recommendations of the Boundary Committee. I tend to accept the Minister's view that it would be a good idea if they knew what the Secretary of State was thinking as well. It has to be published somewhere. I believe that the Minister has given an assurance that it will be published.
On the powers and constitutional responsibilities, which takes us back to an earlier debate on Clause 1, I believe that this is putting the cart before the horse. If we had a regional assemblies Bill, this Bill would not have taken anything like as long. We have all tried to estimate, to guestimate and to encourage the Minister

507
to tell us what the regional assemblies will be about. We are still not clear what the powers, responsibilities and constitutional arrangements will be. It would be preferable if those were in an Act of Parliament as that would allow the House and another place an opportunity to discuss it, change it and amend it before people were asked to vote for what is a completely new layer of government. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment by leave withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Referendums: frequency]:
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 3, line 18, leave out "five" and insert "ten"
The noble Baroness said: The amendment is straightforward. It prevents a referendum on elected regional assemblies being held for 10 years following a "No" vote, starting from the date on which the referendum is held. As presently drafted the Bill says five years. The rationale behind the amendment is simply common sense. A vote in favour at a referendum brings with it both the establishment of regional assemblies and a complete overhaul of local government structure to abolish two tiers and to set up unitary authorities. Where a referendum is unsuccessful, existing local government structures will remain unchanged. However, it is inevitable that any long-term planning or strategies will be impossible because the local government bodies will be operating under constant threat of another referendum and a subsequent reorganisation. We propose to lengthen the time between referendums from five years to 10 years to allow local government bodies some degree of reassurance within which they can carry on their duties with maximum efficiency. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: I support my noble friend on this important point. During the previous two days in Committee I was impressed by the arguments of those noble Lords who are heavily involved in local government, such as my noble friend Lord Hanningfield and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, who sadly is not in her place. They convinced the Committee that the upheaval to local government would occur in the period leading up to the reform. We are now in the early part of 2003, so for a period of two years local government will spend time thinking about what will happen at the end of 2004 and they will not focus on what they should be doing which is running the district or unitary authority.
If in 2004 or early 2005 there is a referendum, I pity those poor people in local government. They will be faced with another two-year period virtually immediately thereafter within the next five years when again they will have to focus on the potential threat of another referendum rather than getting on with running their particular area. Therefore, for that reason, I think that 10 years is better than five years.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. I should have asked it at an earlier stage, but it has only just occurred to me. He referred to the soundings that the
508
Secretary of State will announce after Royal Assent. Can the Secretary of State be taken to judicial review on his decision on the soundings?
Baroness Blatch: I know the noble Lord does not like two noble Lords rising on a matter, but a specific question has arisen. When we discussed the matter on a previous Committee day the noble Lord was helpful with the timetable. He was absolutely adamant that a regional assembly could not be up and running before 2006–07. If that is the case, and if a "No" referendum can be held again five years later, then—as my noble friend has hinted, but I want to make it more specific—if there is a three-year run in, because we are now in the early part of 2003, all the upheaval starts again only two years after the referendum is held in order to be able to hold a referendum in the fifth year following it.
Does the noble Lord really advocate the upheaval that we will all witness taking place shortly and the unsettling nature of that for absolutely everyone, particularly those in local government? For an area that says "No" twice, it could be 15 years with only one or possibly two years' respite between each referendum. The rest of that time and enormous amount of resources will be taken up in going through the run in to yet another referendum. I hope that is not what the Government propose.
Lord Rooker: I am speaking off the top of my head, so I may get information. I have good and bad news for the noble Baroness. The scenario that she envisages is that of a "No" vote. If there is a "No" vote in, say, the autumn of 2004, there will not be a regional assemblies Bill. The only time that a Bill will be introduced to set up regional assemblies is after a "Yes" vote. So the timetable that I set out would be smashed to pieces as there would not be a Bill because there would not be a regional assembly. So the issue of the second referendum timetable cannot follow the dates given by the noble Baroness.
I fully accept the point raised by the noble Baroness and the noble Earl about those experienced in local government understanding that doubts that hang over people's heads can be disruptive. I shall address that substantively. On the question asked by the noble Baroness, there would not be a regional assemblies Bill. That is the good news from her point of view.
Lord Hanningfield: Surely the Minister would agree that if there was a referendum in two regions at the end of next year and one voted "Yes" and the other voted "No", there would be a regional assemblies Bill for the one that voted "Yes", but the one that voted "No" would be in the situation described by my noble friend Lady Blatch. That would have had one massive amount of reorganisation and could be destined for another lot within a short period if we had two referendums, as is possible at the end of next year.
Lord Rooker: Yes, I intended to enter into that. I was using the scenario of one referendum. I do not know and none of us will know how many

509
referendums there will be. We literally will not know until after the result of the soundings. So I cannot be precise about the timetable. It depends on the circumstances. If there was one referendum and it was a "No" vote, one could say the whole policy was shot to pieces in a way because the soundings would have clearly indicated referendums.
I will be held to the timetable I gave—that there cannot be a regional assembly up and running. The earliest conceivable date I gave was July 2006, but in the circumstances in which I have it and not if the circumstances change.
I shall not go to the wire on the issue of five years. That issue was raised in another place. One argument is that five years is the maximum length of a Parliament. Under our rules, one could argue that one Parliament does not commit its successor. So five years is reasonable on those grounds. If we provide for 10 years, another government could pass primary legislation and change it anyway, simply because one Parliament cannot bind its successor. We do not want people having constant uncertainty about when successive referendums might be held. I fully take on board the point about the gap between the first referendum and when the assembly is set up because of the need for a Bill. I fully accept that if there was a "No" vote there could be an argument for making sure that it was not revisited earlier for the reasons raised by the noble Lord. I shall discuss that matter with my noble friends.
We want to avoid the excessive costs of referendums being repeated unnecessarily. But people might change their minds. If there has been a "No" vote and once the five-year period has passed—this is where the scenario is a problem because if there is one referendum there would not be a Bill—we could order a second referendum only where soundings taken showed that there is enough interest to hold one.
One must imagine the scenario. There is the "upheaval"—I use the noble Lord's word, not my own—and the uncertainty of local government. There is a referendum, and it is "No". So it is big news in the region: we voted "No". It would be a brave person who came along and said, "Hang on, I think you ought to have another look at this". The natural reaction of many people will be, "We have decided on all this". But there may be changed circumstances. So there must be an opportunity to revisit the issues by taking soundings to test the level of interest for a subsequent referendum. Of course the five years in the legislation is not a requirement but a minimum period.
The issue could be judicially reviewed. But people think of judicial review as an appeal on a decision. That is not its function. The function of a judicial review is to look at the way in which a decision was arrived at. As I have said, my right honourable friend has to come to Parliament to explain the results of the soundings and his judgment as to whether or not there will be a referendum. That will not be an easy issue. The soundings are being analysed at the present time. Ministers have not been privy to any information. Therefore, it is a decision that will be crawled over by
510
people. The decision to make that direction under Clause 12 is judicially reviewable, but judicial review is not an appeal. I have covered the other point.
The argument for five years is not brilliant. It could be greater but it will not be less. Clearly, if there is a "No" vote in one area and a "Yes" vote in another there will be legislation. Therefore, the next time around the legislation will be on the statute hook for the regional assemblies. That delay would not arise. One would not have this period of uncertainty. I admit that in the example given the five years is not five years—it is a lot less. That issue should be addressed. That is why we shall have another look at it.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am not sure that I followed what the Minister has just said, but I am pleased to hear that he will discuss the issue with his ministerial colleagues. Local authorities generally work on quite a long timescale. Good local authorities plan for much longer than five years. Always to have at the back of their mind that what they are planning they may not be able to bring to fruition because of another referendum will be unsettling. The period of 10 years proposed is probably the minimum that should be considered.
My other point—to which we shall probably return on Report—is that we are only discussing the position when the people in the region have said no. What about those people who said yes but who are completely fed up with the idea after five or 10 years? Do they not have the opportunity to say—we have heard enough about this—"It is costing us much more money, not doing what we thought it should, and we now want to review the matter through another referendum"? Will the Minister also take on board that possibility?
It seems completely wrong to tell people that if they make a decision at one point, that is it and they can never alter it. The same applies to referendums in some countries about the European Union. Once they have said yes, that is it. But if they say no, referendums keep being held until they say yes. I want some fairness introduced to the matter of referendums. Perhaps the Minister will also take that on board with his colleagues.
6 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the Minister who at least empathised with some of the points made in the debate. However, I wish to ask one more question. I have read the Bill carefully but, unless I have missed it, there is no constraint on the Secretary of State from conducting his soundings at any period during the five years. I see no limit on his power to decide that he would like to reconsider an area that may have come quite close to saying yes but did not.
A year or two after that decision, he could take soundings again so that in the third year of that five-year period he is ready to say, "I think that the Boundary Committee can now start its work again", and to hold another referendum at the five-year point.

511
As I said, perhaps I have missed the provision in the Bill, but it would be helpful to know whether there is any constraint on the Secretary of State.
Lord Rooker: I have an answer, but it is contained in my response to a later debate. The answer is that it is only after five years that the Secretary of State can consider whether soundings can be taken. It will not be possible for the Secretary of State to order soundings to start three years into the five-year period; it is only after the five years have elapsed.
I cannot cite chapter and verse about how the legislation is drafted—I shall have to read the notes—but there is also the spirit of what we intend. That cannot be gone against. A no vote means that the matter cannot be revisited for a minimum period of five years. Only after that period would soundings be taken. So, by definition, it would take a bit longer. I shall answer the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, when we come to debate another amendment. I gather that the answer is contained in my response to Amendment No. 55.
Baroness Hanham: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his candour, even if he has lost all his files, because he has again begun to open up some of the unrevealing words of this part of the Bill. I shall not press the amendment today, because the Minister has begun to unpick the problem and I should like to give him the opportunity for discussion to find out exactly what the period of five years means. I accept that he has given an excellent answer, but he may want to revisit it.
We must underline again that the provision will be highly disruptive. If the soundings can be taken all over again and the whole process restarted, the soundings will also be disruptive. The whole work of local authorities may be undermined by the proposal for a further referendum. Has the Minister found the answer? Have I talked for long enough?
Lord Rooker: I apologise for the confusion on my part. Amendment No. 55 addresses the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and it is best that I answer it when the time comes. I accept his chastisement, but I cannot give him the commitment that he requested. I have gone as far as I can, because what has been asked is reasonable in respect of the first referendum and the timescale proposed by the Conservative Front Bench is worth a second look.
Baroness Hanham: Before I withdraw the amendment, I point out that Clause 5(2) states:
"No further order under section 1 may be made",
which makes it seem that the position may not be as the Minister thought. Under that provision, the Secretary of State would be entitled to start the soundings sooner than the five years. Perhaps the matter can be clarified. We shall return to it on Report when I hope again to be able to withdraw the amendment, having been satisfied. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 54 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 55:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
"FURTHER REFERENDUM ON PETITION
(1) This section applies if an elected assembly for a region has been established pursuant to a referendum held under section 1(1).
(2) The Secretary of State shall by order cause a further referendum to be held in a region specified in the order if he is presented with a petition requesting such a referendum signed by not less than 5 per cent of the electors eligible to vote in the region as defined in section 3(1).
(3) The question to be asked in a referendum held pursuant to an order under subsection (2) is the question set out in section 2(1)."
The noble Baroness said: I have been rather preempted by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. None the less, I shall speak to the amendment. The proposals set out in the Bill would result in some areas having elected assemblies and some not. That means that, to some extent, regional assemblies may reasonably be supposed to be experimental and on trial and, should they be deemed to be unsuccessful, the experiment should be reversible—especially as they will, we hope, have been voted in by a majority of the population, although possibly with quite a small majority. In considering the amendment, it is relevant to remember that the process outlined in the Bill allows regions to proceed at different times towards an elected regional assembly, as we have discussed.
The long-term administrative and democratic arrangements for England may not be best served where one part of the country has an elected assembly while others do not. Therefore, a mechanism should be available through which an elected assembly can be abolished should it prove unsuccessful in delivering the Government's objectives and should the electorate so wish.
The amendment proposes that if 5 per cent of the electorate has signed a petition, the Secretary of State must call another referendum as soon as possible. The proportion of 5 per cent as a trigger mechanism is debatable, but it seems a reasonable threshold.
The principle is simple. If regional assemblies do not deliver, the people of the region have the right to ask for another referendum to be held to ascertain whether the majority is still in favour. The Government make much of responding to local wishes, and the proposed regional assemblies are a leap in the dark. I beg to move.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, for jumping the gun. I have said what I wanted to say, so I await the Minister's reply.
Lord Rooker: Noble Lords will be pleased to know that I had the information that I was looking for all the

513
time. I opened my folder at the wrong place. I apologise to my staff—they had provided me with the information.
I think that the noble Lord. Lord Stoddart, will accept that the new clause proposed in Amendment No. 55 is in some ways unprecedented. Let us not forget that the regional assemblies will be part of the democratic process. If an assembly is set up, elections to it will be held every four years, so the public will have a chance to express a view on its operation. I accept that the elections will involve electing representatives rather than voting on whether the assembly should have existed in the first place. But voters could make it abundantly clear if they were dissatisfied.
This amendment would lead to uncertainty and disruption—more so for local authorities and the assembly's other partners in the region. The assembly could be held to ransom by a 5 per cent trigger in a tiny part of the region without any other measure of public opinion or circumstances. I do not prophesise, but, despite massive voter turnouts and interest in what the assemblies were doing, an aggrieved 5 per cent in one area could suddenly trigger a referendum. That could cause a real problem.
A second referendum would be like trying to turn back the clock once an assembly was up and running. The assemblies will be democratically accountable and will face the electorate every four years. The public can express their views on whether the organisation and its members are worthy of what they are doing without the need to abolish it and cause disruption. I do not think that this is a good idea. It is not worth pursuing.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: The Minister is wrong— we can turn back the clock; we will do exactly that next Sunday morning. The arrangements of asking people what sort of government they want and the reorganisation of government after public consultation are new. It happened in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, but not in England. It is a unique policy of asking people how they want to be governed. That being so, people would understand that they could make mistakes; therefore, they ought to be given the opportunity to correct them.
In other words, if the public are given the opportunity to set up a region but find that it is not satisfactory, that it has created more bureaucracy, that it costs much more than expected and that the authority does not listen to them, then, under such a consultative system, they should be able to seek a referendum on the regional assembly. If a majority votes "No", they should be able to return to the previous system of counties, districts and parishes. What can be done can be undone. If the aim of the Bill is to meet the wishes of the people, let us go on doing so. If it is good to meet their wishes now, surely it must good in the future.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: When the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, ended his oration with the remark,
"I do not think that this is a good idea",
he oversimplified even his own argument. It was charitable on the part of my noble friend on the Front Bench simply to smile sweetly at the noble Lord when lie made the remark. Perhaps I could not see her face properly.
Baroness Hanham: I have not had a chance to respond yet.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am sorry. I was puzzled by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, to whom I listen regularly with great attention. Fie put it rather easily—he can correct me if I am wrong—that people can make mistakes and what can be done can be undone. I suppose that that is true. Nevertheless, by analogy to the modern term "screwing things up, many people are marvellous with screwdrivers, and it is extremely difficult to loosen things and tidy, up afterwards. I hope that the noble Lord will take the argument seriously.
I have not yet been satisfied on one point—I apologise if it is not relevant to the amendment. Will the Minister explain what the Government Offices of the Regions are doing as regards regional assemblies? I cannot believe that they are just waiting their turn. I suspect that they are extremely busy constructing a nice, comfortable nest for regional assemblies to gather in when the time comes.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Before the Minister sits down, since 1973, local government has been reorganised twice—around once every 12 years. I hope that he will accept that what can be done can also be undone and has already been undone.
Baroness Hamwee: I share with the noble Lord. Lord Peyton, the wish to understand better what will happen to the Government Offices for London. I do not share his optimism that their work will be passed to the regional assemblies. However, that point is not central to the amendment.
The Minister's response was mild. We on these Benches could not accept the amendment. Once an assembly is established, it would be difficult to disentangle concerns about its operation as between, on the one hand, structural problems, and, on the other, anxiety about the politicians running it. Apart from the novel nature of the proposal, I fear that the vote would be affected by a political response to the assembly's administration at that time rather than structural problems with the assembly.
The greatest support that I can give the amendment is to say that it would be a better response than that given by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, to the GLC. It would have been better to hold a referendum than to abolish the GLC. I am afraid that I cannot go further than that.
Baroness Hanham: I thank noble Lords for the free discussion on the amendment. The regions will be set up according to the will of the electorate, not the Government. It seems appropriate, therefore, that the electorate holds in its hands the future of a regional assembly. A 5 per cent turnout is substantial. My maths is rotten, but the support of many people would have to be garnered to achieve such a turnout and ensure that a second referendum is held. Five per cent of the electorate would be telling the Government that there should be a second referendum to test whether the majority was still in favour of retaining the regional assembly. I accept the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made: it might become a test of what the assembly was doing. It might be a good thing for the assembly to be tested on what it was doing. It would not be an election of people to run the assembly: the issue would be whether what the assembly was doing was worth the money and effort that everybody was putting in.
This is a matter that requires our attention, so I beg leave to test the opinion of the Committee.
6.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 55) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 78; Not-Contents, 142.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Hogg, B.

Arran, E.

Hooper, B.

Astor, V.

Howe, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Blaker, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Blatch, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Bowness, L.

Jopling, L.

Bridgeman, V. [Teller]

King of Bridgwater, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Lindsay, E.

Buscombe, B.

Luke, L.

Byford, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Caithness, E.

MacGregor of Pulham Market,

Campbell of Alloway, L.

L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Mancroft, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Marlesford, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Chan, L.

Montrose, D.

Colwyn, L.

Moynihan, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Noakes, B.

Craigavon, V.

Northbourne, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Northbrook, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Denham, L.

Onslow, E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Palmer, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Fookes, B.

Peel, E.

Fowler, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Freeman, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Plumb, L.

Geddes, L.

Rawlings, B.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Hanham, B.

Rogan, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hayhoe, L.

Selborne, E.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Sharples, B.

516

Skelmersdale, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Vivian, L.

Waddington, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Wilcox. B. [Teller]

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Ahmed, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Alli, L.

Irvine of Lairg. L. (Lord

Amos, B.

Chancellor)

Andrews, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Jeger, B.

Barker, B.

Jones, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Jordan, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Berkeley, L.

Lipsey, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Lockwood, B.

Blackstone, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Brennan, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brookman, L.

[Teller]

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Burlison, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

McNally, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Maddock, B.

Carter, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Christopher, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Methuen, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Michie of Gallanach, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Crawley, B.

Mitchell, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Morgan, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Desai, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Dholakia, L.

Newby, L.

Dixon, L.

Parekh, L.

Donoughue, L.

Patel, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Elder, L.

Paul, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Evans of Watford, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Falkland, V.

Puttnam, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Razzall, L.

Fearn, L.

Rea, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gale, B.

Richard, L.

Gavron, L.

Rooker, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Golding, B.

Sandberg, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Sawyer, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Sheldon, L.

Greaves, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Simon, V.

Hamwee, B.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Harrison, L.

Tenby, V.

Haskel, L.

Thornton, B.

Hayman, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Tordoff, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Turnberg, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Hoyle, L.

Walmsley, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

517

Weatherill, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord

Whitaker, B.

Privy Seal)

Whitty, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 56:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
"REFERENDUMS: EXPENDITURE
After paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 14 to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (c. 41) there is inserted—
"(2A) In the case of a referendum held under the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003 an overall limit shall be placed on the total permitted spending by all permitted participants campaigning for and against the proposition, and that limit shall be equal in respect of each side and subject to an overall ceiling of no more than £1 million.""
The noble Baroness said: I freely admit that this is not a perfectly framed amendment. I am sure that the Minister will tell me so when he replies, so I shall put my shot in first. Also, the figure of £1 million in the amendment is there only for probing purposes.
We hope to hear an answer to t his point: what do the Government believe to be an appropriate cost for the referendum campaigns in a region? Do they intend, as in other elections, to limit the expenditure which can lawfully be spent and have that amount accounted for by election referendum agents? Presumably the Government have thought carefully about this, particularly since campaigning for regional referendums will be a cost on the taxpayer, or on those contributing to campaigns in what will be a hotly contested competitive environment. If £1 million, that is, £2 million overall, is not of the right order, will the Minister indicate what he believes is the appropriate sum?
Turning to the main burden of the amendment, the House will know that referendum legislation already allows for unequal spending on each side in the referendum campaign. That unfairness is what the Government intended, and what it enacted during the passage of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Unequal funding for national referendums is enshrined in Schedule 14 to that Act. Although the Secretary of State is required under the schedule to have regard to the advice of the Electoral Commission, he is not bound by that advice, although he does have to explain his reasons for not following it. There are no clear guidelines on the funding rules given in the schedule. Instead, the Secretary of State may by order set whatever limits he wishes. He may, under paragraph 2(3), set different amounts for different referendums. He may also prescribe different amounts for different participants. So the Government can do pretty well anything they like when it comes to setting the referendum spending rules.
We would like to see that unfairness revisited and corrected, but this is not the Bill for correcting the problems of nationwide referendums. However, we must address the possible risk of unfairness in local
518
referendums. Strikingly, there is nothing in the Bill to clarify the position. This is a fair referendum amendment. It seeks to establish a position where the limit on the spending of those campaigning on one side of the argument is equal to the limit of those campaigning on the other side. It may be technically difficult, as the noble Lord, Lord Neill, said in his report on funding. However, it would be fair and achievable, certainly regarding spending by political parties. That is why the amendment promotes equal spending limits for the yes and no campaigns. If the Minister cannot accept the amendment, will he give an undertaking to publish before Report his intended guidelines on funding so that the House can consider them?
The Minister should also address a number of related questions that may lead to unequal funding. What controls will there be on funding of pro-campaigns by EU institutions or by EU companies that are keen to advance the ideology of a Europe of the regions? What limits will there be on publicity from the European Union that directly or indirectly promote regional government or regional organisations in the run-up to a referendum? Will there be restrictions on national spending on publicity that may influence regional referendums? Would a company, incorporated in Europe, and carrying out business in the UK, be able to give donations without seeking shareholder agreement? The Minister may not be able to answer those questions now. He may also start saying that I am seeing EU reds under the bed. However it is possible that we may find other money being put in, which the Government had not intended. It would be helpful if the Minister could at least to answer all those points—although I see by his face that he may not. Will he either write to me, or respond in some other way, before we reach the next stage? I beg to move.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: I am sure that the amendment is an appropriate issue to raise, however I cannot believe that it alone is sufficient or proper as an amendment. One simply has to look at the numbers—2.5 million in the North East and 8 million in the South East. Therefore, if a million is right for one, it is not right for the other. I do not know what the figure is. It is right that it is looked at, and that there is a proper playing field. It cannot be right to pick a figure at random and suggest that that is the same for each region.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: It is a fair and reasonable amendment, because it will elicit a reply which I hope will satisfy the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. I cannot answer the detailed questions she asked, but I will write to her.
The amendment is unworkable. It is at odds with the approach taken by PPERA. Paragraph 2 of Schedule 14 allows for an order to be made setting limits on expenditure incurred by individual permitted participants—either by themselves or on their behalf. It envisages that this might be done by setting different

519
levels for different categories of permitted participants, as has already been done in UK-wide referendums.
First, the timing would be unworkable. We would want to make any order setting limits on spending in good time before referendums so that organisations and individuals know what expenses they would be able to incur before deciding whether to declare themselves as permitted participants. We would need to know the number of permitted participants in each yes and no campaign in order to set individual limits that do not exceed the proposed £1 million overall limit. We cannot set expenditure limits until we know the number of participants. However, we will not know that until well after we have set the limits.
Lord Waddington: I thank the Minister for giving way. Does what he has said mean that he favours some sort of limit on expenditure?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: When I rose, I said that I hoped that I would be able to meet the criticism of the amendment, implied by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. That is what I am leading up to. I am just setting the scene, which is important.
Secondly, the amendment would result in an unworkable situation because it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to enforce an overall limit. The amendment would, in effect, expect permitted participants to co-ordinate continuously how much each had spent out of the total ceiling. I am not sure what sanction the noble Baroness intends if the limit were breached. Would someone be criminally liable because someone else, unconnected with them, overspent? That is neither fair nor palatable. I hope noble Lords accept that the amendment will not work in practice. However, I shall be positive and explain how the Government intend to proceed.
As I have said, paragraph 2 of Schedule 14 to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act already contains provision to set different limits in relation to referendums held in particular parts of the UK. My right honourable friend the Minister for Local Government has written to Sam Younger, the chair of the commission, to seek its views about whether different limits should apply for regional referendums and, if so, what they should be and why. That is a crucial point.
The commission has not yet done any detailed work on what might be appropriate levels for a regional referendum but has suggested that its officials work with those of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. That seems a sensible way ahead. We would envisage putting out proposals for public consultation before making any order and Parliament would have an opportunity to scrutinise any order made under paragraph 2 of Schedule 14 to the PPERA in due course.
I hope that in the light of the explanation the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment. I can assure Members of the Committee that we are looking
520
carefully at the whole issue and working closely with the Electoral Commission. We have not made up our minds; there is no hidden agenda. We agree with the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, that there should be a high degree of transparency in this matter and we will keep the House informed as deliberations continue.
Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. It is useful to know that discussions are being held with the Electoral Commission. I am mindful of the fact that in every other election there is a limit per head per candidate, so there is no question of overstepping any links. I cannot therefore see that that is not a possible way of dealing with the matter.
I said at the outset that £1 million was tabled as part of a probing amendment in order to establish the principle that there should be a limit. It should not be the case that some participants can overwhelm the rest of the participants with the glory of their advertising material, set against the glossy background of huge sums of money.
I should be pleased to know when the Electoral Commission is to make a decision. Is it within the timescale of the Bill? If not, how will the Minister inform Parliament of that situation? I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes): I must advise the Committee that if Amendment No. 57 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 58 or 59 due to pre-emption.
Clause 6 [Combination of polls]:
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 57:
Page—line 26, leave out subsections (1) to (3) and insert—
"( ) Referendum polls held in pursuance of an order under section I may not be combined with any other polls."
The noble Baroness said: The Explanatory Notes comment on Clause 6 that it,
"enables provision to be made by order for the combination of polls at a referendum under the Bill with other polls for any election or at referendums held under Part 2 of the Local Government Act 2000. Before making an order under this clause a Minister of the Crown must first consult the Electoral Commission".
Amendment No. 57 would prevent referendums on establishing elected regional assemblies being combined with any other poll. Amendment No. 75 is consequential to Amendment No. 57. If regional referendums were combined with council elections in two-tier local government areas, people could be asked to vote for a new council at the same time as they were being asked to vote in favour of the abolition of the council to enable an elected regional assembly to be established in the region.
Combining regional referendums with a general election could also overshadow full coverage of the arguments for and against elected regional assemblies. Two different but competing campaigns will be running at the same time, causing considerable confusion.
If the Government believe so strongly in regional government, they must have the confidence to allow the debate to be unencumbered by other electoral distractions. The same applies in the general election where electors might find themselves voting for a Member of Parliament to represent their area in Parliament solely on the basis of the stand they take on elected regional assemblies and not on the more general policies.
Establishing elected regional assemblies ultimately represents a significant change to the structure of local government in England and to the country's constitutional arrangements. An issue of such importance arguably warrants stand-alone referendums that are not overshadowed by any other polls.
I find this a surprising clause in the Bill. I do not believe that we should accept Clause 6 and all the implications it carries without a more detailed debate. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reasoning behind the combination of polls. I expect that he will talk about the cost saved by combining polls or the utility of setting a vote on a referendum on the day of another poll in terms of voter turnout. If so, I would be unlikely to be satisfied by his argument.
Amendment No. 58 offers another solution. Referendums may not be combined with an election which uses a different electoral system. On our first day in Committee, we talked at length about the confusion for voters. In consideration of the next few clauses, we will mention extensively the need to provide clarity during the electoral process; to disseminate information to maximum effect to voters; the duty of the Electoral Commission to put forward the arguments for and against; the importance of the preamble on the ballot paper; and the fundamental need for transparency on the reports of the Boundary Commission and the Electoral Commission.
My noble friend Lord Hanningfield has argued our case for decoupling the questions. These amendments are based on the same fundamental principle. It is possibly hypocritical to combine elections for county or district councils with a referendum for regional assemblies. It is unwise to combine a referendum for regional assemblies with a general election, especially since a referendum order would be made for regions at different times. Information and procedure could easily become muddled. Regional assemblies are a separate entity and should be considered as a separate election. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: The issue of combining polls is difficult and faces us imminently. We have recently had the consultation on the combination of polls in May or June 2004. My view relates to the convenience of the voter. I do not necessarily jump from that to saying that it is right to combine polls. I appreciate the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, about different electoral systems. It is not an easy issue, but we are strange animals and enjoy elections. The evidence seems to be that the number of members
522
of the public who do so and want to turn out is ever decreasing. For that reason, I do not support the amendments.
The position is not novel. We have experienced combined polls recently; the general election being combined with the county elections. We have tabled Amendment No. 58. Subsection (3) provides for consultation with the Electoral Commission before an order is made. We suggest that the chamber of the region—the assembly as it now is—be consulted and that the advice of both organisations be published. I hope that with regard to the Electoral Commission we will have an assurance that that will be published in any event. We propose to extend the consultation because regional knowledge in such issues is always good.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: Amendment No. 57 would prevent polls for a referendum on elected regional assemblies being combined with any other polls. The amendment would not prevent a referendum under this Bill happening on the same date as another poll; for example, a general or a local government election. It would just prevent the polls being combined, so returning and accounting officers would have to make entirely separate arrangements for each poll. We would have, for example, separate notices of polls and polling stations, and returning officers for local government elections could not perform functions in respect of the referendum even if that was administratively convenient. The amendment could lead to significant increases in bureaucracy and costs, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, predicted.
The noble Baroness argued that the outcome of a referendum could be distorted by the party politics surrounding a poll for an elective office. I believe that the public are perfectly capable of forming judgments that are not clouded in such a way.
The provision for the combining of polls in Clause 6 is precedented by Section 45(6) of the Local Government Act 2000 and Section 4(2) of the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Act 1998. Any order on combination of polls would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny by affirmative resolution in both Houses.
Amendment No. 58 would mean that polls for a referendum on elected assemblies could be combined where the electoral system—which we take to mean the voting franchise—is the same for both polls. Under the Bill as it stands, this would mean that referendum polls could be combined with elections that follow the local government franchise but not with those that follow the parliamentary election franchise.
The amendment would riot prevent parliamentary elections and referendums being held on the same clay but would prevent joint administrative arrangements being made—although I suspect that it is intended to deter that from happening. I have some sympathy with the argument that it might be much less complicated to combine polls for which the electoral system is the same.

523
However, I am not clear why the principle is wrong. Section 15 of the Representation of the People Act 1985, passed during one of the previous Conservative administrations, does not simply allow for the combination of polls to be held on the same day but requires it. It requires parliamentary general elections to be combined with European Parliament general elections and ordinary local government elections with these other elections.
The Electoral Commission has a role to play in this. It obviously has expertise in elections and referendums and we are obliged under Clause 6(3) to consult the Electoral Commission on any order. As a consequence, we would conscientiously have to consider whatever it may have to say either for against such provision. Our current approach is much more balanced in allowing at least for the possibility of joint administrative arrangements being made if referendums and parliamentary elections are held on the same day.
Amendment No. 59 would mean that the Secretary of State would have to consult the regional chamber for the region concerned, as well as the Electoral Commission, before making an order under Clause 6 on the combination of polls. Clause 6 already imposes the obligation to consult the Electoral Commission before making such an order.
While it is clearly right to consult the Electoral Commission on a combination of polls, given its expertise in electoral matters and on referendums, I fail to see what particular input or expertise the regional chamber would add to the content of an order. Regional chambers have no locus in elections or referendums.
Any order would be likely to be very technical in nature—for example, it could make provision about what functions a returning officer might perform instead of a counting officer for a referendum, or what joint public notices are to be published giving information on the election and the referendum, and what arrangements are to be made at a shared polling station. Of course, the order would not determine whether the referendum and an election are to be on the same day but, rather, what arrangements are to be made for them to be held together. Amendment No. 59 would also require the advice of the Electoral Commission and regional chamber to be published before an order is made under Clause 6.
The commission's responses are its responses. It is independent of government and it should be for the Commission to disclose its responses according to its legal obligations and to decide about publication.
In a debate in another place the Opposition explained that it was indeed the Electoral Commission's intention to publish any consultation that it may have with the Government. But, of course, should it fail to disclose any information sought, we would consider requests for information relating to the thinking behind Clause 6 under our code of practice on access to government information and, when it comes into full force, the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
524
We do not see the need for these provisions, nor do we think that they are appropriate. Section 7 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 requires consultation with the Electoral Commission on certain changes to electoral law by subordinate legislation. This was recently passed by the House but contains no equivalent provision.
The order will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and any concerns noble Lords may have can be raised then. The duty to consult will require us to conscientiously consider and take into account the commission's comments.
Amendment No. 75 seeks to remove material produced in relation to an order made under Clause 6 (Combination of polls) from the exemption in Clause 11(3). I know that the noble Baroness intends Amendment No. 75 to be consequential upon her earlier amendments in the group. I hope that she will agree that, if we retain the ability to combine polls, this provision should also remain.
I apologise for the length of my reply but this is a very important issue. In the light of my explanation, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I thank the Minister for that involved reply. We shall need to read what he has said. The Minister has given detailed reasons why combined polls are a good thing as opposed to what we are saying—that is, that they should not be allowed—but how does that dovetail in with Clause 10, which allows no recourse to the courts if there is any irregularity? There could be on the same day a poll where one could have recourse to the courts and another poll where one could not. That could be an added confusion for the electorate.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: The noble Baroness asks a very fair question. Perhaps I may deal with it when we come to Clause 10.
Baroness Hanham: In common with my noble friend Lady Blatch I thank the Minister for an extremely detailed reply. I am not sure that he totally addressed the problem. We perceive a difficulty that goes beyond administration—that is, the practicalities of electioneering. We are, after all, political parties and political parties will be involved. While I know that voters are very sophisticated—even if they do not turn out to vote—considerable confusion could be caused where you are running elections with different voting systems.
I should like to read in detail what the Minister has said. We may come back to this issue at a later stage. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 58 and 59 not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 59A and 59B not moved.]
Clause 7 [Encouraging voting]:
7 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 4, line 4, after "encouraging" insert "and facilitating"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 60. I shall speak also to Amendment Nos. 68 and 118.
We turn now to the issue of what I have described in Amendment No. 60 as "facilitating" voting. This is a catchall term that might usefully be included in Clause 7, which provides for the Electoral Commission to do what it considers to be necessary or expedient to encourage voting. I have suggested the term "facilitating" to ensure not only that political considerations are brought to the attention of voters—which is "encouraging" voting—but that voting is made as easy and practical as possible for those who may have some kind of physical or mental difficulty in carrying out the act of voting. This was an issue that hardly needed to be brought to my attention and that of the noble Lord by the Royal National Institute for the Blind and Mencap before they suggested some detailed amendments to the Bill which we have built in to our later amendments. I thought that this might cover the point.
In more detail, Amendment No. 68 provides for the insertion in Clause 8(5) of the stipulation that the information which the commission must ensure comes to everyone's notice is,
"provided by means appropriate to voters with particular needs".
Subsection (5) is limited to information rather than to the act of voting. I am particularly concerned about the words in parenthesis; namely, that information should come to those entitled to vote,
"in the most cost effective way".
I am sure that other noble Lords would be concerned were that to have any implication as regards the needs of those who may have a visual or other impairment which makes it more difficult for them to vote or to understand the issues.
Amendment No. 118, which I appreciate is a wide amendment, seeks to insert a new clause setting out a duty to meet the needs of disabled people. It applies to each part of the Bill in turn. In Part 1, Clause 7 deals with encouraging voting. There is a need to raise awareness among those who are hard to reach—and who are also often hard to hear—through traditional publicity methods. I refer to people who are print-disabled or have learning difficulties. Information needs to be provided in large print; it needs to be in short sentences and to use ordinary words; it must contain single messages. We have already addressed the complexity of the preamble. I think that we would all benefit from assurances on that kind of issue.
On the referendum process itself, what provision will the Secretary of State make to ensure, in the orders regulating the conduct of referendums, that visually impaired people will be able to vote independently and in secret? In particular, can we have assurances that the Secretary of State will consult widely with the
526
appropriate people over this particular provision? I am told that the RNIB worked very productively with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on guidance for mayoral ballots and on the e-voting pilots. I hope that that work can be replicated.
Part 2 deals with the local government review. Clause 13(8)(e) requires the Boundary Committee to,
"have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State".
I hope that the Minister will assure us that clear guidance will be issued about the consultation process being made accessible for visually impaired people and for those with learning difficulties.
Part 3 covers the preparation and submission of advice by the Electoral Commission. Will it be required to produce information in the formats to which I have referred?
Finally, Part 4 deals with the funding of regional chambers. Would that we had reached this part of the Bill. They will have the obligation to scrutinise the work of the RDAs. I understand that RNIB research has shown that about three-quarters of visually impaired people of working age are not in employment. That raises issues about the activities of the RDAs. Secondly, the regional chambers will be responsible for producing new regional spatial strategies. The environment, in terms of accessibility for disabled people, is important in that regard. Any assurances that the Minister is able to give at this point that grants will be made available and will include money to ensure that the regional chambers have effective mechanisms for involving disabled people and their representatives and to adopt best practice would be most welcome. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I support the noble Baroness in pleading the cause of those who have difficulty in making it to the polling station to vote. Much of what the noble Baroness has said applies to most people: plainer English, simple instructions and easily understood information are just as much in the interest of all people as they are in the interest of those with disabilities. Obviously, special arrangements have to be made for people with sight impairment.
The noble Baroness made a further point that I want to support. She asked for a guarantee of secrecy. It is all too easy to give a helping hand to someone at a polling station, but it is crucial that secrecy should be honoured, just as it is for other people. Whether or riot the amendments are right in every technical aspect, some guarantee on the face of the Bill seems to me essential. We want to support that.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for what she is seeking to achieve in this amendment. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for her helpful intervention.
We as a government are determined to do everything we can to help people with whatever disabilities not only to vote but to be able to use the facilities of the assembly without any hindrance. I share the noble Baroness's horror at the term "cost

527
effective" in this context. I also feel that consultation will be of crucial importance. I give an absolute undertaking that this will happen. To pick up on the detailed point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, about secrecy, yes, we absolutely agree with her.
Having made those general points, which are an expression of total support for the amendment, not only in terms of the wording but for the intent behind it, I need to say a few words for the record.
Amendment No. 60 would extend the Electoral Commission's power in Clause 7 so that the commission would be able to do anything that it thought necessary or expedient for the purposes of "facilitating" voting at referendums as well as for the purpose of "encouraging" voting. While the meaning of "encouraging" is fairly clear, the term "facilitation" is much more ambiguous. I am concerned that the amendment would unhelpfully blur the boundaries between the roles of different organisations since it seems at least to imply that the Electoral Commission is to have a more active and direct role in the process of the referendum.
Noble Lords will appreciate, and indeed the Bill and other legislation recognises, that there are some matters in relation to referendums which are rightfully for government and Parliament to decide—for example, decisions about whether to combine a referendum with other polls or a decision about the appropriate voting arrangements for the referendum. These decisions could perhaps be characterised as facilitating voting.
Similarly, there are other matters which will be determined through a conduct order under Section 129(1) of the PPERA. The Government intend to make the order this summer and Parliament will have an opportunity to debate it under the affirmative resolution procedure. It is intended that this order will include provisions relating to voting by people with disabilities.
Other detailed issues about the running of referendums will be the responsibility of the returning officers and counting officers. While I do not believe that this amendment would override existing statutory provisions, it would certainly lead to confusion as to whether the commission could also act in such areas if it believed such action would facilitate voting. I therefore urge the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 68 would ensure that, if the Electoral Commission acts under Clause 8 to provide information to voters about the arguments for and against the referendum question, it must also provide this information by means appropriate to voters with particular needs. I absolutely understand the noble Baroness's concern. We all know the excellent work done by the RNIB, not least in helping people like ourselves to understand the adaptations—often simple and inexpensive—that need to be made to help blind people play their full part in civil society.
528
Before I came to this place, I was chairman of the Library and Information Commission. I had the privilege, over a number of years, of working very closely with the RNIB and other organisations, attempting to make the book accessible to partially sighted and blind people. I need no convincing of this tremendously important point.
In relation to Amendment No. 68, I can reassure the noble Baroness that we consider that the commission will already have to take account of such needs in exercising its power under Clause 8. The commission's principal duty under Clause 8(5) is to provide any information by the means that it thinks is most likely to ensure that it comes to the attention of all—and I emphasise all—those entitled to vote. So we consider that it would already have had regard to the needs of the disabled and those whose first language is not English, otherwise the information it provides is unlikely to come to the attention of these voters.
I can also reassure the noble Baroness that the Electoral Commission has confirmed that it intends to ensure that information provision is available to blind, partially sighted and disabled voters.
Amendment No. 118 would ensure that any person or body exercising functions under this legislation should do so with regard to ensuring access for disabled people. This duty would apply to Ministers, the Electoral Commission and its Boundary Committee and to public bodies in respect of their involvement with referendums on establishing elected regional assemblies and associated local government reviews. It would also apply to the Secretary of State when making grants to regional chambers under Clause 24.
This is a laudable aim, with which we sympathise. But I hope I can reassure the noble Baroness that the amendment is not necessary. Ministers and public bodies are bound by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 not to discriminate against disabled people either when providing goods and services to the public or as an employer. I would expect the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, or any other government department which is providing information for the public, to do so in a form which is accessible to blind or partially sighted people. That is our standard practice.
The Electoral Commission has confirmed that it intends to ensure that information it provides is accessible to blind, partially sighted and disabled voters. And, although it has not yet decided on the exact content of the publicity package, I understand that the commission intends to produce materials specifically designed to encourage partially sighted, blind and disabled voters to participate in a regional referendum.
Provision will also be made for voting for people with disabilities in any order regulating the conduct of referendums. The precise details are still under development.
We know that some regional chambers are already using their existing government grant to develop mechanisms to promote social inclusion and equality of access.

529
In the light of these assurances, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment. If I may go back to the commitment I made right at the beginning, in spite of what I have said for the record, it is the intention of the Government, particularly the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, to make sure that the spirit of everything the noble Baroness has referred to is met as well as the letter.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: I thank the Minister for that explanation. He was right to extend the point beyond my description, as I failed to address physical disability. I am sure that many of us have been distressed that some polling places have not always been accessible to people with mobility problems. It makes one feel very ashamed.
I take the Minister's point about many organisations having responsibilities for facilitating voting. As I understand it, he said with regard to Clause 8(5) that the first hurdle that the commission must address is the likelihood of securing information coming to everyone's notice. It is only after that hurdle has been overcome that the cost-effectiveness test will be met. 'The Minister is nodding. So there is a clear distinction between the issues.
I will obviously look at the detail of the Minister's response but I appreciate the spirit of it and the detail into which he has gone. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 4, line 5, at end insert "subject to voters being given the option of voting at polling stations"
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 61 would require that voters are given the option of voting at polling stations—in other words, that voting is not an all-postal ballot. I suspect that the Minister may tell me that this is not the place to address the issue, but it is a current concern. I do not think it right to fail to take the opportunity to highlight in a few words the fact that fraud in postal voting has not been cracked.
Many of us have suspected minor levels of fraud. One has always had a concern, for instance, when—and I make no particular accusations—a nursing home asks for all the ballot forms to be sent to a particular address and says that it will make sure that they are completed. That relatively minor, though still serious, fraud seems to have become, in some places, systematic, large scale and, at its worst, intimidatory. We have tabled the amendment because it seems to us that a polling station is the only place where a secret ballot can be assured. I hope that the Minister can use this opportunity to reassure us about protecting the sanctity— I put it that high—of the secret ballot. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham: I support the amendment. There are worries about the other methods of voting. There is a serious question as to whether all-postal voting is satisfactorily scrutinised to ensure that no fraud takes
530
place. Polling stations must be available to people so that they can cast their vote in secret, bearing in mind that a lot of voting will be done electronically as well as by post.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I support this 'very important amendment. I believe that if we want to increase people's interest in voting in elections for local and national government, this collective act of going to the polling station is very important. They see that other people are interested in voting for those who are going to govern them, locally or nationally. That encourages them to vote on that and on other occasions, because they know that other people believe it to be important. That cannot be done on the telephone—people cannot be told by telephone or on the Internet that they should vote.
The postal vote system is open not so much to fraud, although that is possible, but to misuse. It has been misused not only in local elections in some parts of the country but also in trade unions. I was a member of the old ETU, so I know how postal votes can be manipulated to suit a particular candidate.
If we want people to become interested in voting and in government, we must go back to the people. We need to tell people that we are interested in hearing their wishes by going to visit them at election times and having meetings where they can question candidates. In other words, we should go back to democratic electioneering, in which not only the candidates but the people are involved.
This is an important amendment, and I would hope that a Labour Minister, of all people, would accept it.
Baroness Blatch: I wish to add one rider to all this. I understand that the department is thinking about how to increase involvement in voting. In principle, no one has any argument with that, but it seems that methods such as electronic and text voting, as well as postal voting, could become the norm.
One thing that is paramount in that regard, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is that one must have confidence in the outcome of any kind of election. Whether one is on the winning or losing side, one must have confidence that the election was run properly and that there was no level of fraud or double voting. It is vital to give people at least the option to appear in person in all elections. I support the amendment.
Lord Rooker: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for spelling out that the purpose of the amendment is to outlaw the holding of all-postal ballots. That is the bare bones of the amendment. However, it is not as though nothing were known about this matter. There is currently a well-announced programme of piloting postal ballots in local government elections for learning purposes. The amendment is something of a pre-emptive strike, as it would rule out the possibility of postal ballots in primary legislation before we had any evidence from the pilots. That would not be sensible.

531
We said in the White Paper that we intended that referendums on elected assemblies should be capable of being held by all-postal voting or by traditional ballot. No decision has yet been taken about the voting arrangements that should apply. We want to leave the option open. This is part of the programme to increase turnout. I ask Members of the Committee to consider the facts. We may have our prejudices about the beauty and tranquillity of the perfect systems that we have all used in the past. However, on the evidence of the 13 pilot areas last May, the average turnout was 47 per cent compared with 32 per cent in the rest of the country. We do not make a big claim about that, but it is a hell of a gap. Turnout was almost doubled in a couple of places—in Crawley and South Tyneside.
We are not basing our opinion on one small pilot. Thirty pilots were run last May and, for May this year, a further 33 all-postal ballot pilots will be conducted. We will build on the lessons of that. The Electoral Commission evaluation report published last August concluded that the pilots successfully increased the opportunity for voting and secured a significant increase in turnout and that the process was well managed by local authorities. The commission found no evidence of fraud, although there were significant public anxieties.
Everyone should be concerned about the possibilities of fraud. The present system is hardly perfect. Turning up in person to vote is all very well, but it is a bit of a rum do if someone has already been in person to vote on that person's behalf. We know about these issues, but there are few cases in this country of electoral fraud, as we can tell from the prosecutions. The numbers may not be insignificant, but we have no evidence that electoral fraud is widespread.
I am also aware, because I can hear the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, speaking in sotto voce in front of me—
Baroness Blatch: Will the Minister give way?
Lord Rooker: Oh, she is literally in front of me. I do apologise for not noticing the noble Baroness earlier.
Baroness Blatch: Will the Minister respond to a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee? I share her misgivings. A great deal of coercion takes place, which cannot be proven as fraud. People are intimidated into postal voting. Among some ethnic minorities, it is difficult for people to be brave enough to admit that they were coerced into voting. As long as that kind of thing goes on, which cannot be proven in court, people's confidence in the outcome of elections will be destroyed.
Lord Rooker: I agree with the noble Baroness. I will not share my own experiences of the matter, but there have been allegations in recent years of electoral fraud on postal ballots. The police continue to investigate allegations made after last year's local elections. I do
532
not want to comment on that, and it would be unfair to read out the areas concerned, but it is a matter of public knowledge that people have made complaints.
I accept that it is difficult to get evidence and to persuade people to stand up in court. One reason for running a pilot programme is to learn the lessons about the benefits and disadvantages of postal ballots. Members of the Committee have used the word "intimidation", but that is probably too strong a word. It would probably not be classed as intimidation for people to go around to collect the ballots for posting to help their fellow neighbours and the community. "That's the way we do it," they might say, "but don't bother to mark your ballot paper because we'll make sure that it is done for you". We are not stupid about that. Some of us who have come through the electoral process—not necessarily a parliamentary one—live in the real world and know that such things happen. We need to learn the lessons and be on our guard.
The security in the all-postal ballot proposals for this year's postal applications is important, and local authorities are co-operating in that respect. Special ballot papers, watermarks, inks and other measures are used to prevent fraud. It is very important to ensure that ballot papers are delivered securely and that the envelopes are well designed so that they are less likely to be confused with junk mail. We also need to target problem areas such as property in multiple occupation to ensure proper delivery of postal ballots. We will also have to contact in person a sample of electors during and after the election to discover what happened and how the process worked. We also need to publicise ways of reporting fraud and attempted fraud and make dedicated telephone numbers available to those who feel unhappy about what is happening in their area. We have placed a provision in all of the statutory orders to give legal effect to schemes that place a requirement on election officials to report all instances of fraud to the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. Some of those measures have been put in place this year for pilots in the 30 areas where there will be all-postal voting.
Do not get me wrong; we are not saying that postal voting is the be all and end all of voting. However, as we are going through a systematic and nationally organised pilot programme to test the effect of postal ballots, I think that it would be wrong to rule out the possibility of postal voting in the referendums. If the pilots do not seem to be working and there are loads of snags, it would be foolhardy to proceed with them elsewhere. However, we are pre-empting that by approving this proposal. On the basis of that positive answer, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment.
7.30 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: The noble Lord said that no decision has been made on what form of ballot will be held. Can he tell the Committee who will make that decision? Will it be Parliament, the Secretary of State or the Electoral Commission? If it is the Secretary of

533
State or the Electoral Commission, will Parliament have any input into the decision at all other than this debate?
Lord Rooker: Without looking at my notes, I think that it will be a combination. In some areas, the Electoral Commission will have to be consulted and will organise certain aspects. In other areas, that will be done by the Secretary of State. The point is that the orders will all be approved by Parliament. So there is no question of anything going through without noble Lords having an opportunity to participate and make known their views.
Baroness Hamwee: I am grateful to the Minister for the detail of his response. My noble friend Lord Greaves has previously raised the issue in this Chamber. I know that, like me, he will want to consider the matter further. However, I entirely take the point that an ad hoc provision to deal with one type of election and one referendum would probably not be appropriate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, made some important points about the difficulty of obtaining evidence. I qualified the word "intimidation" with the phrase "at worst". Problems sometimes arise not because members of political parties are doing what they should not but because the head of the household says, "I will deal with all the forms". In some cases, that may apply particularly in families who are members of ethnic minorities.
I have one question, prompted by my noble friend, which the Minister may not be able to answer now. Will it be possible to have different provision—such as all-postal voting or telephone voting—in different parts of a region? I think that, regardless of the question of evidence, we all acknowledge the difficulties surrounding all-postal ballots and the methods of counting votes. Although I did not exactly watch the counting at the GLA election—it happened so rapidly—I know that it is not possible for agents to check precisely what is happening. However, can there be different arrangements within one region?
Lord Rooker: I do not have an answer off the top of my head. However, I suspect that it might look a bit off in a regional referendum if certain local authority areas could not have an all-postal ballot because we did not trust the public in those areas, whereas other areas could have one because the people there were sophisticated, well known and basically all white. That would be the implication. So we have to be very careful. However, I think that there should be one electoral system for one regional referendum. Nevertheless, if it is an ordinary election, it will be possible, as it is now, to vote by post on demand. As for whether all-postal voting will be compulsory in some areas as opposed to others, I would very much doubt it. It is one election in one region.
Baroness Hamwee: I hope that the message can go hack that it is indeed one election and that one system, whatever it is, should apply across the region. I should
534
like to make it clear that the amendment is not motivated by my distrust of the public, and certainly not by any accusation regarding particular communities. If I distrust the public at all in this, it is only because of naivety. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.37 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Authorities (Charges for Specified Welfare Services) (England) Regulations 2003
7.37 p.m.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting Lord Evans of Temple Guiting rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 4th March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Supporting People programme, of which these regulations form a part, will go live on 1st April and will bring together funding for a variety of housing: related support services. As my noble friend Lord Rooker announced on 20th February, the provisional amount of Supporting People grant that English authorities will receive to spend on housing-related support services in the financial year 2003–04 will be £1.4 billion. That money will fund services such as domestic violence refuges, sheltered accommodation for older people and accommodation for homeless people.
In addition to traditional fixed-accommodation schemes, a considerable and growing amount of support is now provided via non-accommodation based "floating" support. From 1st April, local authorities will take over responsibility for the payment of service providers. These regulations will allow authorities to recover support costs from service users who currently pay their landlord or other service provider. The Supporting People grant conditions and accompanying statutory guidance place strict conditions on local authorities' powers to charge so these regulations cannot be used to provide a new source of local authority revenue.
These regulations allow authorities to levy a charge for specified housing-related support services where those services were fully or partially funded on the qualifying date by transitional housing benefit. These services are set out in Schedule 1B of the Housing Benefit (General Regulations) 1987. In most cases, the qualifying date will be 31st March 2003.
In deciding whether they may impose a charge for a service under these regulations (specifically Regulation 3), authorities will need to determine whether the service was funded, partially or fully, by

535
transitional housing benefit on the qualifying date. In making that decision, it is the source of funding for the service on the qualifying date which the local authority will need to consider. A local authority will be able to charge for a service under Regulation 3 even if the original transitional housing benefit-funded service recipients no longer receive the service by the time an authority is considering whether charges should be imposed. In such situations transitional housing benefit would be considered to have been a source of funding for the service on the qualifying date.
The charging regulations do not allow authorities to levy a charge for other costs, for which housing benefit will continue to be paid. These are set out in detail at section 10 of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987.
The charging policy that these regulations form a part of was formally consulted on in the supplementary consultation document, Charging and Means-Testing (DETR January 2001). Further consultation was carried out at the same time as the statutory consultation on the directions and grants conditions. The regulations before us today are a result of this process and the need for them has been widely accepted by local authorities and service providers alike. I commend the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 4th March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Lord Evans of Temple Guiting.)
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of these rather complicated and bureaucratic regulations. As I understand them, they switch the source of the money from housing grant to local authorities. I have a couple of questions. Is there any way in which vulnerable people might be adversely affected by the change? Why was it necessary to change the body which administers the charge? What is the purpose of the bureaucracy that the Minister outlined? One of the problems is that housing benefit is open-ended but the Supporting People programme is cash limited. If local authorities go above the level of the Supporting People grant, they will have to fund that themselves. I understand that the measure is supported by housing authorities and recipients. If the Minister can clear up the points I mentioned, I have no further observations.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I agree with many of the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, made. Do I understand that local authorities will not have to charge for certain services if they choose not to? We on these Benches welcome the fact that local authorities have a certain freedom with regard to the money we are discussing. The point that worries me— the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, touched on this—and about which I have expressed concern from the start is whether people will be adversely affected by the total change of regime, particularly as a result of the bureaucracy surrounding the change. I refer in particular in that connection to small organisations which offer help in this matter.
536
The Minister may know that recently we discussed the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill. I wonder how the measure we are discussing integrates with that Bill. I realise that the Minister may not be able to answer that point today. I refer to people who have problems being discharged from hospital. As I understand it, some of the funding under the measure we are discussing will be used to support people in their homes. There might be some difficulty in terms of integrating the two pieces of legislation. I seek reassurance that the Government are aware that the two pieces of legislation need to be integrated. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, I do not think that the measure is controversial at this stage of the proceedings. It was very controversial initially. Certainly, there has been concern about the total budget and whether councils would get the appropriate money. As I say, the measure itself is not too controversial, but I would welcome clarification of the points I have raised.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I shall have to write to the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, about the connection between the measure and the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, asked whether vulnerable people would be worse off as a result of the change. The answer is no. If there were any question of that, we would be extremely unhappy. There has been some comment in the press about the intention behind the measure. An article in the Guardian last week raised that question and concluded that vulnerable people would not in any way be disadvantaged by the change. Claire Tickell, chief executive of the Stoneham Housing Association, states:
"Under the old regime our umbilical cord was with the [central] Government in terms of funding and local authorities had just a passive understanding of what we did. Now they will be actively involved in what we are doing and they will be properly engaged locally".
That makes the point powerfully that local authorities will have this money to address their local problems. I give an absolute assurance that vulnerable people will not be worse off.
The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, asked why change was necessary. The reason is that the transitional housing benefit scheme was introduced as a temporary arrangement until this programme could be developed. I hope that I have not omitted to reply to any of the questions asked. I commend the measure to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Regulatory Reform (Housing Management Agreements) Order 2003
7.46 p.m.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting Lord Evans of Temple Guiting rose to move, That the draft regulatory reform order laid before the House on 24th February be approved [13th Report front the Regulatory Reform Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the third order from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to be brought forward under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001.
The order proposes changes to the way local housing authorities in England and Wales can delegate their housing management work under Section 27 of the Housing Act 1985 which it replaces. The changes are aimed at giving authorities more flexibility about the way in which they can let contracts for housing management. It also brings the section more into line with current legislation in clarifying the liabilities between the parties in these circumstances.
Currently, as landlords, local housing authorities are obliged to provide housing management services to their tenants. Section 27 of the Housing Act 1985 enables them, with the Secretary of State's approval, to delegate these functions to others by virtue of a management agreement agreed between both parties. However, Section 27 is framed in such a way as to prevent the "other party" from further subcontracting the work.
This may not sound a significant restriction on local housing authorities and it may help if I explain the context of the proposed order. This particular piece of legislation was amended in the days of compulsory competitive tendering when single, short-term contracts were the order of the day. Ideas have moved on since then and we now expect authorities to be more imaginative about how they achieve value for money and how they provide best value to their tenants and residents. Consequently they need to be able to enter into arrangements with providers where those providers can perhaps offer better value by subcontracting some or all of those services.
For instance, a housing association may be able to provide good quality housing management services to an authority, but to do so it needs to call on specialist suppliers such as those for sheltered housing or warden services. Under the current legislation, the authority would not be able to enter into such a contract which proposed sub-contracting the work. The changes proposed by the order enable management agreements to include clauses that enable the contractor further to sub-contract the work with the approval of the Secretary of State. In considering the proposed changes, it was recognised that there may be problems for a contractor should it want to replace a subcontractor as a matter of urgency. That is likely to be particularly true where there must be compliance with the statutory and ODPM requirements to consult with tenants on such changes and seek the Secretary of State's approval. Consequently, the order allows for a moratorium period for a maximum of six months to be provided, during which the Secretary of State's approval is not required.
One further point to note is that the current Section 27 refers to the relationship between the contractor and the authority as that of "agent". In considering the changes to Section 27, it was felt that the term "agent" did not adequately reflect the liabilities between the parties, and the opportunity was taken to address that.
538
The new provisions make the authority liable for the acts and omissions of a contractor or "manager" except where the management agreement states otherwise and where criminal liability is concerned.
The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister consulted widely on that proposal. The majority of respondents—82 per cent—supported it. The Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform concluded that the proposal was a suitable subject for a regulatory reform order and was satisfied that it should be submitted to the House for affirmative resolution. I thank members of that committee for the time that they spent scrutinising the proposal and recommending it to the House.
The Regulatory Reform Committee in another place also felt that the proposal was appropriate to the regulatory reform procedure. It recommended that clauses replacing the term "agent" should be redrafted for greater clarity. That we have done, and we feel that the result is much clearer and more easily understood. The committee agreed and unanimously approved the order. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulatory reform order laid before the House on 24th February be approved [13th Report from the Regulatory Reform Committee].(Lord Evans of Temple Gieiting.)
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister. Even I would recognise that 82 per cent in favour was a majority. Once again, the order is almost non-controversial. Perhaps at some stage I should declare my interest as a member of a local authority, and as leader of one of the first councils to turn the tenants' management organisation into one cross-borough organisation. I am in some sympathy with what is proposed in the order, which is the further possibility of delegation of housing management to other organisations, and more flexibility with that.
The Minister probably mentioned a couple of the points that I am making, so I am sorry if I am going to labour them a bit. If he did not say so before, will he say whether PFI contracts will be part of the housing management delegation? Will it be possible for them to be PFI, or will there simply be a direct delegation down to another organisation, such as a housing association or another tenants' group? Indeed, presumably a private company could be brought in by the housing department to take over the management.
The Minister made a point about tenants and the restriction on sub-contracting. It seems extremely important that the tenants are involved if there is any question of a contract being sub-contracted. The suggestion was that the Secretary of State would be able to delay such a proposal for six months. However, it is very necessary that tenants know exactly who their management is and under what basis they are managed.

539
Will the share of liabilities between sub-management, management and the authority—three parties are involved—have to be properly delineated in law, so that tenants understand exactly the situation and relationship between one body and another?
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I do not think that the issue is particularly controversial. We on these Benches would be in favour of local government having more discretion about its decisions. Like the noble Baroness, I was very interested to know how the order fits in with PFI. We have so many different branches and ways of organising things these days that sometimes I become a little concerned about how they fit in with each other.
That said, if the Government were in favour of giving local government the power of general competence, we would not have to go through so many complicated orders and so much legislation. We have made that point many times. I also understand that there were certain recommendations, to which the Minister referred, from the House of Commons Regulatory Reform Committee and from the House of Lords Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. I am pleased to say that the Government took notice and changed the order accordingly.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, may I first say a few words about PFI, which is obviously an important issue. The Commons Select Committee's report showed that it was slightly concerned about the government policy of using PFI for council housing and wished for a wider debate on the matter. It rightly felt that it was not appropriate to use the regulatory reform order to do that. However, the report makes it clear that the committee looked to the Government to instigate such a debate, and it is our intention to make arrangements for that.
Tenants will be consulted, and the Secretary of State will want confirmation of that in order to give approval. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, asked how liabilities were delineated. The local authority remains ultimately responsible under the order, except in two circumstances—where it is defined in the contract otherwise, or where there is criminal liability.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Regulatory Reform (Schemes under Section 129 of the Housing Act 1988) (England) Order 2003
7.57 p.m.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting Lord Evans of Temple Guiting rose to move, That the draft regulatory reform order laid before the House on 11th March be approved [15th Report from the Regulatory Reform Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the order standing in my name on the Order Paper. It is the fourth order from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to be brought forward under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001.
The Deputy Prime Minister made it clear in his recent Sustainable Communities action plan that coordinated long-term action was needed on a range of fronts if we were to address the complex housing problems that we face. Tackling the problems of shortages of affordable housing means making best use of the existing stock as well as providing additional housing. One of the mechanisms for doing that is the cash incentive scheme. Under that scheme, grants are paid to existing council tenants to help them buy a house of their own, thereby freeing up housing for a household in need. That can provide considerably better value for money than new build.
The reform order will remove the current requirement for housing authorities in England to obtain consent from the Secretary of State to run a scheme. The change, which is a simple and non-contentious one—famous last words—will lead to a small reduction in administration for authorities and allow them to tailor schemes to suit local needs and make them more attractive to tenants. We expect that to provide a helpful boost to the scale of activity under the schemes.
The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister consulted all local authorities, tenants' groups and other bodies with an interest. The proposal received overwhelming support from the consultees who responded. The Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform concluded that the proposal to allow English local authorities to run cash incentive schemes without the Secretary of State's consent was appropriate within the meaning of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001. It also considered that the order, as it now stands, is in a form satisfactory to be submitted to the House for affirmative resolution. I thank members of that committee for the time they spent scrutinising the proposal and for recommending the proposal to the House.
The Regulatory Reform Committee in another place considered that the proposal would remove a burden imposed on local housing authorities. The committee was satisfied that the proposal would not prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom that he or she might reasonably expect to continue to exercise. It was also satisfied that the proposal took appropriate account of the likely costs and benefits which might result from its implementation. The order was approved unanimously by the committee in another place. I now commend it to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulatory reform order laid before the House on 11th March be approved [15th Report from the Regulatory Reform Committee]. —(Lord Evans of Temple Guiting.)
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I have nothing to say other than to ask one question. I believe that this is an

541
enormously welcome move. Again, it will take some of the bureaucracy out of the system. However, can the Minister say whether the level of grants that can be given by local authorities will remain the same as they are at present under statute, or can a local authority now have discretion as to how much it gives under any circumstances, or is it still bound by the original rules?
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, from these Benches, we also welcome the order. Again, it gives freedom to local authorities to act without the all-powerful hand of the Secretary of State in an area which is very important, particularly now that the Government have placed great emphasis on local housing strategies. This issue is obviously an important part of that.
Again, the Government have made changes in accordance with the relevant committee recommendations in both Houses. Personally, I believe that this is a far better way of assisting people to enter home ownership than the right-to-buy system, because it means that the property they are renting remains as a social housing unit for renting. I am particularly in favour of that.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am grateful that the order has been welcomed. With regard to whether the level of grants will remain the same, new arrangements will provide authorities with the power to decide the level of grants to be offered. Therefore, there is an element of flexibility in that.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Town and Country Planning (Electronic Communications) (England) Order 2003
8.3 p.m.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting Lord Evans of Temple Guiting rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th March be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order was laid before the House on 6th March and was approved in another place on 20th March. It will facilitate electronic handling of parts of the town and country planning system. It does so by amending existing legislation to remove obstacles to the effective use of electronic communications. Because it is an amending instrument, the order may not be an easy document to read. It may be helpful to noble Lords if I summarise the background and purpose of the order.
Central and local government have adopted the target of making all services available electronically by December 2005. For planning services, that target will require the electronic delivery of a fully functioning development control service. In order to achieve the target, we must seek to ensure that we remove any legal and regulatory barriers to electronic working. Section 8 of the Electronics Communications Act 2000, under which this order has been made, gives us powers to amend existing legislation to remove any such barriers in our legislation which may prevent the use of electronic communication and storage in place of paper.
The order chiefly amends the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended. It is the principal Act governing the planning system, together with pants of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, two schedules to the Environment Act 1995 and some of the secondary legislation made under the planning Acts. The intention of all the amendments made by the order is to ensure that the relevant legislation can be construed explicitly and consistently as permitting the use of electronic communication.
The amendments provide for the electronic submission, receipt and handling of: planning applications, including outline planning applications and reserved matters applications; applications for listed building and conservation area consent; applications to mineral planning authorities; applications for determination of whether prior approval is required; applications for certificates of lawful use of development; planning appeals; listed building and conservation area consent appeals; and, finally, enforcement notice appeals, including listed buildings and conservation area enforcement appeals.
The order is only in respect of part of the planning system and we have in hand the preparation of a further order to deal with advertisement consents and appeals. Further Section 8 orders may be needed, but future primary and secondary legislation is being prepared so that it is compatible with electronic working.
As I have mentioned, the order facilitates the electronic handling of parts of the planning system and so does no more than create an opportunity for those who wish to use an electronic rather than a paper-based planning system. The existing paper-based system will continue to operate for as long as those engaging in the planning system wish to use it.
But the potential benefits of engaging in the planning process electronically are considerable. They include, for example —almost instantaneous—transmission between parties; reduced postage, packing, photocopying and printing; reduced storage space for papers and files; closer linkages between participants in the planning system; better access to guidance, support and tools to support the planning process; and, in particular, more open access to the planning system for all parties.
The order has been welcomed by key stakeholders in the planning system, including the Royal Town Planning Institution, the Council on Tribunals and the Local Government Association. In particular, the Council on Tribunals considered that giving people the opportunity to communicate electronically while continuing the operation of a paper-based system for as long people wanted it was absolutely right. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th March be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Evans of Temple Guiting)
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of a town planning committee. If people want to work through an electronic system, that is

543
great. Is there any danger that the order may be used for consultation purposes? I believe that one needs to write on paper to those being consulted rather than rely on electronic methods, as one may miss someone. Apart from that I have no objections. I hope that people have a merry time with this.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the use of modern technology. We welcome the fact that electronic communication will not be compulsory, which could lead to people being excluded. We should also take account of the fact that electronic transmission does not always work. In my part of the world the electricity system does not always work. As the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, who is in his seat, knows, I have raised this matter several times with him.
I also hope that the Minister can reassure me that the Government will monitor the progress of the scheme and evaluate how it works. I picked up from somewhere the fact that although this is to happen, the advertising of it has not been great; people do not know about it. How will people receive information on the system so that they can use it and what steps will the Government take to evaluate how it is progressing? Apart from that we support the order.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, my only regret is that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is not in his place. As someone who consistently chides the Government about how slow they are to introduce electronic communication and as someone who was heavily involved with a system for libraries in a previous incarnation, I totally support what the noble Lord says. Of course, this system will not be compulsory. As I have said before, both systems —hard copy and electronic—can be used for as long as necessary. My private view is that once someone starts to use electronic methods of communicating it is difficult to go back to a hard copy.
I have been asked how we shall evaluate the scheme. Nothing in the order deals with evaluating, but we shall note the concerns of noble Lords and we shall see how matters progress. In other areas where electronic communication has been introduced, it has been an almost entirely positive development. A fascinating point is that electronic communication is a generation thing. My generation is accustomed to the printed word and writing letters but the younger generation use e-mails and enjoy communicating electronically. I hope that that has answered the few questions I was asked.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Paternity and Adoption Leave (Adoption from Overseas) Regulations 2003
8.12 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 24th February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to this set of regulations I shall also speak to the Employment Rights Act 1996 (Application of Section 80B to Adoptions from Overseas) Regulations 2003. Towards the end of last year, the House debated regulations introducing a package of measures that give more support and choice for parents in the workplace. As part of that package the Government are introducing new leave and pay rights for employees adopting children in Great Britain. I am sure we can all agree that this is an excellent thing as it will mean that from 6th April 2003 adopting parents will have leave and pay entitlements comparable to the maternity provisions. For the first time, those parents, who perform such a valuable function in our society, will have a statutory right to time off work to establish a relationship with their new child.
The regulations we have before us today ensure that the right to adoption leave also applies to those who have adopted a child from overseas, a process sometimes known as inter-country adoption. We are not debating the pay aspects today as these are dealt with by separate regulations laid before Parliament by the negative resolution procedure. These regulations define an adoption from overseas as,
"the adoption of a child who enters Great Britain from outside the United Kingdom in connection with or for the purposes of adoption which does not involve the placement of the child for adoption under the law of any part of the United Kingdom".
The Government believe that it is only right that children who are adopted from overseas following the proper procedures and brought to live in this country permanently with their adoptive parents are given the same chance as any other child to develop a lasting and close relationship with their parents. In some cases these children will not be newly-born babies and one could argue that the period needed for them to integrate into their new home need not be as long. We should bear in mind the difficulties that these children will often have encountered in their lives and that, while the task for adoptive parents is different from that which birth parents face, it is in some ways harder, and easily requires as much time and patience. We therefore undertook to give the same rights to parents adopting from overseas as those adopting within Great Britain during the passage of the Employment Bill.
Those rights are 12 months' adoption leave for one adoptive parent, six months' leave paid at the standard rate of £100 per week followed by six months' unpaid leave. The other parent will be eligible for one or two weeks' paternity leave, again paid at the standard rate of £100 per week. So the entitlements are the same as those for domestic adoptions. The need for separate regulation for overseas adoptions arises because the processes involved in overseas adoptions differ markedly from those for domestic adoptions and are complex in themselves.
The main difference is that the key concepts of a child being "placed" with the adopter and of the adopter being "matched" with a child, which appear in the domestic regulations as elements of the conditions

545
of entitlement and as points at which the employee is required to give notice to the employer, do not occur in this country in the case of overseas adoptions.
Of course it is important that we get the notification mechanism right, so that employers have a fair idea of when their employee will take leave in order to plan for the future. Getting the notification requirements right has been a difficult matter as overseas adoption is usually a long-drawn out process, which is often subject to uncertainty. The Government realised that after they talked to interested parties—the Department of Health and the Inland Revenue —about the processes involved. However, it was clear that certain key points in the process could be used.
Adopters will receive an official notification, in most cases from the Secretary of State for Health, that they have been assessed as suitable to adopt. The regulations use that point and the date on which the child enters Great Britain as elements in the conditions of entitlement and as points at which employees must notify their employer of their intention to take leave if they have sufficient length of service.
It can often take more than a year for a child to enter the country following a favourable assessment of the potential adopters. For that reason we allow for the possibility that an employee may move jobs, perhaps in circumstances beyond his or her control. We do not think that it would be fair to exclude employees from the rights where that happens, and we do not think that it would be to the advantage of employers to do so. So employees wishing to take adoption or paternity leave also have the option of notifying their employer of their intention to take leave once they have the necessary 26 weeks' qualifying service with their new employer, even if they received the certificate of notification some time before.
In all cases employees must have worked for their employer for 26 weeks to qualify for the rights, and must give their employer a minimum of 28 days' notice of when they intend that leave to start. The regulations will operate within the context of adoption law, which sets out the procedures for adoption from overseas. Under that legislation, adopters must follow clearly defined rules to be assessed and approved to adopt and to gain entry clearance for their new child.
I want to stress that most employers will not be affected by these measures. At present there are in the region of 300 adoptions of children from overseas a year. The numbers are not likely to increase and not everyone will take advantage of the new rights. Although these rights will affect only a small number of people and their employers, I believe they represent an important addition to the new rights for working parents as they make sure that people do not miss out on the opportunity to balance life and work just because they decided to adopt a child from overseas rather than in Great Britain. I therefore commend the draft regulations to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 24th February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the two draft regulations. The 10th Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation in another place, spent time debating the regulations in detail. I do not think that it is right to take up your Lordships' time by repeating that discussion, especially as we on these Benches accept, with some reservations, the necessity for them. It does not make sense to have maternity, paternity and adoptive leave without covering the situation of adoption from overseas.
The Minister said that there are only about 300 overseas adoptions a year, and that it is by no means certain that all adoptive parents will want to take advantage of these provisions. While that is true, the fact is that whereas large companies can cope with the problems caused by the absence of an employee, for many small businesses, who work with an absolutely minimal work force, these regulations and indeed all the other rights to take leave can cause substantial difficulties.
Having read the draft regulations and the discussion in another place, I am uncertain about the timing of the operation of these regulations in the case of an overseas adoption, because sometimes such an adoption requires more than one visit to the country concerned—sometimes over an extended period. Will the Minister confirm when the clock starts to tick, and that the time needed to go overseas as a preliminary to the adoption process does not count—in other words, that preliminary process is in the employee's own holiday time.
My honourable friend the Member for North West Norfolk asked why the matter had not been dealt with when the package of proposals relating to maternity, paternity and adoption leave was debated, during the passage of the Employment Act 2002. The only answer given was that the Government made it clear that they:
"would take separate powers to deal with overseas adopters, because the law is very different and complex".—[Official Report, Commons 10th Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 13/3/03; col. 8.]
With the greatest respect, however complex the law of adoption may be, there is no great difference as regards adoption leave, as is demonstrated by the comparative brevity and simplicity of these regulations.
This is simply another example of the Government having to cope with the consequences of rushing legislation on to the statute book without first working out all the ramifications, and without adequate time being given to the Committee in another place to debate Bills in fuller detail.
However, as I said, we support the regulations and their acceptance by this House.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear and detailed explanation of the

547
regulations. For me, it shows the importance of the rights of children that we are making their welfare a priority—something that we do not always do in this country in the way that many of our European Union colleagues do. Much of their legislation and day-to-day life places a high priority on the importance of children's welfare. On that basis, we especially welcome the regulations.
My noble friend Lady Barker would normally speak for the Liberal Democrats on the regulations; she has previously spoken for us on adoption matters. I know that if she were here, she would fully support the regulations. She told me, "The Government must have got it right, because all the agencies involved fully support what they are doing". So we are happy to support the regulations.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for explaining the regulations. If I understand them correctly, official notification is required for adoption and paternity leave to be required. If there is no official notification, is the adoption still legal in this country?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the first question raised concerned the impact on small businesses. When we introduced paternity and adoption pay, we considered its impact on small businesses. We believe that those basic employment rights should help all employers and employees. Parents who work in small firms are not excluded from benefiting from the new measures. We have used the Small Business Service as a channel to reach small businesses in extensive consultation on the rights, and have specifically considered those businesses in the regulatory impact assessment.
It was also asked why we need separate regulations for foreign adoptions. I hope that it was clear from my opening statement that different considerations on timing apply to such situations. It therefore seemed sensible to deal with the first category, where the position was much clearer, and then conduct special discussion and consideration on this matter. Nothing would have been gained from rushing the provision through.
On the question of whether an adopter will be able to take paid adoption leave to go overseas to arrange an adoption, the answer is no. Statutory adoption pay and leave will not start until the child has entered the country. It is not meant to be used by employees to travel overseas to arrange the adoption or visit the child. Adopters should talk to their employers about other types of leave that they might take to cover the period. Paid adoption leave is available to help adopters to take time off work when they return to the UK with a child to give them time to establish a relationship before returning to work. It is hoped that using the time in that way will reduce the number of disrupted placements.
Individuals bringing children into the country illegally will not be eligible for adoption leave. Adopters must comply with UK law and the laws of
548
the country in which the child lives. The law will allow only local councils and some voluntary adoption agencies to facilitate adoptions from overseas. That deals with the points raised. I commend the regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Employment Rights Act 1996 (Application of Section 80B to Adoptions from Overseas) Regulations 2003
8.25 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I have already spoken to these regulations. I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 24th February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.35 p.m.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.26 to 8.35 p.m.]

Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 7.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 4, line 5, at end insert "provided that anything they undertake to encourage voting does not disproportionately favour one of the possible referendum outcomes to the detriment of the other"
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 62 would write into the Bill a requirement that the Electoral Commission be impartial. The amendment is concerned with the duty of the Electoral Commission to encourage voting in a referendum on regional assemblies.
As we know, the Electoral Commission plays a crucial part in the referendum process proposed in the Bill. We all welcome that. It is right and proper that, as an independent body with specific expertise in elections, it should be consulted during preparations for a referendum and the actual voting process. The Electoral Commission is and must be an impartial authority. Amendment No. 62 would make that impartiality explicit.
I do not want to besmear the good name of the Electoral Commission by suggesting that it would, in any way, show bias or prejudice when encouraging voting. However, for reasons of clarity, the requirement should be in the Bill, especially given that the Electoral Commission will be financed from government funds and in the light of the illicit activities of several bodies that serve only to heighten suspicion.
It is important, therefore, to emphasise in the Bill that the Electoral Commission has a statutory responsibility to ensure proportionality when encouraging voting.
It would be easy to tip the balance in either direction—for or against. That would have severe implications for the validity of the outcome of the referendum. The amendment would be a safeguard against such circumstances and would guarantee balanced encouragement for voting by the Electoral Commission. "Encouraging voting" means boosting voter turnout rather than positively advocating one outcome or another. That should be stressed as a positive duty of the Electoral Commission.
This is an unfortunate process. The Minister will know that I had misgivings about coming to the point of having regional assemblies by such a method. The Bill is skeletal and triggers off a great deal of executive action. Already, we know that there is positive campaigning at public expense going on. We have discussed that several times. It is important that the next activity —encouraging people to come out and vote—should not be confused with telling people why and how they will vote or what they will vote for. I hope that the Minister will look kindly on my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: I agree with virtually the whole thrust of the noble Baroness's case. However, I hope that I can persuade her not to add the words to the Bill. The perverse effect of doing so would be that, read literally, they would encourage the Electoral Commission to seek to persuade one way or the other, and I shall explain why. The amendment is, in any case, unnecessary and undesirable.
The Electoral Commission is an independent body, and I know of nobody who has any complaints about the way in which it operates. It takes a fair and responsible approach to a list of statutory duties, and it should never be seen to favour one outcome of a referendum over another. Under Clause 7 without the amendment, the commission will have a public law duty to act in a reasonable and balanced way. It could be subject to challenge by judicial review if it acted in a biased way. The power is simply to encourage voting—not any particular outcome. The amendment might encourage the commission to act in a biased way. If the commission has information that one particular result in a referendum is more likely than another, should it actively persuade voting the other way? The amendment might imply that the commission could favour one of the outcomes of a referendum, provided it acts proportionately—whatever that means. I am not playing around with words, but that could be a literal interpretation of the amendment.
However, I support the thrust behind the noble Baroness' speech, because the commission's job is not to take sides, but to seek to encourage voting and to encourage people to turn out. It should not in any way influence who they vote for, or which way they should vote, in a referendum. The commission must carry out that duty in an unbiased way. Even levelling
550
allegations of bias would be very serious. We are not seeking to allow the commission to do anything improper, or to seek to influence the outcome of the election.
There are people who argue that higher turnouts influence outcomes of elections—of course they do. That is the point of the exercise—to encourage people to participate in the democratic process. That is not the same as persuading them to vote one way or the other. I hope that the spirit of my reply is such that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment, because there is no way that the commission would be able to seek to influence anything. Otherwise, it would be subject to judicial review.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the Minister for at least understanding the point of my amendment. However, whilst he thinks its words would create a perverse effect, I think that his explanation is somewhat perverse. It says:
"The Electoral Commission may do anything they think necessary or expedient for the purpose of encouraging voting at referendums to be held in pursuance of an order under section 1"
We know that if it can do anything it thinks would be "necessary or expedient", it could encourage people to vote—perhaps if the outcome was perceived as a foregone conclusion, and it was just encouraging other people who were perhaps apathetic or even anti or pro, depending on which bias was being talked about. That does seem to be a course open to the Electoral Commission, quite within the remit of Clause 7. There is no reference to balance or neutrality. There is only a reference saying that the commission may do,
"anything they think necessary or expedient for the purposes of encouraging voting".
My words—and I will look at them again—
"provided that anything they undertake to encourage voting does not disproportionately favour one of the possible referendum outcomes to the detriment of the other"
mean that the commission should not become involved in persuading people to vote for or against anything. The business is not to do that. However, the Minister is saying that my words would allow them to do just that.
Lord Rooker: No, the whole purpose and power of Clause 7 is for the commission to encourage voting, not to encourage the outcome. The outcome is irrelevant to the commission. That is not its function. To encourage the voting is not the same as to encourage the outcome. One would recognise the elephant on the doorstep. If the commission stepped out of line, there would be trouble, because it is easy to see what encourages voting as opposed to what encourages the outcome. There is no power in this clause for it to seek to encourage the outcome.
Baroness Blatch: Even taking that into account, I think that we both want the same thing. We both want to encourage people to come out and vote, and to take part in the democratic process. We do not believe it is the job of the Electoral Commission to do anything other than persuade people to vote. It could be that if

551
a part of a region is showing little interest in voting, but may vote predominantly one way or another, there is a fine line on how it would be perceived, if the Electoral Commission took "any measure necessary". Clause 7 is free-standing in that the Electoral Commission has a great deal of scope for taking any measures it thinks necessary and expedient.
I will dwell again on what the noble Lord has said. We are not saying different things—we both know what we want, which is the same thing. We are talking about means to an end and to reduce any scope for creating a perception of bias or actual bias. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.45 p.m.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Provision of information to voters]:
[Amendments Nos. 63 to 65 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 4, line 18, at end insert—
"( ) The information to be provided under subsection (2) shall include a statement by the Secretary of State with regard to which powers (if any) would be transferred from local government to the assembly."
The noble Baroness said: In tabling Amendment No. 66, I slightly extend a point we have discussed. I hope that the Minister can give the Committee an assurance that in the information to be provided, to which we have referred extensively, the powers to be transferred from local government to the assembly—if there are any, and we hope that there will not be—will be specifically mentioned. I beg to move—and I have done so in under one minute.
Lord Hanningfield: I support the amendment. It seeks to enlarge on what the regional assemblies will do. Several times in Committee we have been promised that we will know before too long—that there will be a draft Bill or some literature setting out the powers of regional assemblies. I hope that the amendment will draw out some of the proposals.
Lord Rooker: Sorry, there is nothing to draw out. The give-away in the amendment is in the last few words about,
"which powers (if any) would be transferred from local government to the assembly".
The Government do not intend to transfer any powers from local government to elected assemblies, so we do not need the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: We have had this debate before and it is important that we are given clarification of the point. It is said that no powers whatever are passing from local government to the assembly, and we take that on face value. However, some powers, such as housing—the only example we have been given in this Chamber—are to be transferred to the assembly. Given that district and borough councils are
552
concerned and that some aspect of housing is the function of county councils, how on earth can regional assemblies have an influence in and responsibility for housing matters if that is not to come from local authorities?
Lord Rooker: No statutory powers which local authorities currently have in respect of housing are to be transferred to the elected assembly. That is the long and short of the matter. On other matters we are trying to look at policy on a regional basis and we have made that clear in the sustainable communities plan. They are not dependent on this Bill, nor on the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. They are related to the internal structuring of government with the Housing Corporation and English Partnerships and the way in which HIP allocations are dealt with so that we can look regionally at the strategy for housing. But no statutory powers on housing are being transferred from local authorities. No powers are being transferred from local authorities to the regional assemblies.
The noble Baroness might ask what it is all worth. That is for others to ask and answer, as I have repeatedly made clear. There will be no new powers, no new money and no new tiers.
Baroness Blatch: I shall take the noble Lord straight back to Second Reading and earlier debates on the Bill. I asked whether he could name a power which would transfer to the regional assemblies which was free-standing, which was not now held by another body and which the regional assemblies would have. The noble Lord said that he could do so immediately, and named housing. But district councils have the responsibility for housing, as do county councils under their planning functions, until they lose them.
I am looking at Box 4.1 on page 37 of the White Paper. Sustainable development is referred to in Box 4.1 on page 36 of the White Paper. If you go to Kent County Council, for example, and to some of the other county councils around the country, they will tell you that they have responsibilities for sustainable development. So what will be the role of the regional assemblies in that regard?
If you go to some of the larger county councils, you will find that they also have responsibility for economic development. Skills and employment are matters for county councils, the learning and skills councils and the sector schools councils, so what is the role of the regional assemblies? What is the relationship between spatial planning and the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill which will shortly be before the House? What particular role will the assemblies play in transport? Waste management is definitely a matter for county councils and for some district councils. As regards health improvement, how will the regional authorities dovetail in with the 10-year plan for the National Health Service? The responsibility for culture, including tourism, belongs in other bodies, as does the issue of biodiversity.
What will these bodies do? Regional development agencies, sector schools councils, learning and skills councils, regional offices, county councils and district

553
councils all have a role now and we are told that they will all still exist once the regional assemblies are established. So, although this looks like a rather inoffensive, small amendment, it is actually very important. What will these assemblies do?
We all have respect for the Minister, but for him to simply say to us, "That is for you to determine" is no answer. At the end of the line, if people vote for them, the Bill will trigger the establishment of regional assemblies. If the Minister cannot tell Parliament what they will do— what they will stand for and what will be their powers and functions—how on earth will the public make sense of it?
Lord Rooker: The noble Baroness is introducing red herrings. Box 4.1 states:
"An elected regional assembly will be responsible for regional strategies dealing with the following issues".
It does not refer to "service delivery"; it does not refer to "statutory functions"; it refers to "regional strategies". We have made it abundantly clear from day one that that is what the White Paper is all about and that is what we have said.
I gave an honest answer at Second Reading in regard to housing. There will be a housing function carried out at regional level, but the existing statutory functions held by local authorities will remain with them. This relates to the internal workings of government and the way in which the Housing Corporation and English Partnerships operate. They are nothing to do with local authorities. They are central government delivery units, if you like—quangos in other words. It concerns the way in which central government seeks to allocate funds, particularly in regard to the housing investment programme, on a regional basis.
But it will still be for the local authorities to carry out their statutory functions. Housing will become a regional issue but not in terms of the delivery of the statutory functions of local authorities. There is a difference, but it is not covered by the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: The amendment of the noble Baroness seeks to ensure that the powers are at least spelled out ahead of any referendum.
Going back to the issue of housing, the Minister will know that I wrote to the department following a Statement in the House about the new housing that is to be built around the country. I asked what role the regional assemblies would have in deciding where the houses should be built because the Government have predetermined that the area between Stansted airport and the East End of London shall be covered in houses. I discovered that that is a matter for the Government. Housing associations have their area of responsibility and district and county councils have theirs, so will the Minister please tell the Committee what the regional assemblies will be able to determine? If they are not able to determine anything, they will become glorified talking shops. They either will or will
554
not be established with a purpose and powers to do something. If not, what on earth is the debate all about?
Lord Rooker: That is the most extravagant language I have heard. It is deliberately misleading to say that the land from Stansted to Cambridge to London will be covered in housing. That is absolutely preposterous and the noble Baroness is intelligent enough to know it. It is designated as a growth area. The amount of land that we will take for the extra housing will be infinitesimal; it will be in single digit percentages. To talk about the land being covered in housing is ridiculous. The noble Baroness must know that from the figures we have published in the sustainable communities plan. It will be properly delivered through vehicles such as urban regeneration companies, the local authorities involved, and sometimes the UDC. It depends. Those discussions are ongoing. But the use of such extravagant language, frankly, destroys the rest of the noble Baroness's argument. I repeat: no statutory powers are being taken from local government to give to the regional assemblies—which makes the amendment unnecessary.
Baroness Blatch: I should like the noble Lord to hear what the people around the Stansted area, in the swathe of green land that extends down to the East End of London, have to say about the new housing. The Minister might like to mention the figure for the housing that will be built in that area.
Even that side-steps the point. Even if I have exaggerated in the way that the Minister says, he has still not answered the key question: what will the regional assemblies be able to determine in the areas set out in paragraph 4.1 of the White Paper? If they have no powers from local authorities, and no powers from national government, what are they there to do; what will their powers be; and what will they be free to determine that is not the policy of central government or that of local authorities?
Lord Rooker: The noble Baroness continues deliberately to talk up the regional assemblies. Frankly, that is disingenuous. She is talking up the organisations that she does not want to exist. I am deliberately not talking them down, but going out of my way to make it clear that the Government are not misleading anyone. There will be no new powers, and no new money. The noble Baroness may not like that. She can talk all she likes about the powers that they will have. They will have the powers of democratic scrutiny of those working on a regional basis, from the Government Offices to other organisations. They will not be service delivery organisations. We have said that. It is nothing new.
So it is no use going on about what new powers the regional assemblies will have. They will not have any new powers. They will have the power of democratic scrutiny of a level of government that is operating now in the regions by and large, as we have set out, in a way that is not subject to democratic scrutiny—because

555
they have objective action, this House does not do it and it is not a local government function. We think it important that they should have that.
There will be different issues relating to the boards that become regional planning boards for special strategy, but that is dealt with in another Bill; it is not dependent on this Bill. So I repeat: the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, which will come before this House in due course, is not dependent on this Bill passing into law in the sense of having elected regional assemblies. So the amendment is a complete red herring. The noble Baroness is using extravagant language about the growth area, and it is grossly misleading of her to do so.
Baroness Blatch: This is positively my last word on this amendment. I shall continue to use the language that I have used. If the regional assemblies are nothing, if they are simply talking-shops with no new powers and no new money, why are we here debating them? Why must a very high price be paid for them; namely, a major upheaval in local government in order to establish them?
It is not true to say that the assemblies will have no new money. They will have precepting powers; and if that is the case they can obtain more money. We have seen that with the GLA. It has managed to get a good deal more money out of local taxpayers. The Minister is admitting that they will have powers of scrutiny, but so does the Audit Commission, so does the National Audit Office. When a body has powers of scrutiny, it has powers to do something about what it finds as a result of the scrutiny. We shall return to this point on another day, in other ways. In responding, will the Minister tell us what powers the regional assemblies will have, having exercised their powers of scrutiny, if they find what they have scrutinised to be at fault?
Lord Rooker: The noble Baroness uses a dangerous example; namely, the National Audit Office. She referred also to the Public Accounts Committee. They do not scrutinise policy. They look at where the tax pounds are going and at whether we are getting value for money. The perfect example is that Ministers do not appear before the Public Accounts Committee. That is not the function of the committee. It is not looking at policy; that is decided elsewhere. Policy is the role of government, the House and support. The PAC is looking at value for taxpayers' pounds. The Audit Commission is looking at matters in a slightly different way, in terms of the local government level, because people get confused between the two bodies. The scrutiny by the assemblies will be quite different. It will vary according to the function the assemblies are considering because they will be new bodies. Small groups of people, between 25 and 35, will be working in large regions of between 2 million to 6 million people. The assemblies will look at the best way of scrutinising and bringing to democratic account the people who are making decisions on a regional basis about strategy, not their service delivery.
9 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Can the Minister answer a short question? If the assemblies are to have no further powers and they are simply there as scrutinising bodies, why do they want precepting powers? If they are not going to do anything more, why do they want more money with which to do it? Why do they want precepting powers?
Lord Waddington: I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, because I was about to make very much the same point. The Minister is most eloquent, and I am impressed by his argument. His argument is simple: we have nothing to worry about because the Bill is pointless. I have served in Parliament for a certain amount of time and have seen plenty of pointless Bills. I have seen firearms legislation go through Parliament to meet a perceived threat, and it has achieved nothing. I have seen dog-biting legislation go through Parliament to meet a perceived threat, and it has achieved nothing.
The Bill is unique in that the Minister says that it will do nothing. If I were absolutely sure of that, I would go home to bed early, but I have a feeling there must be a snag somewhere.
Lord Rooker: I am getting really worried now. It must be firmly placed on the record that I did not say what was attributed to me. This is an excellent Bill; it is full of good ideas and good clauses. It is well thought out and has been carefully scrutinised in your Lordships' House. At the end of the day, the electorate will decide whether they want to proceed down this road. That is my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. I cannot give him the detailed response he wants; it goes way beyond this amendment. I must try to stick to answering the amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I would still like to know why, if the assemblies are not going to do anything, they want money to do it.
Baroness Hamwee: I hope that readers of Hansard will apply their own degree of irony to some of these exchanges. I am grateful for the Minister's confirmation that this is not big local government, to take us hack to day one. I share concerns about what the assemblies will do—all of us on these Benches have made that clear. I do not want to develop the point tonight, but I am concerned that the Minister talked of scrutiny. Of course, that is an important function but the assemblies are to be strategy-making bodies—the White Paper tells us so. We regard strategy as very important. We distinguish it from service delivery and see a very important role for the assemblies in making strategy. That is at the heart of our belief in regional government. Having said that—and we will return to the issue of powers—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 67 and 68 not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Expenditure]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 5, line 8, at end insert "and publishes the Electoral Commission's response"
The noble Baroness said: I can be very brief on this amendment. We have emphasised a number of times accountability and transparency when speaking to previous amendments. This is to do with cost. The Electoral Commission is to be consulted before the Secretary of State can provide funds with which the commission can then cover the expenditure incurred when employing counting officers and setting up the voting process.
I do not argue with that and I do not argue with the making of the order for expenses to cover the services required. My amendment simply asks that the response of the Electoral Commission should be published. That would make more comprehensive the information that would be made available before the order was approved. It is only right that when taxpayers' money is being spent, the Minister should publish the results of the consultation exercise. That would ensure that the public could be satisfied with the legitimacy of the amounts committed to provide the expenses detailed. I beg to move.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: Subsection (3) of Clause 9 requires a Minister of the Crown to consult the Electoral Commission before making an order to make provision for payment by the Electoral Commission of either charges in respect of services rendered or expenses incurred by a counting officer in connection with a referendum held in pursuance of an order to cause a referendum, or the increase in the superannuation contributions required to be paid by a local authority as a consequence of a fee paid as part of a counting officer's charges. Amendment No. 69 would require the Secretary of State to publish the commission's response to this consultation.
As I said with regard to Amendment No. 59, the Electoral Commission's responses are its own responses. It is independent of the Government, so it decides whether to disclose its responses and whether there should be publication. As it seems to intend to publish any consultation that it might have with the Government, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I believed, perhaps naively, that we were making law in Parliament. It might well be a matter for the Electoral Commission to decide what it shall make public, but we are making law. This is a new Bill, and we can if we wish require that the response should be made public. It is for Parliament to decide whether it should be made public; we can put an obligation in law on the Electoral Commission to publish its findings. At the end of the day, it is your money and my money that is being spent. The public have the right to know what the consultation was and what advice was given.
I am deeply unhappy about the Minister's response, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Exclusion of legal proceedings]:
Baroness Blatch moved Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 5, line 11, leave out "No court shall" and insert "A court shall only"
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 71 and 72.
This is an important clause, and I hope that the Minister can give us some cheerier news than we have had to date. The question is whether the courts can be used to challenge the result of a referendum. It seems extraordinary to take a specific power to deny the right to challenge aspects of a referendum.
When querying the inclusion of the clause in the Bill, I turned to the Explanatory Notes for clarification, but that was hardly what I found. The only argument used is not intellectually valid. The notes suggest that the measure should be approved because the Government have done this before, but precedent is not an answer. We are viewing this Bill on its merits as a new Bill before the House.
The purpose of the clause is to ban legal challenges to a referendum. The notes state:
"The inclusion of this clause follows the precedent set by, for example, section 6 of the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Act 1998, section 4 of the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Act 1997 and section 4 of the Referendum Act 1975".
That last Act was passed 28 years ago, when there was a very different set of circumstances. At that time, a threshold operated, which gave some safeguard as to the volume of support for constitutional change.
Just because something has been done one way before does not mean that it is impossible to change the procedure. That is especially the case with regard to something with such dramatic constitutional implications. Surely in some circumstances it might be necessary to question the validity of the referendum result. I offer up just such a possibility in Amendment No. 71: that there are allegations of electoral fraud.
Moreover, I hope that noble Lords took note of the fact that I did not simply propose that the courts have free rein to challenge the results of a referendum. That is effectively what the Liberal Democrats have done with their opposition to the Question that Clause 10 stand part of the Bill. Although we have put our names to that opposition, I have to say that I prefer the limitations offered in Amendments Nos. 70, 71 and 72 as a more sensible and responsible response: only if allegations of fraud are made through the proper legal channels and within 10 days of the announcement of the result is such a challenge to a referendum result legitimate. That makes it clear that the allegations must be of only the most severe nature—that of electoral fraud. Furthermore, the legal proceedings cannot be initiated unless it is within the first 10 days after the result. That stops any frivolous questioning of the result and also ensures that the result is not questioned when further processes are under way to implement the results of the referendum—for example, the establishment of the assemblies themselves.
Earlier today, in discussion with one of my colleagues, I was reminded of an incident in Croydon. It was discovered after the event that some of the election papers had not been properly stamped. The returning officer allowed them through and the votes were counted and they were materially crucial to the result of that vote. When they were challenged, the election was rerun. So there are examples.
I have a technical question for the noble Lord. I have before me a copy of the relevant part of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Reading Section 129, I just wonder whether this clause runs counter to what was set out in that Act. I hope that the Minister will concede that some procedure must be available by which legitimate challenges to the result of a referendum may be made through the appropriate legal channels. If not, I would welcome some good reasons why not. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: We have indicated our opposition to the Question that Clause 10 stand part of the Bill. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, concedes, she and the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, also oppose the Question. I have done so in an attempt to gain further understanding of the clause. I hope that we can debate whether the clause should stand part now rather than in a later debate.
In Committee in another place, the Minister said:
"If a serious situation arose, involving, for example, fraud, and a challenge were made, I am advised that the court could"—
he said "could" —
"argue that a fully valid certificate had never truly existed and that, therefore, the court had the right to intervene".
He went on to say:
"The ways of challenging the proceedings set out in clause 5 are clear for the courts to interpret".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee A, 3/12/02: cols. 47–48]
Even putting aside the rather convoluted approach in that last sentence, I have to say that, reading and rereading the statement—and I freely admit to being no expert in this matter—the position is by no means clear. However, if I understand the Minister in another place aright, there is no need for this clause at all. So I have gone round in a complete circle. I hope that the Minister can shed some light on it.
Lord Rooker: I am not resting my case on the argument that no explanation is necessary because it has been done before. I also accept that the argument in the Explanatory Notes is based exclusively on the fact that it has been done before. Although that is part of the argument, it is not the whole argument.
I shall probably give a totally inadequate response to this point, which is not straightforward. On the face of it, the clause seems quite onerous. The advice I have corresponds exactly with what Nick Raynsford said in another place; namely, that the clause does not rule out any and every challenge to a referendum result being looked at by the courts. I realise that I am entering a legal minefield here, but notwithstanding the fact that the clause has appeared word for word in five previous
560
pieces of legislation, it has never been challenged in the courts. Therefore, we are in uncharted waters as regards the kind of case the courts would wish to consider. The clause is certainly designed to cut out less serious challenges, for example, a returning officer arguing about the number of ballot papers that were filled in incorrectly even though they did not alter the overall result. Some people might argue that a counting error had still been made. However, we want to avoid such challenges being brought as once a decision is taken on a referendum certain actions need to be taken as quickly as possible.
Even though the clause as written appears to rule out completely any court considering a result, I am advised by lawyers and my learned friends that an alleged serious error could be challenged in the courts. However, I cannot give an example because so far such a case has not been challenged in the courts. The courts are jealous of guarding their right to consider cases if people complain of an alleged serious error. I cannot conceive of any such circumstances but I am advised that such challenges are not ruled out.
The clause is included in the Bill—for the same reason it is included in other legislation—to ensure that the Government can respond without delay to referendum results. Court challenges take time. Undue delay could result in difficulties as regards introducing the main Bill to set up the assemblies. As has been said, the previous five referendums took place a long time ago, one in 1975 and two in 1978. However, the two more recent ones in 1997 and 1998 occurred within the lifetime of this Government. It would be for the courts to interpret how any challenge would be dealt with. For example, they would not be prevented from considering a challenge to the certificate of the chief counting officer. As I say, the courts are jealous of their jurisdiction. There is a substantial body of case law in regard to the wording used in the clause but it has not been challenged in the courts in the sense of an ouster clause.
We recognise that the clause may not prevent all challenges, particularly those of a serious nature, and, indeed, we would not expect it to do so. It would obviously be right for a particularly serious allegation based on sound grounds to be challenged. I was about to refer to a scandal in that regard, but that is casting judgment on an allegation and I do not wish to do that. However, it would be wrong for a serious allegation not to be challenged in the courts. As we do not have a ruling, we do not have a precedent to follow.
Amendment No. 71 seeks to limit the courts' jurisdiction to those circumstances where the allegations of electoral fraud are made through the appropriate legal channels. We believe that the amendment would be ineffective. We do not know what the legal channels are. I am assured that that is not a legal term and that it could not be inserted into legislation. As I say, we believe that the amendment would be ineffective or at least limited to those circumstances where there is a combination of polls. One could ask what electoral fraud could take place in a referendum. A referendum constitutes an election that takes place at the ballot box in which the wider

561
population takes part. It is not an election involving individual candidates. However, there may still be allegations that fraud has taken place. I cannot conceive of such circumstances and I cannot give examples off the top of my head.
Amendment No. 72 is a little more "dodgy". It seeks to impose a time limit on the bringing of legal proceedings. That time limit is 10 days from the announcement of the referendum result. The amendment could prevent challenges regardless of whether they are frivolous or serious. Obviously the courts tend to consider time bars to be absolute bars on bringing proceedings. Where there is a time limit, it is less likely that the court would open it up because Parliament has set that time limit. The period for otherwise bringing proceedings would in general terms be three months from the date of the chief counting officer certifying the result. That would be a much wider limit if there were to be a "really serious challenge".
I hope that Members of the Committee accept that the clause does not prevent serious challenges. There would be less time to bring such challenges if Amendment No. 72 were agreed to. Amendment No. 70 is consequential.
That may be a completely inadequate response. I have got some really serious legal briefs with me; I do not even know what some of the words mean, but my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General certainly would. If there is such dissatisfaction with the provision at a later stage, I would take advice from him and he might wish to correct my inadequate response himself. I have put on record that we do not see the clause as ruling out all and every challenge. The wording is identical to what has been used in the past. We do not have a legal precedent to go on. We are not trying to stop anyone who has a serious case, and frankly one can give frivolous examples more easily than serious ones. To that extent, my argument is not full.
Based on what has happened in the past, and with the knowledge that the provision does not completely rule out all challenges of a serious nature, because the courts would certainly look at them, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.
Baroness Blatch: Big words or no big words, used or not, the advice that the Minister has received is not as learned as I would expect. The Bill states:
"No court shall entertain any proceedings for questioning the number of ballot papers or votes cast in a referendum".
It does not say anything about frivolous or not-frivolous cases, or exclude very serious claims. So far as I am concerned, the words are plain and mean that there cannot be a challenge. I do not care how learned the people who advise the Minister are. Those words do not mean what he believes that he has been advised they mean. The Bill does not allow for any case.
The Minister made no comment on Sections 128 and 129 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act and whether the clause runs counter to them. He said that he was worried about delays and
562
that the reason for the method proposed in the Bill is so that things can be got on with without delay. However, if there are grounds for a very serious challenge, I am afraid that there will have to be a delay until the challenge is addressed—but it cannot be addressed.
Lord Rooker: Well, I said it could be. The noble Baroness must either accept what I have said or not. The fact is that there is good case law and evidence around, but no case in court to test it. The advice is, notwithstanding the words in the Bill, that the courts could—they jealously guard their rights anyway—look at a most serious challenge and allegation. I know that the words do not say that and look as though they rule it out, but the advice is that the courts would still be able to look at the most serious challenge to the certificate granted by the chief officer. That is exactly what my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General would say if he were here.
Baroness Blatch: The Bill does not state that a court will entertain serious proceedings or proceedings that are not vexatious, but that,
"No court shall entertain any proceedings".
So long as those words remain in the Bill, there cannot be a challenge. If the Minister says that there can be, he must point me to the part of the Bill that states that courts can entertain serious challenges. I simply do not accept the advice that has been given.
The noble Lord went on to say that there has never been such a case. I believe that I gave him an example of a case in which some of the ballot papers had not been stamped. Although they were allowed through on the night, the gap between the winner and the loser was such that the papers were crucial. When a challenge was made, the election had to be re-run. Therefore, there is at least one example of an election where the challenge was allowed and where it was borne out and upheld.
The noble Lord added that only serious challenges should be acceptable. As I said, because the court cannot accept any challenge or any proceedings, I do not know what the noble Lord means by that. But my amendments address the whole issue of vexatious challenges. Amendment No. 71 seeks to amend the Bill to state that the court shall entertain any proceedings only,
"if allegations of electoral fraud are made through the appropriate legal channels".
In other words, there must be evidence of fraud in order for the court to do so.
With regard to the time limit referred to in Amendment No. 72, first, the noble Lord says that that could prevent more charges, irrespective of frivolous or serious claims. The noble Lord himself has ruled out frivolous claims, and I have ruled out frivolous and vexatious claims through my amendment. Therefore, that is not an issue here. However, if the noble Lord is concerned that 10 days is too short a period, I shall happily come back at the next stage of the Bill with the three-month time limit suggested by him.

563
I believe we agree that if there is to be a challenge, the period during which it can be made should not be open-ended and last for months and months. It should be possible to make the challenge within a reasonable time following the election. Therefore, so long as Clause 10 contains the words:
"No court shall entertain any proceedings",
I shall not be convinced that serious proceedings can be entertained by the court.
Lord Waddington: Before the Minister replies, can he help me on one point? I have just been observing the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House and I wonder whether he is cross, anxious or bored. Can he help us?
Lord Rooker: I think that he is probably declining to take me on as a pupil. First, I want to reply to the noble Baroness with one or two answers to her specific questions. She asked whether the clause was contrary to Sections 128 and 129 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act. The answer is no. She asked for case law concerning ousters. There was such a case in 1969. I am not sure of the correct pronunciation, but it is Anisminic Ltd v. The Foreign Compensation Commission 1969. It will be found in 2AC[147]. There was also a case in 1981 involving Racal Communications, which, I believe, will be found AC[374]. Therefore, some case law does exist but no ouster clause of this kind has ever been considered by the courts, and that is a problem.
On the other hand, the advice is that the clause would not be construed by the courts to have its literal meaning. As a non-lawyer, I know that this is a difficult issue. I do not know whether the noble Baroness is a lawyer, but I am assured by the best legal brains in Whitehall that the clause would not be construed by the courts to have its literal meaning. There are many reasons for that. I could give a long speech and provide details but that would not change the noble Baroness's view. I believe that she will probably have to reflect on the matter now that I have pointed her in the direction of some case law to read.
I know that the wording in the Bill does not look right but it is exactly the same as in other Acts of Parliament. None has gone to court and therefore we do not have a view about the courts. But it is believed that, notwithstanding the wording, the clause does not rule out the possibility of the courts considering the most serious challenges. They are free to do that. That is the situation. The noble Baroness may not accept that and she may want to test the opinion of the House. I invite her to do so because I cannot give a further or better explanation.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: We admire the Minister so much. That explanation was so expert that one is
564
almost prepared to believe it. As an ordinary person all I can do is to read what it says in the Bill:
"No court shall entertain any proceedings for questioning the number of ballot papers or votes cast in a referendum",
and so on. You cannot get away from that. The Minister sounds like Winston Smith in Nineteen Eighty-Four who said that words mean what he said they mean. That simply is not good enough for legislation. I wish a Law Lord were present as it would be useful to have an opinion. The Minister has not convinced me that the clause is necessary. It may well be dangerous.
Baroness Blatch: I have heard it all now. I wonder what we are doing in this Chamber. I have always believed that the words on the page literally mean what they say. If we are told, "Believe me, I am the Minister, and I have had advice from very learned people that what you see on the page is not what the words mean, but"—in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart—"the words mean what we say they mean'', that is not an answer and I do not accept it.
Lord Elton: I have been longing to join in this debate. If the words in the Bill do not mean what they say, surely words should be found that mean what the Government intend. Could we have words that say what the Government intend so that people like the noble Lord and myself, who are not lawyers, can understand what they mean so that we do not have to pay vast amounts of money to lawyers to tell us what they mean?
Baroness Blatch: I say "hear, hear" to that. The serious point about the amendment is that when we in the Westminster village have finished with the Bill, Joe Public will have to interpret it. The public will have to make sense of what it means. If at the end of the day we say, "Do not worry about reading the words on the page, the Minister says that they mean something else and when it says that no court shall entertain any proceedings, do not believe that because they will entertain some proceedings as long as the proceedings are serious because that is what the lawyers advise". If that is the lawyers' advice, the Bill should state that. We shall certainly return to this matter.
Baroness Hamwee: I seek to persuade the noble Baroness not to divide the Committee on this point. It is so serious that one will want to read the debate.
Baroness Blatch: This discussion will make some of the best bedtime reading that we have had in a long time. I shall not deny anyone the opportunity to read the debate and reflect on it for the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 71 and 72 not moved.]
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Supplementary]:
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 5, line 20, at end insert ", except that no different provisions may be made under subsection (2) in relation to different parts of the United Kingdom in the event of two referendums being held on the same day"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 73 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 74 standing in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, myself and my noble friend Lady Blatch. The amendments refer to two subsections in Clause 11 which introduce the supplementary powers in relation to Part 1 of the Bill. According to the Explanatory Notes, subsection (1),
"will have effect so that if there is provision in, or made under, Part 1 for or in connection with regulating the conduct of referendums under the Bill, section 129(3) of the PPER Act does not prevent an order made under section 129(1) of that Act applying to referendums under the Bill".
Subsection (2), according to the Explanatory Notes,
"clarifies that this will be the case in respect of any order under section 129(1) of the PPER Act, whenever made".
That is in the Explanatory Notes.
It is all too easy to accept these rather complicated supplementary matters without looking at them or challenging them. What is their practical effect?
Subsection (1) effectively guarantees a power to the Secretary of State to regulate the conduct of referendums. Subsection (2) allows the Secretary of State the facility to exercise that power even before the passing of the Act.
I appreciate the need for flexibility that Clause 11(1) provides in allowing the Minister to make regulations concerning the conduct of referendums. That flexibility is in line with the provisions in the PPER Act. However, the circumstances of the holding of referendums in the Bill bring in a slightly different element, for which the Act does not make allowance since at that time it was not foreseen. I am talking about the possibility that there might be two referendums on the same day. We have discussed the issue in previous amendments. It would be unlikely by all accounts, but it is important to have on the face of the Bill the assurance that the Minister may not regulate the conduct of referendums held on the same day in such a way that they are conducted differently.
In general, I support the principle that referendums concerning regional assemblies should be conducted on a universal model or procedure. After all, they propose the establishment of the same institutions, just in different parts of the country. Procedural or regulatory comparisons might spawn a wealth of complaints about unfair differentiation on the grounds of location. It would undermine the validity of the outcome if it were claimed that the electoral procedure had been conducted in a different way.
Amendment No. 74 is a probing amendment. I fail to see how it can be "immaterial" if this power is exercised before or after the passing of the Act. It is surely of the utmost relevance. We meet this particular subsection (2) later in Clause 12(7). It is confusing—or perhaps I am missing the point—that a direction,
566
power or provision which is detailed in the Bill may be exercised before the Bill becomes an Act. I should welcome clarification from the Minister on that point.
Baroness Hamwee: In Amendment No. 74, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend and in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hanham and Lady Blatch, I too was seeking to understand what subsection (2) means. It states:
"It is immaterial whether the power is exercised before of after the passing of this Act".
Does,
"exercised before … the passing of this Act",
mean that it is proper for the Act to ratify something retrospectively? What is being or is to be done which would not be authorised in the absence of the Act? Do the words,
"exercised … after the passing of this Act",
have any significance? Naturally, a power provided by the Act can be exercised after it is passed, subject obviously to the date of commencement.
Lord Rooker: Again, I think I have a perfectly reasonable explanation for the amendments and for this part of the Bill. I was waiting for one of the noble Baronesses to say, "We have looked at the Notes on Clauses and there is nothing on Clause 11". So I shall say that.
It will take a little while, but I want to explain how this part of the Bill is intended to work. It is not quite as the noble Baronesses think. Clause 11(1) and (2) relate to Section 129 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. As Members of the Committee are aware, that Act makes general provision for UK, national and regional referendums. Section 129 gives the Secretary of State a power to make provision by order for, or in connection with, regulating the conduct of such referendums. I shall refer to that as the "conduct section". I can give details later.
The Lord Chancellor's Department, which has policy responsibility for the generic legislation on referendums, is currently preparing a draft order under the conduct section. That is intended to provide a generic framework to regulate the conduct of referendums. Drafts of the order have been the subject of discussion in the Electoral Commission's regional referendums working group, and the Lord Chancellor's Department hopes to extend that to wider consultation in the new year—the new year being now.
The Lord Chancellor's Department's consultation will take time to complete and it will then want seriously to consider the responses. So I cannot say precisely when the generic conduct order will be made and, of course, we cannot predict exactly when the Bill will be enacted. The generic conduct order could come first by a little way, or the Bill may just reach the statute book first. I simply do not know. Clause 11(2) is simply designed to ensure that the generic conduct

567
order that I have just described would apply to referendums on elected assemblies, even if that order were made before Royal Assent of the Bill.
If Amendment No. 74 were accepted there would be doubt as to whether a conduct order made before enactment of the Bill would apply to a referendum under the Bill. The 2000 Act, which is the main Act in this regard, has of course been in force for several years and the power in Section 129(1) of that Act is exercisable now. We want to ensure that relevant conduct orders about referendums made now will apply to referendums under the Bill.
It is as simple as that. I hope that that is a satisfactory explanation. In other words, it is not—I repeat, not—retrospective legislation. The legislative power exists now. The process is under way and it makes sense for the avoidance of doubt for the conduct order to apply to every referendum, including those that may be held under the Bill.
Amendment No. 73 is intended to ensure that the same arrangements would apply to the conduct of all referendums that are regulated by an order under Section 129 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 and held on the same day, wherever they are held in the United Kingdom. I can reassure the noble Baronesses that the Government's broad approach will be to have as uniform a set of rules as appropriate governing all referendums under the Bill and all referendums that fall within Part VII of the 2000 Act.
Indeed, as I said, the Lord Chancellor's Department is in the process of producing a generic conduct order covering not only conduct of referendums on elected assemblies but conduct of all other referendums under the 2000 Act. In fact, that generic conduct order would apply equally to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as to England. The draft order will be laid before Parliament, and the making of such an order is, by the way, subject to the affirmative resolution of both Houses.
However, we need to retain the flexibility to make different provision for the referendums that would be held under the Bill. There is nothing sinister about that. For example, we may need to make provision under Section 129(1) for voting to be all-postal—I said may—for one referendum or set of referendums. Indeed, the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 would already allow for that in Section 156(5).
For the avoidance of doubt, because I will be hauled over the coals if I do not and because it may avoid lots of further questions, let me answer the question: what will the conduct order cover. That is a basic question, so I want to put a few basics on record for our future deliberations.
The generic conduct of referendums order will apply provisions of the Representation of the People Acts and regulations on elections to the administration of a referendum poll, as well as making completely new provision. The following list is not exclusive, but it will cover measures such as: basic forms and ballot papers; appointment of presiding officers and clerks at polling
568
stations; powers of the police; conduct of the referendum in the polling station—in other words, what equipment must be provided and provision of assistance to disabled voters; notices to be displayed in polling stations; rules for polling agents covering attendance at the polling station otherwise than for the purpose of voting; procedures for the counting of votes and declaration of the result; rules for the safekeeping of the ballot papers; timetable for publication of notices of referendums; and provision for absent voting; hours of polling; and the duties of all the officers concerned.
Such material will be included in generic conduct orders, which will be fairly widespread. It is not being done because of the Bill; it would be done whether or not the Bill existed. I hope that it makes the position much clearer and gives a decent explanation of the otherwise unclear parts of Clause 11.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: It is a pity if legislation that clearly applies must be ratified—I do not use that term
technically—by being referred to in subsequent legislation. The more often one says that a provision in a previous Act applies when it clearly does, the more one casts doubt on the applicability of other provisions not referred to. I make the point because much of our legislation is complicated. Sometimes it is more straightforward not to say anything.
Baroness Hanham: I agree. It would be helpful if we could see the draft order. It may be being consulted upon, but I presume that it is available even to Peers. May we see the draft conduct order before Report stage? I am not sure why it should not be referred to in the Bill if it will be part of legislation. The whole supplementary section seems to add confusion. Even after the Minister's response, it is not clear how the system will operate. I shall withdraw the amendment for the moment.
Lord Rooker: I shall ask about the availability of the draft order. I do not have a precise day-to-day timetable. But, if the drafts have been discussed by the Electoral Commission's regional referendums working group—I do not know the acronym for it—and there is a proposal to carry out wider consultation, I shall do my best to ensure that a draft is available. I do not know whether it will be the draft that is ready for consultation.
On the noble Baroness's second point, I suspect that it falls foul of one of the golden rules of parliamentary counsel—never legislate for the same thing twice in two different Bills, even if the words are the same. The scope for doubt and problems in the courts is enormous. The provision is not included in the Bill because it is already covered in another Act.
Baroness Hanham: We are back to transparency. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 74 and 75 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Local government review]:
[Amendment No. 76 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Cox): If Amendment No. 77 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 78 because of pre-emption.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 6, line 10, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to the other Liberal Democrat amendments in this group, Amendments Nos. 79 and 80. They are also grouped with the Conservative amendments, Amendments Nos. 78 and 81.
These are probing amendments to help us to understand more of what is going on in Clause 12. They would remove subsections (2) to (4). Subsection (2) provides that the Secretary of State must consider the level of interest in the holding of a referendum. It defies belief that the soundings could really be about interest in holding a referendum, as distinct from a wish to have an assembly. Three days—four days, including Second Reading—of debate in the House have done nothing to alter that fact. The language used by all noble Lords, including me, in the debate last Thursday confused those two issues. If we are having difficulty maintaining the distinction, it is impossible to believe that those responding to the soundings exercise have been able to maintain it. Would the Government instigate a referendum if they thought that the answer would be "No"?
The Conservatives have added their names to Amendment No. 79. Subsection (3) provides that the Secretary of State can consider differences in the level of interest in different regions. I do not understand what that adds to subsection (2). Perhaps the Minister can help me. Why does it say "may consider", rather than "must consider"? Is that simply a matter of the style of drafting? If the provision is permissive, rather than mandatory, I will be even more confused.
Amendment No. 80 would leave out subsection (4), which provides:
"For the purposes of subsections (2) and (3) the Secretary of State must"—
"must" rather than "may"—
"consider—

(a) views expressed and information and evidence provided to him;

(b) such published material as he thinks appropriate".

Can the Minister tell us what amounts to "evidence" for that purpose and what is "published material"? 'Why is the material limited by the adjective "published"? Is the reference intended to mean academic and similar material? If so, why limit "views expressed" to those "provided" to the Secretary of State? Cannot he be expected to be aware of all views? Is the soundings exercise limited to formal responses? if so, why is "published material" not within that defined and confined group? I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham: Amendments Nos. 78 and 81 stand in my name, and I have added my name to Amendment No. 79.
570
I shall not cover too much of the ground that has already been covered, but I want to return to the Explanatory Notes. After all, they are meant to explain. The notes say:
"For various reasons it may not be appropriate for directions to be given in relation to two or more regions at the same time. In this case, the Secretary of State may wish to take various factors into account in deciding in relation to which region or regions (if any) he should give a direction.
"It is a precondition to the giving of a direction in relation to any region that the Secretary of State has considered the level of interest in that region in the holding of a referendum…But in a situation where two or more regions are under consideration for a local government review, it may be that the Secretary of State will want to compare the levels of interest in the holding of a referendum in those different regions. Hence subsection (3) of clause 12".
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, implied, that explanation is dangerously vague and needs some practical details to flesh it out. Several important and pertinent questions immediately emerge. As the noble Baroness asked, how will the Secretary of State weigh up the level of interest? For what "various reasons" might the Secretary of State decide it to be inappropriate to hold a referendum in two regions? What factors would he take into account when deciding which region would prevail? We have been given no answers to those points. They seem to be left to the whim of the Secretary of State.
The three amendments seek to rectify the situation. Amendment No. 78 provides that the Secretary of State must be satisfied by the double condition that the majority in the region favour a referendum, and that if a referendum were held, then an elected assembly would result. The Minister will, no doubt, reply that the whole point of a referendum is to test the level of interest in having a regional assembly. However, we see the situation in a slightly different way. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to the sounding exercises and so will I. Great concern has been expressed in our debates so far about who has been consulted. Today, I am taken aback more, having read that the Minister in the other place seems to be satisfied that he has had 4,500 replies. That seems to be a very small number on which to make any judgment. My noble friend Lady Blatch voiced all our fears when she spoke about the soundings issue during the first day in Committee. There was greater concern that replying to the soundings exercise by saying one was against a regional assembly might be registered as showing an interest. The Minister assured us that this would not be the case. However, the principle is similar in relation to Clause 12.
People like to be given the opportunity to vote; that is, to register their approval or disapproval of what is proposed. Just because many people favour a referendum is no guarantee that they may vote in favour and therefore support the establishment of an elected assembly. The Secretary of State should not give an order for the Boundary Committee to start with a local government review only because there is interest in a referendum, but instead, if he thinks that the interest is such that a majority would favour the establishment of regional assemblies.

571
Amendment No. 81 focuses on the gathering of information regarding the level of interest in the general consultation process. We are told what the Secretary of State should consider for the purposes subsection (2). The amendment stresses that he must first identify which bodies should be consulted before registering their level of interest. This draws attention to the fact that the consultation process is by no means standardised. Amendment No. 79 is a probing amendment. Would the Minister clarify why a referendum could not be held on one day in two different regions, and how the Secretary of State should make a judgment between the two regions? I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Rooker: I may be wrong, but I am treating all these amendments as probing. I regret that the answers are going to be what I have given in other parts of the Bill. The amendments are pretty wide. To remove subsections (2), (3) and (4) from Clause 12 would take out a large chunk. Those subsections set out how the Secretary of State must consider the level of interest in a region—and the differences in the level of interest between regions—before deciding whether to order a local government review. We think that these sections are essential to the Bill. That will only become apparent, once the analysis of the soundings has taken place, and my right honourable friend forms a judgment on how it would work in practice. I have said repeatedly that he will be required to give explanations as to why he has made his decisions. We will have to be subject to scrutiny over how the judgment was arrived at. It cannot be done on a hunch, or a whim.
First, we do not intend to direct local government reviews where there is no appetite for a referendum. It naturally follows that that will not be necessary. We do not have a secret plan for local government reorganisation under the guise of this Bill. I have said before that no referendum means no local government review. A "No" vote in a referendum would not lead to the local government plans taking place that had been before the public.
The effect of the amendment would be that the Secretary of State was able to take account only of some or all of the factors set out in subsection (5) because subsections (2), (3) and (4) would have gone. Those include the effects of what he believes the carrying out of the local government review would have on the relevant local authorities, the district and county councils in the regions, and also the resources needed by the Boundary Committee to carry out the reviews.
It cannot be right that the Secretary of State cannot take account of whether people in the region want a referendum or not. In subsection (3) there is reference to two or more regions. I must repeat that Ministers have not had access to the soundings, which are still being analysed. We will not make the announcement until after Royal Assent, but the resources of the Boundary Committee are not infinitesimal. If the view
572
was that in two or more regions it looked as though there were sufficient positive interest in a referendum, the Secretary of State must be in a position to say that the resources to conduct the boundary reviews—they could take nine months to a year for each region—cannot be expanded to review all the regions which might have expressed a positive interest in a referendum. Those reviews might take longer and none would be completed in the time available.
The Secretary of State would need to ask whether there were regions which had a more positive interest than others. If there were, he might say, "We will go for those and park the others, even though there was a positive interest". That is why he needs to check the level of the interest. There are eight regions and the resources would not be available if every region came up in the soundings. I give an extreme example to illustrate how ridiculous it would be. If every region showed positive soundings to have a referendum, it would not be possible to say, "OK, the boundary review starts on all the regions in the country at the same time". A choice would have to be made about the direction to take so that effective action could be taken; that is, to make a judgment about the most popular within the resources of the boundary review.
That is why subsection (3) is important. The Secretary of State will have to publish information on how he makes his judgment and people will check against the matrix of views. They will be able to say, "You should have issued more directions according to the level of interest", and to force his hand when he knows the review capacity does not exist. He needs to be able to make a judgment between the regions where there is a positive interest in a referendum.
Baroness Hanham: Will the Minister be kind enough to confirm that on the soundings exercise there were two questions? The first tested out the level of interest in the respondent and the second asked their views on whether other regions might be interested. Will he also confirm to me what was reported in the newspaper yesterday: that in the whole country there have been only 4,500 responses to the soundings exercise? How on earth will the Minister make a decision?
Lord Rooker: All that will be known in due course. It will not be done in secret. I did not see the reports yesterday, but I have seen figures showing that 4,000 plus have been analysed. They are still coming in and we have stated that we will take account of what is said during the passage of the Bill. We had to have a date to bring order into the matter, which is why 3rd March was chosen. Anything that conforms with the soundings exercise must be taken into consideration. That is only right and proper, particularly while the Bill is before Parliament. Even the public can see that the Bill is before Parliament so debate has not closed down. Clearly it has not closed down.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Can he confirm that, on whatever basis the Secretary of State makes his decision and however inadequate we may consider it to be—or, more

573
importantly, the public may consider it to be—there is nothing we can do about it? Once the Bill has gained Royal Assent it will be a purely academic exercise. It will be for the Secretary of State, who has absolute power, to determine whether or not a referendum shall take place in one or more regions of the country. People may be able to take a view about the evidence when it is published, but they will have no power to do anything about it.
Lord Rooker: The Secretary of State cannot act unreasonably or irrationally when reaching a conclusion. He must have an evidence base for his decision, otherwise he will be subject to judicial review about the way in which he made it. So it is not true to say that the final decision will be the end of the line; it will have to be taken in a proper fashion.
My great handicap, which I freely admit—Ministers in another place laboured under the same handicap—is that until we have an analysis of the soundings exercise it will not be possible to give chapter and verse of the way in which the Secretary of State will make his judgment. I admit that. It is a handicap. I wish that I could read out a checklist against which the decision could be measured. But I will be able to do that only at the time he announces his judgment and the basis on which he has made it. I cannot do that and I cannot second guess the issue for him.
Amendment No. 81 would require the Secretary of State actively to seek views, information, evidence and published material for the purpose of determining the level of interest in the region. We have since last year been actively seeking the views of people in the regions through the soundings exercise. The noble Baronesses may seek to belittle the number of views we have received but we need to analyse their contents. We want to publish as much information as possible—we told people that when we were undertaking the soundings exercise—and we have invited individuals and organisations in each region to submit their views. Organisations may have submitted views based on their own consultations with wider groups of representative individuals, so there may have been more than 4,500 replies. A number of opinion polls and surveys are still being logged and it may well be a higher number. We have not finished the process.
It is still only three weeks since the end of the formal part of the soundings and it is not yet possible to give any information. I regret that it is not possible because the more and better information I have will add more certainty to our debates and make it easier for me to answer questions. But I cannot answer them at the present time, not in the way they have been asked anyway.
Lord Greaves: Is not the Minister telling the Committee that the Secretary of State will decide which regions he wants to go ahead with and then invent the criteria to fit? If that is not the case, why can he not give the criteria now.
Lord Rooker: I refute that suggestion completely. It is a frivolous point to make at this time of night. The
574
Minister will have to go to the Commons, where he will be subjected to scrutiny, and he will have to publish the basis on which he makes his judgment. It will be easy to tell whether there has been a fiddle or a prejudgment of the case. If there was any doubt, I am sure that my right honourable friend would receive legal advice from his department not to proceed in that fashion. He has not the slightest intention of doing so; he wants to act completely honourably. But I cannot give the Committee the criteria on which he will make his judgment, other than his view of the level of interest for or against a referendum in each region.
Lord Greaves: The Secretary of State will either have objective criteria or he will not. If he does have objective criteria, why can he not announce in advance what they will be?
Lord Rooker: Because his judgment will be based on, among other things, the soundings exercise that has been undertaken. That is the answer. It is not possible to draw up a specific list in the way requested by the noble Lord. We have gone through a process. We did not want to invent something from the start. I know some people may believe that the soundings exercise was inadequate and that some noble Lords missed out when the document was circulated, but one cannot deny that we distributed the soundings document to an impressive list of organisations. They will have had a view on it. Their views are important because they are the establishment within the regions; they are the opinion formers; they make things happen and know what went wrong in the past. We wanted their views, not on whether there would be a "Yes" or "No" vote or whether there should be an elected regional assembly, but on the likelihood of people wanting a referendum on the issue. I cannot state that any more clearly. I repeat that it is about the desire to have or not have a referendum, not to pre-judge the view on whether to have an elected regional assembly.
Baroness Hanham: I do not have the form in front of me, but my recollection is that only two main questions were asked in the soundings exercise. One was: what is your level of interest in a regional assembly? There were five possible responses: very interested; interested; marginally interested; uninterested; not interested at all. The second question was: have you any idea what anyone thinks in any other region?.
We are talking about the Deputy Prime Minister making rational judgments against rational criteria. There are no criteria. There are five levels of interest, and the question about the other regions. I do not think we need get too bound up with the sophistication of this exercise. If the Deputy Prime Minister comes back with anything more sophisticated, one is going to have to say: where did he cook these ones up from? That is all that is in the soundings exercise paper, as I recall, and that is all that people were asked.
Lord Rooker: In that case, what is the problem?
Baroness Hamwee: One of the problems that I still have, leaving aside the approach of the Deputy Prime

575
Minister, is whether those responding to the soundings exercise have been able to distinguish between the questions: "Are you interested in having a referendum?" and "Are you interested in having an assembly?". I retain that concern. I do not think that the Minister—and it is not his fault—will be able to give a satisfactory answer to that question.
This is probably not the time to test this amendment. An earlier amendment that I had tabled was pre-empted by agreement to a previous one.
I do not believe that deleting subsection (2) would mean that the Secretary of State could not give a direction. On subsection (3), I shall read the Minister's response, but it was not my intention to raise an issue about Boundary Committee resources. I was concerned about the difference between "may" and "must". I am still lost on that point.
The minister has told us the number of responses that were not in the form of the pro forma which have been returned. I do not know whether he is able to tell us now, but I hope that, when the Secretary of State comes to report on the matter, he will be able to include not only the number of responses but the number of forms that were sent out. One must judge the level of interest, in part, by the level of response. Judging by the Minister's expression, that is not a matter that we can pursue now.
I think we have to leave hanging the question: will the Government go ahead with a referendum if they think that they might lose? That is still a big issue in my mind. There is a great deal here to which we may want to return on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 78 to 81 not moved.]
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 6, line 19, at end insert—
"( ) the views of businesses in the region. directly and through their representative organisations:"
The noble Baroness said: I find the debate about the soundings somewhat academic. The Bill makes it clear that, for the purpose of local government reviews, the soundings exercise has to take place; but, as we know, it has taken place and, although the Minister says it is not quite over, it is well under way.
For the purposes of speeding things up, I will speak to Amendments Nos. 82 to 88 together so that they are not debated individually. Amendment No. 82 concentrates on who should be or should have been consulted. I should like to discuss the amendment in that spirit. Clause 12(4) says that the Secretary of State must consider,
"views expressed and information and evidence provided to him".
We need to check that all the people and organisations listed in Amendments Nos. 82 to 88 have been consulted. That may be the way the Minister wishes to respond to my amendment.
It is important that there is an obligation on the Secretary of State to consult these bodies. I have grouped them together, but I believe it is vital that we take account of the relative effect that local government reorganisation will have on each of them.
When one mentions "business", it conjures up, by and large, national and international corporations. But the small and medium-sized constitute 90 per cent of businesses in some regions. Even more telling are the DTI statistics which inform us that at the start of the year 2000 there were an estimated 3.7 million businesses in the UK. Of those, 99 per cent had fewer than 50 employees.
I have spoken to the CBI, and I know that many people have had correspondence from it. We are assured that most businesses are not in favour of the Bill or of regional assemblies at all. It would be helpful to know how the businesses have been canvassed and how their views will be taken account of by the Secretary of State, assuming that the soundings exercise is still going on. That applies to the views of district councils in the regions as well. People will vote for elected regional assemblies and local government restructuring, but not one without the other. Therefore, people will have strong views on what will happen to their district councils. That will be the same for the county councils in the region, which will want their views taken into account.
The Minister will tell us that all local authorities will be consulted, and I am sure he is correct. I hope that the views gathered from the consultation will be reflected upon with a degree of proportionality. If in some regions unitary authorities are predominant, the views of the remaining two-tier local government bodies should carry more weight. Essentially, the unitary authorities may impose local government reorganisation on two-tier government areas, even if all those in the two-tier areas vote no. We have discussed that as well.
Council tax payers are probably among the most important people in this respect; they should have been consulted and I hope they were. I do not know of individuals who have been canvassed, but perhaps I do not know enough people. Council tax payers will be paying for this. At the end of the day, they will have a precept upon the council tax and will be obliged to pay it. In London, that precept started off as 3 pence a week; it has gone up to more than five times that amount and is still rising.
The views of the voluntary sector bodies in the region should be consulted. They have a vested interest in how things should be operated. Organisations concerned with the environment should be consulted as well, particularly those related to planning and housing. Those are the two areas where it is abundantly clear the Government intend to place powers which are currently in the hands of local authorities.
My amendment would make it obligatory for the Secretary of State to consult organisations in each category. Perhaps he has done that, in which case the Minister may be able to tell us. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: Amendment No. 114 is not in this group but makes a similar point, so it may help if I refer to it. Much of what is referred to here is work that the Boundary Committee could quite properly do. That is the thrust of Amendment No. 114. I hope that the Minister will explain whether there is a distinction between the two approaches.
On Amendment No. 86 and the views of council tax payers, while I would not for a moment suggest that costs are irrelevant, I am not persuaded that they are so relevant as to exclude all other considerations to which the attention of council tax payers might be drawn. Of course, there are differences between us as to the possible value of regional assemblies. However, almost whatever their powers, I am unhappy at costs being singled out.
As for Amendment No. 88, I would not suggest that planning and housing powers were unimportant, but why should we not provide that the attention of business is drawn to economic development issues? We might draw the attention of small businesses to the Small Business Service, for example, which is to remain centralised, as we discussed the other day.
We go along with the Conservatives to some extent, but on parallel tracks rather than the same track.
The Earl of Caithness: Will the Minister confirm something about the soundings exercise? I was grateful to my noble friend Lady Hanham for telling us a bit more about it, as some of us were excluded and are not as up to date as we should like to be. Was it made clear in the soundings exercise that, even if someone wanted to have a referendum about a regional assembly, a consequence would be that county councils, district councils and the two-tier authorities would cease to be? I suspect that many of those who received the soundings exercise were not fully aware of the implications of the Bill.
Lord Rooker: The easiest answer that I can give the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, is "Yes". We dealt with that point in last Thursday's debate. Anyone who has read the document will know that. There may be an argument about the words, but it is there in the soundings document. In the original debate, someone quoted paragraph 20-odd and I quoted paragraph 17. The implications are clear that, with regional assemblies, there will be single-tier local government.
I know that the noble Baronesses are trying to be helpful, but we have just had the introduction to four groups of amendments. If I answer all those, I am not going to get up and do it again when we come to them on the list. I am not stupid. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asks if I will respond to Amendment No. 114. I am quite happy to answer it, but it is way out of order; I do not want to get to Amendment No. 114 and be told, "Oh, we want to come back to this". I want to be helpful, but we are trying to work to an order. I did
578
not set the order of these groups. I am happy to do all four groups together—obviously, it is more convenient for me.
Baroness Hanham: Perhaps I should have given the Minister warning. I apologise for that. I merely thought that we might cut down proceedings a tiny bit, and I believed that he would be absolutely thrilled to bits. I have spoken to Amendments Nos. 82 to 88. I have referred only to the list of people to be consulted.
Baroness Hamwee: I want to clear matters up. The points raised under these amendments seemed relevant to Amendment No. 114. I do not intend to come back to it, unless it would be more convenient for the Minister to take it at its place in the Marshalled List. I was trying to dispose of the issue, not to make life more difficult.
Lord Rooker: I am new to this place. I cannot understand why Amendment No. 114 was not grouped with the other amendments. In another place—the sensible place for groupings, although not for scrutiny; good at groupings, not so good at scrutiny—it would have been. I can see that Amendment No. 114 exactly fits with the other amendments. Having got that off my chest, I can move quickly through the amendments, because the answer is almost the same to all of them. The noble Baroness looks far more friendly when she smiles. That is fine; I am much happier facing a. smiling face at this time of night.
On Amendments Nos. 82 and 83, the regional arms of the CBI, Institute of Directors and Chambers of Commerce were all sent a copy of the soundings document and pro forma. Any other businesses or business organisations were welcome to put forward their views, and indeed many have, as will be apparent when we give the results of the soundings exercise.
Amendments Nos. 84 and 85 deal with district and county councils. As is known, all the principal local authorities were sent a copy of the soundings document and invited to respond, and they have. We have been actively seeking the views of people across the regions in order to determine the level of interest in holding a referendum.
I grant that Amendments Nos. 86 and 87 are slightly different in that they deal with consideration of,
"the views of council tax payers in the region after having first published for their consideration a statement of the likely costs of a regional assembly in their area",
and,
"the views of voluntary sector bodies in the region".
We have the White Paper. I am not arguing that masses of voters have read it; they have not. However, the National Council of Voluntary Organisations was among those sent a copy of the soundings document, which it then distributed among its members. Moreover, any individual or organisation was welcome to put forward views.

579
Amendment No. 86 would require the Secretary of State to publish, for the consideration of council tax payers, a statement of the likely costs of a regional assembly. Chapter 5 of the White Paper is the best information available and I really cannot go beyond it.
Amendment No. 88 would require the Secretary of State, for the purposes of considering the level of interest in each region in holding a referendum, to consider the level of interest of organisations charged or concerned with housing or planning matters. All organisations were welcome to put forward their views. We sent a copy of the sounding document and pro forma to the regional sustainability round tables asking for their views. The existing regional chambers were also sent a copy of the document. They will be responsible, by the time that elected assemblies, if approved, are up and running, for the regional planning powers that we propose to give to the regional assemblies.
As I said, Amendment No. 114 would basically mean that the Boundary Committee was statutorily required to consult members of the public. I think that that is the main difference. The consultation requirements with which the Boundary Committee will have to comply are set out in Section 15 of the Local Government Act 1992 and applied with modifications for the purposes of local government reviews by virtue of Clause 14. They are the same requirements that would apply to other structural and boundary reviews carried out by the Electoral Commission as the body responsible for such reviews since the commission was established under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
The Boundary Committee is also required to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State. In the draft guidance on which we consulted, Members of the Committee will see that the Government suggest who the interested parties might be. Chapter 6 of the draft guidance also spells out who should be consulted and how such consultation may be achieved. It includes a recommendation that the Boundary Committee write to all the principal local authorities, to all Members of Parliament in the region and to other representative organisations. It also suggests that the Boundary Committee publish advertisements in one or more local newspapers and takes such other steps as seem necessary to provide suitable publicity. I hope that the Committee will be reassured by those arrangements and the list of organisations to be consulted already included in the guidance.
That is a potted version. I know that there is criticism of the fact that we sent out 1,100 copies of the document. However, we have certainly covered all the organisations and sectors proposed in these amendments. So we are not simply interested in their views, we have actively canvassed their views. And they have responded. In due course, we will know what they said.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: Will the Minister throw some light on the Constitution Committee report? Mr Raynsford was asked about the Durham survey and the report pointed out that a large number of people in that area knew nothing of the soundings and were not aware of the coming of regional assemblies. Mr Raynsford said on 6th February,
"and we have recently been giving some attention as to whether we ought to be giving greater publicity to the soundings exercise".
Was that followed up, and what extra action was taken following the promise that more thought would be given to providing greater publicity to the soundings exercise before it was completed on 3rd March?
Lord Rooker: That is a worthwhile question to which I do not have an answer. If I am given one as regards what action Nick Raynsford took subsequently, I shall inform the Committee of it before we end our discussion on the Bill tonight.
Baroness Hanham: I am grateful to the Minister for his comprehensive reply. Indeed, it seems from what he said that most of the bodies and the people concerned have been approached. However, none of that was necessary, and indeed, none of it should have taken place. The Bill is not yet an Act but all of Clause 12 has been carried out in advance of the Bill being considered in either House. We are now faced with having to ask a whole host of questions. Although the Minister says that the soundings exercise will continue until the Bill is finally passed, the soundings exercise document does not say that. That stated that the soundings exercise would be finished by 3rd March. But, as I have said before, that was just about the same time as this Bill came into this Chamber. So, the amendments that we have tabled and the questions that we have asked have all been pre-empted. It is just as well that all the relevant bodies appear to have been approached because there is nothing this Chamber can do about the matter. It is a fait accompli.
Lord Rooker: That is not fair. I ought to point out for the avoidance of doubt that the Bill contains no duty on the Government to consult anyway. Let us get that absolutely clear. We have carried out the soundings exercise as a valid exercise from the point of view of good public administration. However, as I say, there is no duty to consult. The soundings exercise gave people an opportunity to provide us with information.
Baroness Blatch: There is a duty. The Secretary of State cannot make an order unless he has the results of a soundings exercise. So, he has a duty to consult and to reach a judgment on the level of interest. He cannot find out the level of interest unless he sounds out the

581
community on that. So, there is a duty implied in the Bill on the Secretary of State to carry out a soundings exercise.
Lord Rooker: Indeed, that is the distinction I drew between taking soundings and the duty to consult.
Baroness Hanham: I am sorry to be tendentious. However, I am not sure whether I am being tendentious or the Minister is being tendentious. Subsection (2) of Clause 12 states that,
"the Secretary of State must not give a direction unless he has considered the level of interest".
Either he does that in the ether or he consults in order to find out whether there is interest in the matter. However, the Minister says that the Secretary of State does not have a duty to consult. Subsection (4), which we seek to amend, states that,
"the Secretary of State must consider—
(a) views expressed and information and evidence provided to him".
To try to distinguish between consultation and people's great and noble thoughts about the Bill in that regard is to split hairs.
Lord Rooker: The measure seeks to avoid the implication of having to write to or consult every voter in a region; that is the difference.
Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister. We may return to the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 83 to 88 not moved.]
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 6, line 22, leave out "may" and insert "must"
The noble Baroness said: Subsection (5) of Clause 12 lists a number of other factors which the Secretary of State may consider when giving a direction to the Boundary Committee to undertake a local government review. Subsection (5)(a) to (e) lists as possible considerations the effects of such a review on the region in question, on other regions, the resources needed to undertake a review and any earlier consideration for the Boundary Committee.
The amendment would ensure that those considerations were not optional but compulsory. Essentially, it would remove the discretion of the Secretary of State to take the factors listed into account if he so wished, and instead make it a positive requirement before any direction was given. I do not need to speak for long on the amendment. My reasoning on it is much the same as I expressed on other amendments to the clause. They reflect my general attitude to the sounding exercise, which is now one of even more concern than it was before we started. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: The explanation—I referred to it earlier in some ways—is as follows: the consideration of the factors in subsection (5) is discretionary. We
582
need that discretion because of the approach that we intend to adopt in relation to deciding in which regions to hold a referendum, and then in which regions to direct a local government review. The primary consideration is the level of interest in a referendum. Where interest is high, we intend to direct a review. Where it is low, we do not intend to direct a review, regardless of any other consideration.
Only where the level of interest is inconclusive, or where there is high level of interest in a number of regions, might we want to consider whether it was practicable to conduct a referendum at that time. Subsection (5) sets out the criteria that we would use in reaching a decision in the circumstances that I have described. It would be quite wrong to make consideration of those criteria mandatory, which is what the amendment would do, because, as I have explained, there are circumstances in which we could and should be able to make a decision on the basis of interest alone.
Making consideration mandatory could cause real problems. We need to be more flexible, simply because of the basis on which the decision will be made. We need that flexibility because we do not know what the soundings exercise will come out with in terms of the balance of interest, region by region. We have to take account of the fact that there will be a variety of levels of interest and make a judgment at the time. As I said, it would be totally impractical and would not work if every region had a big interest. We need to make some choice. Where the level of interest is high, our basic intention would be to go ahead and direct a review. That would make sense where there was high interest. As I referred to in relation to subsection (3), we could not deal with too many at the same time, which is a practical difficulty.
Baroness Hanham: As I read the clause, subsection (4) makes it mandatory for the Secretary of State to consider the views expressed—we discussed that—the published material that he thinks appropriate, and all the other people on all the other bodies. With relation to subsection (5), however, how on earth will the Secretary of State make a decision if he does not think what effect,
"the carrying out of a local government review will have on the relevant local authorities",
and what,
"differences in the effects he thinks the carrying out of local government reviews will have on the relevant local authorities"?
He must do that. It should not be the case that he only "may" have to do it. Subsection (5) should be as mandatory as subsection (4). Subsection (5)(a) to (e) deals with fundamental issues that the Secretary of State would have to take into account when making a decision about whether there should be a local government review.
I still believe that the subsection should be mandatory, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 6, line 23, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b).
The noble Baroness said: For probing reasons, the amendment seeks to delete subsection (5)(a) and (b). I do not propose to speak about paragraph (a), which will make the Minister ask why I simply did not move the amendment. However, I want to look at paragraph (b), which provides that the Secretary of State may and no doubt will consider differences on the local authorities—we will come later to the words "taken as a whole"—in the different regions.
Perhaps the Minister can let us know whether that is the basis for decisions about referendums being taken in different tranches. That is not how I read it, because it is one of the factors that will affect whether or not the Secretary of State gives the direction—not when he gives the direction but whether he does so. I read it as meaning that if something is not good for region A, then perhaps region B cannot have it. I wonder whether the Minister can help me to understand the part that that plays in the decision and in the overall timetable. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I hope that the Minister will be cautious about removing paragraphs (a) and (b). I suspect that he will be because this is a government Bill. We would say "must consider" as opposed to "may consider". I believe it is absolutely essential that the Secretary of State considers the effect that the carrying out of a local government review will have on the relevant local authorities taken as a whole in the region. I take "the region" to be the region that is likely to have the referendum for regional government.
There will also be effects on other regions and. indeed, on other authorities. I believe that the differences in the effects that the Secretary of State believes that the carrying out of local government reviews will have on the relevant local authorities, taken as a whole in different regions, should at least be taken into account. If they are not taken into account, then the consequences of establishing regional assemblies will be defective.
Lord Rooker: In responding to Amendment No. 90, I shall use the briefing that I have in front of me because I believe that in that way I shall be able to give a better explanation than I would if I were ad-libbing.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Rooker: Sometimes I am a little more precise than at other times and am able to make the case, but sometimes the words of the briefing are useful when they are read back to me later.
Amendment No. 90 removes the ability of the Secretary of State to consider the effects that he believes a local government review will have on the relevant two-tier authorities and the differences in those effects between the regions.
Where the level of interest in a referendum is inconclusive, it may be that the level of disruption for two-tier local authorities of a local government review
584
is not considered worth while at the time. In circumstances where the level-of-interest test is inconclusive, it will be important carefully to balance a number of factors. I believe that that is where we must leave the flexibility to the Secretary of State.
Where it is clear that the level of interest is low or where it is clear that it is high, it is far easier to make the decision. Where it is inconclusive on the balance, then one must consider other factors of the effects. I believe that we need that flexibility.
Lord Hanningfield: Surely the Minister has just justified our previous amendment in which we said that the Secretary of State "must" take into account various factors. The noble Lord has just said that the Secretary of State "would" want to take into account the factors concerning the level of reorganisation of local government and the disruption that it would have in establishing a region.
Lord Rooker: That makes sense where, in particular, the review of the soundings is inconclusive. It is more clear-cut where the soundings are, let us say, very weakly or very strongly in favour of a referendum. It is much easier to make the decision in such a case. If we were to make the referendum mandatory where the soundings were, say, overwhelmingly weak, then we could force people into a wrong decision. Therefore, I believe that flexibility is needed in this part of the clause.
In a way, that is where part of the problem arises. No one will believe us but it is true that we have not prejudged how many or which regions will undergo a local government review in the first round. I realise that noble Lords are convinced that they know which regions those will be. But no decisions have been taken and no final decision to make a direction will he taken until we have considered the results of the soundings exercise, together with other information under Clause 12(4), and until the legislation provided in the Bill has been enacted. So the provisions in Clause 12(5) allow for a common sense approach to deciding which regions should have a review as a precursor to a referendum. That flexibility needs to be built in.
On the evidence to the Select Committee about extra publicity on the soundings exercise, my right honourable friend the Minister responsible for local government, Nick Raynsford, and the Member for Skipton carried out a number of media interviews to raise publicity. Additional press notices were issued by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister during February and the pro forma was made even more directly accessible on the home page of the ODPM website. The list of organisations sent copies of the soundings document was placed in the Libraries of the two Houses in December. Some extra effort was made as a result of the increase in the publicity on the soundings exercise, but it will not have been enough to satisfy Members of the Committee.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: From the soundings I have carried out, it is difficult to find people who know about the

585
exercise and who have responded to it. I even spoke to a chairman of education in a major local authority—I shall not name the authority —who was not aware that there had been a soundings exercise. So much for the local authority surveying its own people.
The minister has given an interesting response to the amendment. If at an early stage the Secretary of State decides that an area has shown a sufficient level of interest to undergo the exercise and takes into account some of the matters set out in Clause 12, and if the Boundary Committee gets under way and deems that the level of upheaval in local government to achieve a single tier authority below what would be a regional assembly was so great that it was not worth the candle, would that have any influence on the Secretary of State deciding to continue with the exercise?
Lord Rooker: The Secretary of State would not continue with the exercise. The Boundary Committee would come to a conclusion and report to the Secretary of State. I cannot prejudge the conclusion of the Boundary Committee. I cannot say that the example given by the noble Baroness is fanciful because I would not rule anything out or anything in. It will look at the best available, most practical, form of single tiered government for a region. Its conclusions will be its conclusions and they will be published. There will be no secrets about that. The Secretary of State will have to decide whether to accept those conclusions, whatever they may be.
Baroness Blatch: My question was more subtle than that. My straight question is whether the Boundary Committee is free to come to a conclusion that the upheaval would be so great that it would counteract the rationale for going ahead with the referendum.
Lord Rooker: When asked a straight question like that it is difficult to avoid a straight answer. However, the Boundary Committee's conclusions will be its conclusions. Broad draft guidelines will be issued about how to go about the work it is asked to do. To carry out the review will be a big exercise. Its conclusions on what it does in the region and what it takes back to the Secretary of State will be its conclusions. You can ask me all the hypothetical questions you like, but I cannot give a better answer than that. I shall not fall into the trap of answering the highly subtle and sophisticated questions of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that later will be used in evidence against me.
Baroness Hamwee: The most interesting thing to have come out of that exchange is the notion that the Member for Skipton has taken part in the soundings exercise. Mr Curry may be surprised to learn that he has done so. I think the Minister should have said the Member for Shipley. I am not trying to be clever. All right I am, but I was certainly not as subtle as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. The Minister has set a hare running.
The minister has answered the amendment far more in relation to paragraph (a) than paragraph (b). I shall obviously read Hansard, but I think he confirmed that
586
paragraph (b) is directed to decisions about tranches and the selection of which regions should go into the first, second and so on tranche. The Minister is nodding. I do not know whether he wants to intervene.
Lord Rooker: I wish only to say that it was the Member for Shipley and not the Member for Skipton.
Baroness Hamwee: Both David Curry and Mr Leslie will be very relieved to hear that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 6, line 24, leave out "(taken as a whole)"
The noble Baroness said: This is a small amendment. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify what the phrase "taken as a whole" means? I should welcome his arguments for not removing the phrase. It serves little purpose. My principal concern is that the requirement to think in terms of,
"local authorities within a region (taken as a whole)",
brings with it a refusal to respond to the specific effect on each in turn. There will be, as we have discussed, a number of local authorities within any region. If they are just to be lumped together rather than dealt with separately, presumably that could be what "taken as a whole" means.
Considering the region as a whole without concentrating on the individual authorities makes the two paragraphs dangerously ineffective. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: Amendments Nos. 91 A and 93A are directed to the same point but go about it slightly differently. We propose inserting after "as a whole" the words "and individually" for exactly the same reason; that is, we find it hard to understand how one can assess "as a whole". I should be distressed to think that the effect on individual local authorities was not a consideration.
Lord Rooker: The noble Baronesses have been commendably brief, as I shall try to be. The amendments have a similar effect. As presently drafted, if the criteria in Clause 12(5) were brought into play we would look at the regional impact of local government reviews. In looking at the effect of the reviews, we would want to consider not simply the effect on individual authorities but the effect on two-tier local government in the region as a whole.
The Boundary Committee's review will look at the region authority by authority. But the situation is more complicated; it is the effect on the region as a whole. Obviously, we would need to ascertain the impact on individual authorities, but they are the building blocks for the wider consideration. Obviously, we would not ignore the impact on individual authorities, some of which might be joined together or whatever—I do not know. So the effect on them will be important.

587
However, in looking at the individual effect we need to consider the big picture for the whole region in order to make a judgment. In deciding whether to direct a review in a region where there is an inconclusive level of interest or how practical it is to hold reviews in two or more regions simultaneously, what matters is the overall effect. That is an important judgment because it is made on a regional basis and not on the individual authority. We are talking about regional referendums. So we must look at the overall situation in the region. It would be wrong to say that we would not consider the effect on individual authorities but only to help us form a judgment about the effect on the region.
Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for his reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 91A to 93A not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 6, line 28, leave out paragraph (c).
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 95. The amendments seek to leave out paragraphs (c) and (d) of Clause 12(5).
Reference was made earlier to Boundary Committee resources. I tabled the amendments in order to ask the Minister whether he can explain the constraints on both cash and people with expertise in the field—which I understand from discussion outside this place, to be the even greater problem.
It cannot be right for a region that passionately wants an assembly—or, to maintain what I increasingly feel to be a bit of a fiction, a referendum— to be denied it for want of what are relatively small resources. It still escapes me how the Secretary of State can judge which regions will have the greatest call on the Boundary Committee's resources. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: I shall make similar points to those I have made already, but if that helps to clarify the matter, that is fine.
Perhaps the best way to respond to the amendments is for me to explain the purpose of the provision that the noble Baroness seeks to amend. We have already said that the greater the number of reviews that the Boundary Committee is directed to conduct at one time, the longer the process is likely to take. A resource question is obviously involved. We do not rule out the possibility of conducting reviews in two or more regions simultaneously or in reasonably close proximity. We are simply acknowledging in the Bill that once we go beyond reviewing just one region, there may be implications for the Boundary Committee and a trade-off between the number of regions that undergo review and the time that it takes to conduct the reviews.
Of course, that choice does not arise unless the Secretary of State is considering more than one region. Hence, the way that the Bill is drafted, two is the point at which that choice may become an issue. The
588
implications for the Boundary Committee of making a direction for an additional region or regions may, among other things, depend on the number of two-tier authorities in the region. No one can say with certainty for all future occasions when reviews may be directed that the implications for the Boundary Committee would be such that it would be sensible to direct reviews in all regions in which there is an interest in holding a referendum.
Some regions include a large number of two-tier authorities and the implications for the Boundary Committee may be such that it may not be right to proceed with all such regions. Basically, we want to leave that flexibility on the statute book for any future Secretary of State. I repeat that we have not prejudged how many regions or which region or regions will undergo a local government review in the first round. That will depend on the soundings exercise and the passage of the Bill. We are trying to allow for a commonsense approach.
I hope that that explanation is satisfactory. We need the flexibility simply because we do not know which regions are involved, the regions are all different and the resources of the Boundary Committee are not inexhaustible.
11 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: I thank the Minister, but I am not sure whether he is saying that, depending on the regions involved, it may be possible to deal with more than one at once. Obviously, the regions are of different sizes and will have different issues. But it is not a given that it is better to deal with one region and get it over with, if that is all that the Boundary Committee can cope with, than to do more than one more slowly but simultaneously. There are arguments for doing the work in more than one region at the same time, leading to simultaneous referendums. Has that been ruled out entirely or is it still possible that one may be slower but broader?
Lord Rooker: It is not possible to make a judgment until we get the results of the soundings exercise and see which regions will be involved. As the noble Baroness says, the regions and their local government structures are different, which will be factors. The population sizes of the regions are also different—one is quite small compared to the others. Therefore, it will be possible to judge how the boundary review will work only when we know the level of interest in the regions and can decide whether they can be done at the same time or one after another.
Once direction is given to one to do the work subject to the outcome of the boundary review, there will be a referendum. That will trigger the main legislation, so, if another referendum follows, it would not be so affected. The first referendum resulting in a successful "Yes" vote—that is axiomatic; a "No" vote means no Bill—triggers the legislation. So it is important to reach a decision. I have no idea whether it will be

589
possible to carry out one or more concurrently; nor do I know whether it is practical to deal with one shortly after another.
Baroness Blatch: Before the Minister sits down, the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, said to the Minister in the Select Committee on the Constitution, as reported at paragraph 12 on page 11 of the report:
"You said in the explanatory notes in paragraph 38: 'for various reasons it may not be appropriate for directions to be given in relation to two or more regions at the same time'".
That refers to the local government review. He seems to cast doubt on dealing with even two regions at the same time. Can the noble Lord throw more light on that, and what are the various reasons?
Lord Rooker: Resources are a key factor. The regions are different. Some have a large population and local authority structure; that is to say, many two-tier authorities. The noble Baroness is assuming that we have prejudged which regions will go, but we have not. Because the regions are so different, it is impossible to prejudge. That is why the issue has been left open.
Baroness Hamwee: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 95 not moved.]
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 6, line 38, leave out from "region" to end of line 39.
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 104, because both amendments should be considered together.
Amendment No. 104 is straightforward. Any noble Lords present today who have been involved in local government will know that at present the Office for National Statistics does not have a great record of accuracy in calculating the population in particular areas. Clause 13(2) states rightly that it can publish only a recent estimate. I declare an interest as a member of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Council. If it or Westminster City Council were to rely on the recent estimates as regards this Bill, we would be in the doldrums. The estimates can be wildly unreliable. It is not advisable to use them as a fundamental basis when considering a review of local government. That is the basis of Amendment No. 104.
Amendment No. 96 is of a more probing nature. Subsection (6)(a) qualifies subsections (5)(a) and (b). As I said before, those paragraphs deal with the effect of a review on local authorities in the region and in different regions. Amendment No. 96 would leave out of subsection (6)(a) the consideration of the number of people living in the area of authorities subject to a review as a factor to which the Secretary of State must have regard for the purposes of subsection (5)(a) and (b). The Secretary of State should then have to have regard only to the number of relevant local authorities in a region, not the number of people in each of those local authority areas.
I tabled the amendment to tease out of the Minister some clarification of how the two considerations under subsection (6)(a) should have practical effect. For instance, which should hold more weight? What examples can be given of the sort of influence that such calculations of population might have on a direction under Clause 12?
The minister may respond by telling me that it is relevant to consider the populations in local authority areas, when a change in local government structure is to be introduced. Although I would like to be given a practical example of the effect that consideration of population might have, I do not deny the principle of considering the population. However, I would like to know why such an important and relevant consideration is linked only to subsection (5)(a) and (b), which refer to matters for consideration that are not obligatory but are subject to the whim of the Secretary of State as to whether they feature as considerations. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: I shall deal with the amendments in the order in which the noble Baroness spoke to them.
Amendment No. 104 would delete the requirement that the Secretary of State should use only the most recent estimate published by the Office for National Statistics when reaching his judgment. I understand the points that have been raised, and I appreciate concerns about the accuracy—or the allegations about the accuracy—of the most recent census figures. It is a wonder that they are able to get them as good as they are, but I am aware of the difficulties, even in my former constituency. I understand the significant effect that it can have on local government, if the figures are wildly different from what they should be for the services that the authorities are providing for various people.
Those difficulties, however, are nothing like the difficulties that would be caused if we did not specify in the Bill how the Secretary of State was to assess the number of people living in an area. There must be an objective basis for assessing the figure. In the main, the most recent figures from the ONS will be the ones to use. I hope and trust that any recent doubts about the census figures will not be an inhibiting factor. They are the best professional estimate of the population figures.
We cannot go by electoral registration figures, and I would counsel strongly against using them. They vary enormously, and they are not a measure of population anyway; they register only eligibility to vote. As I used constantly to remind people, my electorate comprised those who could vote, but I was responsible for representing about 25 per cent more who were under voting age. The services provided to people under voting age represent an enormous tranche of local authority expenditure. Population figures are probably the best to use. With all the doubts, we have no more accurate set of national figures. It would be wrong to use other figures.
Amendment No. 96 would remove the obligation on the Secretary of State, in applying the Clause 12(5) criteria, to consider the number of people living in the

591
areas covered by two-tier authorities. Looking at the impact of the proposals on two-tier authorities, it has to be the case that the number of people living in those authorities is relevant. I do not know, because we are not pre-judging the issue, but it may be that if the impact in a local authority was particularly significant, or seemed likely to have a massive effect on local communities, it would be relevant to consider the number of people affected by any proposed change. The Secretary of State would need to have the right to consider these issues. We are talking about peoples' lives and services. I am not implying that Members of the Committee have not been doing that; they have. When we come down to probing this part of the Bill, the Secretary of State has to be able, on the one hand, to take account of the effect on the population of an area, and on the other receive the best measure of the population, in order to make that judgment. I hope that that explanation will cause the amendment to be withdrawn.
Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for his response. I remain cynical about the estimate of the population, as published by the Office for National Statistics. The Bill has regard to the most recent estimate. The one thing we do know is that if the estimate is wrong to start with, then it becomes increasingly wrong as years pass. In Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster they are tens of thousands out, not thousands. Those councils are not going to be affected by this Bill, but it will affect councils in other parts of the country. The estimates could be wildly out by the time the matter is taken into account. None the less, I thank the Minister for his response and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 6, line 40, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Baroness said: This amendment would remove paragraph (b) of subsection (6). The paragraph states that when considering the effects of a local government review on the relevant local authorities in a region, and differences in the effect a local government review will have on relevant local authorities, the Secretary of State,
"must ignore any effect of the implementation of recommendations of the Boundary Committee following a review."
It is arguably wrong to expect the Secretary of State to ignore pragmatic considerations, such as the upheaval and cost of reorganising local government. Can the Minister clarify what,
"effects of the implementation of recommendations of the Boundary Committee"
could justifiably be ignored in accordance with this paragraph? I can think of none myself. I do not see what this paragraph is designed to cover. It seems to have been included to provide a get out clause for the Government. If there was a complaint that some pertinent factor had not been taken into account, the
592
reply could simply be, "Clause 12(6)(b) says we shouldn't take into account the effect of implementation of the recommendations."
I believe that the paragraph adds nothing to the Bill and could be omitted. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: I hope to show that the amendment is superfluous. As drafted, Clause 12 (6)(b) means that in applying the criteria in Clause 12(5) the Secretary of State could not consider the effect on the affected local authorities of reorganising local government structure and boundaries. The amendment would give him the ability to consider the effect of implementing the Boundary Committee's recommendations following a review. He would be unable to consider that ahead of knowing what the Boundary Committee was going to recommend. The amendment is superfluous because it would give the Secretary of State a discretion which he would be unable to exercise.
Baroness Hanham: I shall read what the Minister said. It may be that he wants to re-read it. I will certainly read it, because I do not understand his reply. I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.15 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 98 and 99 not moved.]
Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 6, line 44, leave out subsection (8) and insert—
"(8) A direction to the Boundary Committee to carry out a local government review of a region or regions must specify the timetable in accordance with which the review must be carried out and recommendations made to the Secretary of State.
(8A) The timetable referred to in subsection (8) must include the following steps which the Boundary Committee are required to take—

(a) upon receipt of the direction, publicise to people living in the area the making of the direction and the timetable under subsection (8);

(b) make provision for people living in the area to make representations upon the review;

(c) prepare draft recommendations as to the matters considered by the review;

(d) publicise the draft recommendations to people living in the area;

(e) deposit copies of the draft recommendations at the principal offices of every district and county council in the region;

(f) take account of representations received from people living in the area upon the draft recommendations.

(8B) Not later than the date specified in the timetable for the submission of their recommendations the Commission must—

(a) submit their recommendations to the Secretary of State;

(b) take such steps as they think sufficient to secure that persons living in the area who may be interested in the recommendations are informed of them and of the period specified in the timetable within which it may be inspected;

(c) deposit copies of the recommendations at the principal offices of every county council and district council in the region."

The noble Lord said: We come to an important part of our deliberations today. The Bill directs the Boundary Committee simply to specify a date on which the review of local government structure will begin in a region and the date on which the Boundary Committee will make its recommendations. It does not spell out the process which the Boundary Committee should go through.
We have had a great deal of important discussions about reorganisation. It is most important that the review process is open and transparent and that people can participate in it locally and are aware of what is happening.
Amendment No. 100 sets out the processes which the Boundary Committee should go through and they are similar to those which the Government suggest the Electoral Commission should do in establishing the electoral boundaries for the elected members of any region. It is vitally important that the process is undertaken in establishing the reorganisation of local government.
As we have said several times during the past few days— and I feel it most strongly— the local government part of the legislation is the most difficult and important. It is the most heart-searching and I have been through it. I remember during the 1990s the trauma of reorganisation. There was then some public participation; for example, at one stage Buckinghamshire was to disappear into unitary authorities, as did Berkshire. As the public were involved in Buckinghamshire, there was considerable discussion and involvement and ultimately the then Secretary of State reversed the decision of the Boundary Commission, as it then was, and Buckinghamshire remained as a county without being reorganised.
It is therefore most important that in any review of local government there is a transparent process in which the public can participate. We are therefore setting out processes in which the public and local government can be involved. There will be a draft set of recommendations which can be debated and people can put forward other solutions.
The minister has said that local government provides services but these regions will not. Surely, providing services to the public is the most important thing that happens; for instance, care for the elderly, looking after schools and so forth. That should not be disrupted, so it is important that local people are involved in the debate on local government reorganisation.
Amendment No. 103 allows the public to inspect what the Boundary Committee is doing. The information should be available for the public to see and the whole process made as transparent as possible. I beg to move this important amendment.
Lord Greaves: These useful amendments relate to an important topic. They give the Government the opportunity to say exactly how local government reviews will take place. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said that he had experienced local
594
government reorganisation in the 1990s. Some of us went through it in 1972, 1973 and 1974 and it gets no better or easier. There will be in the areas involved a furore of local argument. Local politicians and the staff of local authorities will be involved and will devote a huge amount of time, effort and energy. Inevitably, it will be to the detriment of local services—that is the way it works—so it is crucial that local people know exactly what will happen, exactly how they will be able to take part and exactly how their views will be taken into account.
When the draft recommendations are produced there will be another round of local discussions and debates and vast arguments and rows within each of the political parties. For at least 12 months while this is taking place, the normal political process of strutting between the parties will grind to a halt while everyone tears each other's eyes out within their own parties. That is the way it works. It is a useful amendment and I look forward to the Minister's reply.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: The noble Lord will be delighted to know that I agree wholeheartedly with the substance of Amendments Nos. 100 and 103. He will be equally delighted, I hope, that we have anticipated them. The substance of both amendments is already provided for in the provisions of Section 15 of the Local Government Act 1992, which are imported into the Bill by means of Clause 14. Both satisfy the requirements of the amendments. The amendments are unnecessary and I ask the noble Lord to withdraw them.
Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister for those comments. I understand from what he said that Clause 14 clarifies the review procedure. However, I shall have to look at the issue again. The Minister accepted that the process has to be transparent. It is a pity that it could not be included on the face of the Bill so that everyone is aware of the process involved in local government reorganisation. I do not understand why this could not be included on the face of the Bill to enable everyone to understand the process. Perhaps the Minister will come back on that point.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: We would not wish to include it on the face of the Bill because it is already in legislation. That was the point of my answer.
Lord Hanningfield: I still would like to see it on the face of the Bill. I suspect the Minister is using the argument he used earlier about not wishing to have the same piece of legislation in two Bills. I do not necessarily accept that argument but I shall look at what he said. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 101 not moved.]
Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 7, line 6, leave out subsection (10).
The noble Lord said: The amendment seeks to clarify the thinking behind subsection (10), which gives the Secretary of State wide-ranging powers to alter or revoke a direction to the Boundary Committee to carry out a local government review. Under what circumstances do the Government envisage this would happen? This is an unusual clause and we would like to know the thinking behind subsection (10).
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: Amendment No. 102 would remove the ability of the Secretary of State to vary or revoke a direction to the Boundary Committee to conduct a local government review, once given. Such a provision might be needed, for example, if it became necessary to give the Boundary Committee more time to complete its review. It is therefore a sensible precautionary provision to cope with unforeseen circumstances.
Indeed, it is standard practice for Bills to include such a provision. I would point the noble Lord to the similar provisions in Section 26(6) of the Local Government Act 1992 and Section 48(7) of the Local Government Act 2000. In those circumstances, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Blatch: There is no reference in the clause to those other Acts of Parliament. The words on the page—I hope that on this occasion they actually mean what they say—are:
"A direction under this section may be varied or revoked by a subsequent direction".
There are no limits whatever on that power. Is the noble Lord defending that?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I am advised that this is already in the Bill. I am defending it because it is in the Bill—where in the Bill I do not know.
Baroness Blatch: I am sorry, but that is not good enough. If it is in the Bill, and if we are to accept the Minister's answer, can we be given the reference? Simply because the Minister says so is not sufficient to make us to accept it.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: May we leave it that during the course of the next half-hour or so we shall be able to give the noble Baroness the reference she requires?
Baroness Blatch: Procedurally, that is not possible unless an amendment has not been dealt with. I do not think that we can do that out of sequence.
Lord Woolmer of Leeds: The Minister has indicated that a similar provision is contained in previous legislation. Noble Lords opposite will have the opportunity to check this point at later stages of the Bill. The Minister says that this is not a precedent; it has been used on a number of occasions in previous
596
legislation. That seems to me a perfectly reasonable explanation unless Members opposite have objected to such a provision in previous Bills.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I hope that the note I have received from my officials may help the Committee. I am advised that these refer to other provisions in other Bills, but Section 26(6) is also a part of this Bill for the purposes of Part 2 by Clause 16.
Baroness Blatch: Section 26(6) where?
Lord Rooker: I was reading briefing for two amendments ahead. I did not hear the noble Baroness's original question to my noble friend. Is she asking about Clause 12( 10)? Without further particulars in front of me, the provision looks fairly wide. It is specific to this clause; it is not a question of carte blanche. The reference that my noble friend gave was to Section 26(6) of the Local Government Act 1992, and we apologise for that fact. If this looks too wide, and there is not time to do anything about it now, I guarantee that we shall come back with a better explanation. Before Report stage, we shall check whether this is a necessary part of the clause.
Perhaps I may point out to the noble Baroness the reference in Clause 16. At line 40 on page 9, she will see a reference to the 1992 Act. The clause is headed, "Application of the 1992 Act". Section 26 is sidelined on the left of the provision:
"So far as it relates to anything done under a provision specified in this Table for the purposes of this Part".
If that is not satisfactory we shall take the provision away and examine it to make sure that those on the Front Bench opposite are content that we are not taking wide powers that are not justified.
Lord Hanningfield: We thank the Minister for that response. Given his assurance that he will re-examine this provision and bring the matter back if necessary, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 103 not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Local government review: supplementary]:
[Amendment No. 104 not moved.]
Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 7. line 13, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert "the appropriate boundaries for the introduction of unitary local authorities within the region"
The noble Lord said: The aim of Amendment No. 105 is to introduce some clarity into the legislation with the help of a little plain English. The Bill defines local government review as a review to consider what structural change is most appropriate for the region. The limited number of people familiar with the Local Government Act 1992 will realise that "structural change" simply means replacing county and district councils with unitary authorities.
We believe the Bill should be put into more meaningful, straightforward language. If "structural change" is synonymous with dismantling county and district councils to create new unitary authorities, the Bill should say so.
Our amendments would also allow the Boundary Committee the freedom to recommend that structural change is inappropriate for the needs of a given region. In some parts of England, particularly rural areas—we are repeating earlier arguments but they are important—two-tier local government has the advantage of meeting specific local needs. Northumberland is a very large rural county; to split it into small unitaries would be highly undesirable. Two-tier government also provides the necessary economies of scale to deliver large-scale services such as education.
Amendment No. 106 acknowledges that the Government have consistently failed in debate to justify this argument. We have been told that it is political and we have to take it or leave it; we will not have three tiers of government. But I repeat what I have just said about rural communities. We think these amendments are very important.
I repeat what we have said several times: local government is about delivering local services to local people. It is not just about carving out convenient local government units; it is also about delivering services. Therefore, we should be looking at the structure that delivers those services.
The amendments may make minor changes to the Bill's wording, but they are very important in terms of the local government review. I hope the Government will reconsider their earlier stance and accept them.
Baroness Hamwee: Our little Amendment No. 108 is in this group. We have debated possible boundary changes not only within a region but to a region. I take this opportunity to support the thrust, if not necessarily the detail, of what the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, has said.
Lord Rooker: I support the initial view of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, about clarity of language. We all think we can draft legislation more clearly but every time I attempted to do so in another place, the consequences were drawn to my attention. There is a great skill in drafting legislation. We might not always agree with the way in which they do it, but parliamentary counsel provide a good service. It is much easier to draft legislation if Ministers know what they want; when they do not know what the policy is or do not know what they want, the result is badly drafted legislation. It is the fault of the Ministers, not parliamentary counsel.
My speaking notes seem to contradict commitments that I have given in some respects, particularly in our early debates, about not touching existing unitary authorities. I have given commitments on the example given from the Liberal Democrat and Conservative Benches. I will not go into detail about that, because I
598
have drawn it to the attention of my ministerial colleagues. However, let me go through the process on this group of amendments.
The definition of the structural boundary changes is set out in the Local Government Act 1992 and applied for the purposes of this Bill by virtue of Clause 14. Clause 13 ensures that the Boundary Committee can recommend a new unitary structure only for those areas that currently have a two-tier local government and any new authorities must be within existing regional boundaries. The Boundary Committee could, in recommending a pattern of unitary authorities, make changes to the boundaries of existing authorities if it believed that to be necessary, but it could not change the boundaries of existing unitary authorities or the boundaries of the region.
I have already said that we would consider that point about changing the boundaries of existing unitary authorities. The example was given of Bradford and Skipton. I have drawn that point to the attention of Nick Raynsford.
Amendment No. 108 would require the Boundary Committee, as part of its review of local government in the region, to consider whether changes should be made to the boundaries of the region. For reasons I have explained, the Government could not accept that, but I do not want to repeat all those reasons.
I hope that those who put their name to Amendment No. 107 have noticed that it would result in the Boundary Committee considering the implications of a local government review for the,
"effective, efficient local government in",
the region, which is already achieved by the provision of Clause 13(8)(d).
As for the Boundary Committee being able to consider no change, as in Amendment No. 106, we have made our position clear. I said that it would be subject to the caveat that I gave. It would not be widespread, but the example that was given was a good one, and I believe that it should be reconsidered.
Amendment No. 105 would enable the Boundary Committee to amend the boundaries of existing unitary authorities, as would Amendments Nos. 109 to 111. That is covered by the point that I made about having a look at whether we can be more flexible in producing the best available system of local government. Members of the Committee have suggested that, unless the Boundary Committee is allowed to consider the boundaries of all the local authorities in the region, the pattern of unitary authorities created might be unsustainable in the long run.
The priority is to minimise the impact of reorganisation. The purpose is not local government reorganisation but elected regional assemblies, if, after a referendum, the people want them. Local government reorganisation comes as a secondary order. However, we are adamant about single-tier authorities, and we would withdraw the Bill and not proceed if that were not established. That would not be accepting the will of Parliament—the Minister in

599
charge of the Bill would simply withdraw it. The price is single-tier government. We have made that clear throughout our debates.
Lord Hanningfield: The Minister did not reply to my example.
As all Members of the Committee know, I have been in local government a long while. I live nowhere near Northumberland, but it is far too big to be a unitary county under these proposals. It will be destroyed as a county council and will have to be split up into unitaries, which would still be very large. Services will be disrupted and chaotic in some places.
The most important thing we do in local government is to provide services for people, care for the elderly, support schools, run libraries, repair potholes, collect waste, and so on. All those services will be tremendously disrupted for a long while and in some areas destroyed. The Minister referred to services in saying that regional assemblies were not there to run services. We will be creating something that does not run services but destroys them in the process.
Will the Minister comment on that? The Government should reconsider this issue. If they are to continue with the idea of regional assemblies while decent services are provided, two-tier local government must continue to exist.
Lord Rooker: I deliberately avoided commenting on the noble Lord's point. It does no good to start commenting on individual local authorities, whether I know them or not. That would be to prejudge the issue. The boundary review will be the place for that, if it happens, subject to the soundings. It is not for Ministers to second guess at the Dispatch Box. With respect, the same applies to Opposition Members. All we would be doing is to send out the wrong signals based on no evidence whatever. The independent Boundary Committee will assess the issue and take account of all those factors—which may be valid. I am not knocking the validity of the noble Lord's comments. However, I think that it would be quite wrong in considering this Bill to start discussing the potential effects on individual local authorities. The effects may bear no relation whatever to the result of the boundary review.
Baroness Hamwee: In an earlier response the noble Lord used the term "secondary" in referring to the local government review. Does he mean "second" in the sense of sequence of events or "secondary" as in less important? I think that he meant the former.
Lord Rooker: The potential local government changes to single-tier authorities are a consequence of the attempt to have elected regional assemblies. In other words, we have not brought forward a Bill to reform local government. To that extent, it is a second-order issue. I am not saying that it is not important, but it is not the prime purpose. The prime purpose is to establish elected regional assemblies. If we had wanted
600
a Bill on local government reorganisation, I am sure that we would have gone about it in an entirely different way.
Baroness Hanham: While we are on the subject of carving up local government as a second tier, I wonder whether the Minister will comment on the size of local authorities. I know that he will say that that is a matter for the Boundary Committee. However, perhaps he would consider any of the examples of the regions delineated in the White Paper. He may seek to join districts or shires together to make a unitary authority, but half of them do not even involve even numbers. One region may have 55 shires, seven counties and 12 unitaries, and another six counties, 36 districts and nine unitaries. We have talked about it being a hotchpotch and a melee. It looks as though there will have to be far more work in one or two of the regions than simply to combine two districts, for example, into a unitary. Many different decisions will have to be made about boundaries and definitions. It seems that all of that will cause a great deal more trouble than the Government envisage.
Lord Rooker: We have not envisaged it because, as I said, it will be down to the Boundary Committee to do that. I think that mish-mash was the word that we used. It is the variety in which a thousand flowers bloom. It is the variety of England, and long may it continue. It is not all the same. We are not saying that it is all the same and we do not want it to be. The consequence of a high level of interest in a referendum will be an assessment of the local government to create single-tier authorities. How that is done is entirely a matter for the Boundary Committee. It is no good our trying to second guess. It is clear that the committee has a job to do which will not be the same in every region. All the facts and figures in the White Paper show that each region is entirely different from the others.
Baroness Blatch: In his response to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who was talking about whether this was in fact secondary, the noble Lord reminded us, as he has done throughout our debates, that this is a referendum about regional assemblies and that local government review is just a consequence. On page 9 of the Select Committee on the Constitution report, not only the chairman but the whole committee made it clear that they were concerned about a particular constitutional point. The chairman said:
"given that it is constitutionally novel, do you feel that the Bill has gone as far as it could in stipulating the provisions under which it should be triggered and determining the level when the interest is clearly there within a region?".
In response, the Minister, Mr Raynsford, said:
"Given that this is not just simply a process of holding a referendum but it also involves a Boundary Committee review and the potential disruption of local government attendant on that, which we recognise is not something to be triggered without good reason, we felt this was not necessarily the best way forward".
The right honourable gentleman made it clear that this was a serious referendum not just about a regional assembly but about major disruption in local government.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Rooker: The noble Baroness is making an issue of something that does not exist. Nothing that Nick Raynsford said in that regard contradicts what I have said. The prime purpose of the Bill is elected regional assemblies. The consequence of that, the second order effect—big though it is, as I accept—is single-tier local government. The purpose of the Bill is not single-tier local government. The purpose of the Bill is not to abolish England or the county councils. The purpose of the Bill is elected regional assemblies. The consequence of that—the second order effect—is single-tier local government. But that is not the Bill's prime purpose. It is no good trying to make it something that it is not.
Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister for those comments. Next week we shall have the Second Reading of the Local Government Bill which is designed mainly to improve local government. However, local government reorganisation will help to destroy local government. So one week we are talking of destroying local government and the next week of trying to improve it. According to the recent comprehensive reforms assessment, small unitary authorities established in the 1990s have not performed very well and yet here we are talking about possibly setting up many more. We consider most of the responses totally unsatisfactory as regards tiers of local government, whether single or two-tier; regional boundaries; size of unitary authorities and boundaries of unitary authorities. I shall withdraw the amendment, but we shall have to return to these issues at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 105A to 108 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 7, line 16, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 109, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 111 and 126B. Amendment No. 110 in the name of the Conservative Front Bench is grouped with the amendments that I am discussing.
Amendment No. 109, which seeks to leave out subsection (4) of Clause 13, is consequential, if it is possible to be consequential but come first. Amendment No. 111 seeks to leave out paragraph (a) of subsection (5) of Clause 13. It seeks to remove the restriction on the Boundary Committee regarding areas which are not the areas of county councils or district councils. The Minister referred to examples given on an earlier day of Committee stage when we talked about the Lancashire coast and Blackpool. On that occasion I omitted to suggest that he have a word with his noble friend Lady Farrington of Ribbleton who I believe would be likely to endorse the comments that we made about the nonsense of not at least considering the boundaries of Blackpool when dealing with Fylde and Wyre.
Amendment No. 126B seeks to amend Clause 18. That clause provides that the Scilly Isles are not a relevant authority. I do not understand why they are not a relevant authority for the purposes of Clause 12(5)(a) which states that the Secretary of State may consider,
"the effects … of a local government review … on the relevant local authorities … in the region".
Admittedly, the Scilly Isles are unlike any other authority in terms of location and size but they must surely have an interest in what happens within the region as that will affect them as an authority. How can they be totally excluded, which, if I understand Clause 18 aright, they would be? They would simply not have a voice or a look-in on the matter. That does not seem right. I beg to move.
Lord Hanningfield: We support the noble Baroness. Amendment No. 110 would amend Clause 13(4) on page 7, which states:
"Relevant local authorities are the county council and district council".
We think that unitary councils should be included in that. Although we have heard over and again that they should not be considered in such discussions, they are part of the region and should be included. That is why we propose that amendment.
Lord Rooker: I really have nothing new to say. The answer to the amendment is basically the same as that to the previous amendment and the one before that. It is no good me saying anything else about existing unitary authorities, because I said a week or more ago that we would have a look at the issue and come back to it. Anything that I say is quite irrelevant now, because it is not my job to make the policy standing here at the Dispatch Box. I have given a commitment that, because of sensible and probing questions that were asked with good examples, we would see whether we could do anything on the issue.
I know that somewhere among my notes, but not on this clause or even this amendment—I do not know why—I have read a lot more about the Scilly Isles in the past couple of weeks than I have in front of me now. I do not know on which amendment I read it. I understand that the Scilly Isles are quite different. I realise that Amendment No. 126B drags the Scilly Isles into the review process, but they have quite a unique local government structure for England. as the noble Baroness accepted. I do not have the words here, but I know that I have read somewhere that it is not a county council, it is not a district, and it is not unitary, but it works. I hope—I have never been there—that it does so to the benefit of the people of the Scilly Isles. We do not want them disturbed. On the other hand, we need to ensure that they are covered by any consequences under the Bill.
The brief that I was talking about is on Clause 18 stand part. I knew that I had read it somewhere. We have not reached Clause 18 stand part. Things are coming at a rate of knots now. The brief is more or less what I said anyway, which proves I read it as I know nothing about the subject otherwise.

603
The brief states that the Isles of Scilly will not be subject to a local government review, as they already have unitary local government. Local government in the Scilly Isles differs from elsewhere in England as the council of the Scilly Isles is neither a county, nor a district council, and various special provisions have been made for the council to exercise and perform specified local government functions. However, certain local government functions are performed on behalf of the Scilly Isles by Cornwall County Council. Clause 18 ensures that if a future local government review were to make structural changes in Cornwall, we would be able to provide by order for such functions to be performed by one or more of the successor authorities.
I think that I put that in quite good language. I did not mention the bit about Cornwall doing the work for the Scilly Isles, but they have a relevant local authority. For our purposes, it is essentially a unitary authority and not a two-tier authority. It is the effect of the two tiers that means that the Scilly Isles are not covered by Clause 12(5)(a). However, they are part of the region—no one could deny that—and therefore are part of the review. They are part of the United Kingdom, so they are not ruled out, but they have a unique local government structure that works well and should not be disturbed. That is the answer, I hope, to Amendment No. 126B.
The answer to the other amendments is basically to refer to what I said earlier, at the risk of repeating myself for Hansard.
Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Baroness responds on her amendment, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a question. He has just said that, unless there were some structural change to Cornwall, there would be no need to review the Isles of Scilly arrangements. But it is likely that if the region within which Cornwall is located had a regional assembly, Cornwall would disappear as a county council and structural changes could well take place. Then the Isles of Scilly would have to be included in such a review.
Lord Rooker: That is why Clause 18(2) is in the Bill.
Baroness Hamwee: My point was that Clause 18(1) states that:
"For the purposes of section 12 … the Isles of Scilly are not a relevant local authority".
Clause 12(5) provides for the Secretary of State to consider the effects of carrying out a local government review on relevant authorities. As the Minister said, what he read out about the Isles of Scilly was extremely elegant and, moreover, I believe that it put forward my argument perfectly.
I do not believe that I am being illogical on this matter, but I shall not pursue the logic at five minutes to midnight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 110 and 111 not moved.]
Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No.112:
page 7, line 27, at end insert"(subject to any guidance to the contary published by the secretary of state)"
The noble Lord said: I believe that we keep repeating ourselves but we do so in this group of amendments to ensure that the local government review process is open and transparent. On this side of the Chamber, we believe that the guidance prepared for the Boundary Committee should supersede requirements set down in the Bill.
Over the past few days, we have had rather a lot of discussion about the soundings exercise, conducted by the Government, on whether referendums should take place. We have not heard much about the consultation process on the electoral process that was also put in train at that time. Therefore, in speaking to this group of amendments, we should like to hear that the Government will take notice of the process of consultation on the electoral arrangements and that the evidence that goes to the Boundary Committee will take over from the requirements of the Bill. That evidence will have been taken on soundings about the committee's process. That is why we have tabled Amendments Nos. 112, 113, 115, 116 and 117.
Lord Greaves: I want to speak specifically to Amendment No. 117, which refers to the guidance issued by the Secretary of State during the local government boundary process. It is vital that the guidance is not only issued to the Boundary Committee but that it is published. It is essential that those who wish to make representations—whether they are local authorities, people living in the area or organisations—know what the government guidance is. Without that, it will be difficult to make appropriate representations. For example, if the guidance included a minimum population level for unitary authorities of, say, 200,000 people, then it would be a waste of time for people to say that they wanted a unitary authority the size of, for example, Hartlepool, which is considerably smaller than that. Therefore, people need to know what the guidance is.
My first question is: what areas will the guidance cover? The Minister may not be able to answer that today but perhaps he will write to us. Will the guidance cover population size? Will it cover a minimum or maximum area? Will it cover the nature of the area concerned; that is, will there be different criteria for rural authorities and urban authorities and so on?
Secondly, will the guidance be the same for all regions that are subjected to a local government reorganisation or can it be different? I shall stop talking about the North East and the North West, and I shall imagine a hypothetical situation involving the South East and the South West. Could the guidance about local government reorganisation in those two regions be different, or do the Government intend to issue guidance that will apply to all regions, at least for a period of time?
Midnight
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: First, I shall deal with Amendment No. 113 which would require the Boundary Committee to comply with the requirements on consultation in the 2000 Act. The consultation requirements with which the Boundary Committee will have to comply are in fact set out in Section 15 of the Local Government Act 1992 and applied with modifications for the purposes of local government reviews by virtue of Clause 14.
They are the same requirements that would apply to other structural and boundary reviews carried out by the Electoral Commission as the body responsible for such reviews since its establishment under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. We intend to comment on those requirements through the guidance that we shall issue to the Boundary Committee. Section 6 of the draft guidance, on which we are consulting and which is in the Library, will provide noble Lords with the necessary detail. We launched a consultation on 2nd December last and copies of the draft guidance were sent to all principal local authorities.
As for the other amendments, Clause 13(8) provides the basis on which the Boundary Committee is to conduct local government reviews. In carrying out a review, the clause includes requirements for the Boundary Committee to assume that there is an elected assembly for the region; to have regard to the need to reflect the interests and identities of local communities; to have regard to the need to secure effective and convenient local government; and to have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State.
Amendment No. 115 would delete the requirement for the Boundary Committee to assume the existence of a regional assembly. The Bill requires that assumption because there will be a close working relationship between local and regional government, reflecting the fact that action taken at regional level will affect local areas and the actions of local authorities will, of course, contribute to regional goals. It is important, therefore, that in carrying out its reviews, the Boundary Committee recognises this reality and has regard to the position as it will exist when, or shortly after, the new authorities are brought into existence.
I shall now deal with Amendments Nos. 116 and 117. The first would delete the requirement for the Boundary Committee to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State. The second would require such guidance to be "published" rather than "issued". Perhaps I can assure noble Lords opposite that we are not seeking to interfere with the Boundary Committee's independence. Of course the conduct of the review and the Boundary Committee's assessment of the factors that are relevant are entirely for it. But it is plainly right when conducting a review that the Boundary Committee should have a clear indication of what the Government consider to be important features affecting unitary structure.
606
Once the Boundary Committee has completed its review and submitted its recommendations, it is for the Government—not the Boundary Committee—to implement any structural and boundary changes; and in doing so, the Government can make modifications to the Boundary Committee's recommendations. In that respect, the approach adopted in the Bill is no different from that adopted by the Local Government Act 1992. Given the Government's role in implementation, it is quite proper that the Boundary Committee should know the issues that the Government think are important in deciding what structural and boundary changes are appropriate for a region.
The approach to guidance in the Bill is the same as that adopted by the then Government in relation to the reviews conducted by the Local Government Commission in the 1990s. The Secretary of State issued draft guidance for consultation prior to enactment of the 1992 Act and subsequently issued a number of versions of policy and procedure guidance to the Local Government Commission for England. These were publicly available.
We also intend to ensure that the guidance we issue to the Boundary Committee is in the public domain. For that reason we have already consulted on a draft of the guidance. I can assure the Committee that the final guidance will also be published.
I turn to Amendment No. 112. I must confess that I find it curious that Members opposite are keen to give the Government a wide discretion to disregard or to vary the matters set out in subsection (8) by means of guidance and thereby avoid any parliamentary scrutiny. I believe that reviews should be carried out in all regions on the same basic criteria as those set out in Clause 13(8).
Finally, I turn to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I am not able to answer two of them, but I shall write to him shortly. With that explanation, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Lord Greaves: The Minister does not need to write to me if the information is in the Library. I shall check. If it is not, I shall get in touch with him.
Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister for his reply. I am now more concerned than I was before tabling the amendments. If the 1992 and onwards reorganisation is being cited as an example of good practice, someone may want to think again. It is generally accepted that the unitaries created then were too small. Berkshire is almost being recreated. The various unitaries are combining for purposes such as transportation and waste. They were too small to operate as practical units.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, talked about the size of unitaries. I know several people who have responded to the consultation. They have said, "Do not establish unitaries of the size created in the 1990s". Whatever happens here, we want to create good local government that can deliver services. That is why the

607
evidence that goes to the Boundary Committee, and its consultation, is paramount and more important than today's discussions. I was not reassured by the Minister. I am sure that we shall return to these issues in future stages. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 113 to 117 not moved.]
Clause 13 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 118 not moved.]
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Implementation of recommendations]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 119:
Page 8, line 45, at end insert—

2 ( ) at least forty per cent of those persons entitled to vote at such a referendum voted, and

4 ( ) a majority of those voting in the referendum voted in favour of an elected regional assembly for the region, and"

The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 119 is coupled with Amendments Nos. 119A, 119B and 119C standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Caithness. It is a great pity that we are discussing this—uncharacteristically for this Session of Parliament—so late in the day because it is an important part of the process.
My amendment makes plain the threshold requirements that must be satisfied in a referendum in order to return a vote in favour of regional assemblies. The thresholds are that there should be an overall turnout of 40 per cent of the eligible vote, and that of those voting the majority vote in favour. This item appears in the report of the Select Committee on the Constitution. It expressed concern and stated:
"We draw these matters to the attention of the House as raising questions of principle about principal parts of the constitution".
That is qualified at the bottom of the page by an additional note:
"Our normal practice is only to report on public Bills which raise an important question of principle affecting a principal part of the constitution. We consider that this bill meets these criteria".
In other words, this is an important constitutional Bill and this is a particular area of concern as recorded by the Select Committee on the Constitution.
A referendum turnout below the level of 40 per cent is surely indicative of a public disinterested and unenthusiastic about the prospect of regional assemblies. It is hardly a good sign for things to come. Such a body could hardly claim a strong mandate and would surely struggle to maintain its authority.
It is not stretching the point too far, given the turnout in London and for mayoral elections in places such as Bedfordshire, Hartlepool, Tyneside and others, to say that between 10 and 20 per cent could turn out, but a majority of one would be sufficient to establish a regional assembly. The Mayor of Bedford was elected on about 12 per cent of the vote and the Mayor of London on about half of the vote of a 33 per cent turnout. So we are discussing small turnouts that give rise to major constitutional change.
The Government must tackle head-on the problem that only a small minority of the English population know about regional assemblies. Many are completely unaware of the region to which they belong. The Government must avoid circumstances in which regional assemblies are established thanks to the active support of a tiny minority of the population, when the remainder would have opposed the establishment, had they been informed.
There has been a conspicuous absence of publicity for the soundings exercise. What is the point of a public consultation about which the public are not told? There is evidence of that up and down the land, some of which we have cited anecdotally. Members of the House were conspicuously absent from the list of consultees, although we come from all parts of the United Kingdom. Some of the bodies that were consulted did not then further consult their own interested members.
So we know that there has been a flawed consultation process, on which the whole process will be triggered. As I said, however small the turnout, a majority of one is sufficient to establish a regional assembly. Regional assemblies will not work, however much the Government want them to do so, unless they have the active support of a majority of people living in the area.
The other point that must be emphasised is that large rural areas, especially in a place such as Northumberland, which is the most glaring example, could be massively outvoted by a relatively small turnout in the much more urban areas. There are likely to be large swathes within a region that do not want regional assemblies, when a small turnout of the urban parts of the region vote to establish an assembly. We think that that is unacceptable in a democracy.
To establish a regional assembly on the back of a referendum in which fewer than 40 per cent of the electorate voted, or where the majority of at least an agreed percentage of the electorate did not vote in favour, is surely to make a mockery of all claims to democratic validity. I beg to move.
12.15 a.m.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 119, Amendment No. 119A:
Line 2, leave out "forty" and insert "fifty"
The noble Earl said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 119B and 119C. I agree with everything that my noble friend Lady Blatch said in moving Amendment No. 119, but I disagree with her on the figures. Some hours ago. the noble Lord, Lord

609
Rooker, said, speaking to Amendment No. 44, that there must be democratic accountability. That is what my amendments are intended to achieve.
I speak from our experience in Scotland of having devolution foisted upon us by fewer than 50 per cent of the electorate. The situation was even worse in Wales. Many who voted for devolution in Scotland are now seriously questioning whether they were wise to do so. I have no doubt that, if another referendum were held today, the result would be very different from the one on which the decision was taken. That is why Amendment No. 119A would require at least a 50 per cent turnout and that 50 per cent of the electorate vote in favour of an elected regional assembly.
On Amendment No. 119C, I ask the Minister to tear up the words before him. He will be used to that; he did it on Clause 10. The words are not as we read them; they mean something totally different. I was trying to make the point that in every area where people vote there should be a majority in favour of what is proposed. That takes up the point that my noble friend Lady Blatch made about remote rural areas—it does not matter whether the area is in the North East or the South West. We talked a good deal about the issue. The Minister said that there were four proposed regional areas in which the rural votes outnumbered the urban ones, and that there were four areas where the opposite applied. In each area where there is a vote, the answer should always be "Yes", because that protects the interests of the minorities.
The Bill does not propose government of the people, by the people and for the people. It is an exercise of limited functions for the few and by the minority. I am trying to make certain that a majority is the deciding factor. I beg to move.
Lord Greaves: We on these Benches support the second half of Amendment No. 119, which would impose a condition that,
"a majority of those voting in the referendum voted in favour of an elected regional assembly for the region".
That seems entirely reasonable, although, as I understand it, the Bill as it stands would allow the Secretary of State to set up a regional assembly even if a majority voted against it in a referendum. It is unlikely that he would attempt to do that, but he could.
We do not support the rest of the amendment. As a matter of principle, we do not support voting thresholds, whether in referendums or elections. The principle is dangerous. It does not apply to the House of Lords because we do not have to acquire votes, at least not yet. But one wonders whether, if a threshold of 50 per cent of voters were required in the Westminster election, at least one or two Members of the House of Commons would have had to try again.
It may be deplorable that turnouts have been decreasing over the years. But, once people begin to get angry again, turnouts will start to increase. It is a cyclical pattern rather than a long-term decrease. Thresholds of this nature do not solve the problem of low turnouts. The principle must be, not that people
610
are forced to vote for a proposal to be passed. but that they have the opportunity to vote for it to be passed. People have a right to abstain and say that they are not interested. As politicians, we would deplore that, but people still have the right to reject the whole political system and us because they are not interested. What matters in the principle of democratic elections and referendums is the decision of those who vote. So we do not support thresholds.
The amendments tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, are extraordinary. The requirement that 50 per cent of, presumably, the entire registered electorate—as the Minister pointed out, that is not always an accurate figure—must vote before something can be passed is very high. I think that the noble Earl accepted that. It is far too high a test.
Noble Lords will know that I am no huge fan of the particular type of regional assembly that the Government propose, but, if everything is going to be as appalling as the noble Earl says and the assemblies will be a simple matter of government for the few and jobs for the boys, without any real powers, he should go out and mobilise the people. He and others who feel as he does should organise the people and get them to rise up in anger and vote against the plan. That is the true answer in a democracy, not trying to create false tests.
The noble Earl mentioned devolution in Scotland and the fact that people in Scotland grumbled about the Parliament there. Of course, they do there is a real devolved political system in Scotland with a real parliament. There is real politics going on, and, when that happens, people get grumpy and fed up about it. However, if we were to try to close down the Scottish Parliament, it would be the quickest way of inciting the Scottish people to rise up not only to defend their Parliament but to demand their independence. People in Scotland will defend that Parliament to the death. The noble Earl may disagree, but that is my impression.
Finally, the noble Earl wants to insert a condition that every district council area in a region must vote for an assembly. As noble Lords know, I am sympathetic to the view that, if parts of the region that have two-tier local government vote against because they do not want their local government to change, they should have a veto on the whole thing, if the Government insist on single-tier local government in those areas. If people do not want to disrupt their local government systems, they should be able to stand firm against it. But if we require a positive vote in every district, those who are against it will put all their resources and all their campaigners into a couple of districts to get a "No" vote and disrupt the whole thing. The test proposed by the noble Earl would almost certainly make it impossible for any referendum to produce a positive vote.
For those reasons, we do not agree with the amendments, apart from the second half of Amendment No. 119.
Baroness Hanham: The noble Lord just said that people should be allowed to abstain. Of course, they

611
should; that is part of the democratic system. However, those abstentions ought to be counted as "anti" votes, if we are to regard this as a matter of principle. People voting in the referendum will be voting for a principle; namely, the principle of having a regional assembly and regional government. They will not be voting for who will be on the list; they will be voting for a change to the system. Therefore, it would be more realistic to expect a greater number of people to vote in those elections and to require that they should do so, before there is any change.
I know that that did not happen in London, Scotland or Wales, but the number of people in all those places—particularly Wales and London—who could be bothered to turn out was derisory, given that it was a matter that would effect people dramatically, particularly in London. There may not be quite the same effect on the regions, but they will certainly see a difference, and it is proper that, in those circumstances, there should be a threshold for turnout and a threshold against which that turnout should be measured.
Lord Rooker: Unless I misheard him, when the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, was talking about Scotland, he quoted figures for turnout—because he was critical of the low turnout—that I did not recognise. The referendums that have taken place in Scotland in recent times—in 1979 and 1997—have all had turnouts of over 60 per cent. That was not a figure he used. I thought that he used a figure of about 40 per cent. Even in the referendum in March 1979 the turnout was 63.6 per cent. In 1997, when there were two questions—one on taxation—the turnout was 60.2 per cent. Those figures were good by any stretch of the imagination. London by comparison was absolutely pathetic, at 34 per cent. I do not think one can criticise what happened in Scotland. We all remember that in Wales the turnout was over 50 per cent. It is true that it was only just over—50.1 per cent. That result itself was very close—50.3 per cent in favour of an assembly against 49.7 against. Obviously, that 50 per cent turnout meant that only 25 per cent of people voted "Yes". However, it was a 50 per cent turnout. We are not used to referendums, anyway. Given the scale of those matters, one cannot criticise the turnout in Wales, and particularly not in Scotland, as the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, did. I may have misheard him, but he was quoting much lower figures.
I will now deal with the issue. I am not sure whether the Front Bench opposite were advocating that an abstention should count as a "No" vote. That would be the effect of the amendment. I thought that was what they were advocating. One would not have to do anything, and that would then count as a "No" vote. It would be very unsatisfactory in a democracy to be ruled by a decision like that. We think that the fairest, simple measure of a referendum result would be based on the votes that are cast. Everyone is free to vote—if they choose not to do so, their views will not be counted. It is as simple as that. If it is done the other way round, with a threshold of those eligible to vote,
612
one could vote "No" or not vote—and both would count as "No". That has to be unfair by any democratic test.
The precedent that we are using—and we make no apology for it—is that used in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London. We do not think any other way would be fair. There is no obvious way to decide what the level of the threshold would be. I am instinctively a threshold person. I would like to have a hurdle to achieve a good decision, and to encourage people. However, the reality is that it does not work. Therefore, given that there will be an open debate, and people will be free to vote, then it should be those that vote that make the decision. All those issues were debated in the other place. I believe that there was an amendment that proposed that at least 50 per cent of the people had to vote, and a majority of them had to vote "Yes". That is why noble Lords opposite agree to the second half of the amendment. There was also an amendment in the other place that at least 25 per cent of people eligible to vote in a referendum would have to vote in favour. There are difficulties about that, which we do not accept in principle.
My honourable friend the Minister in the other place explained the effects of the threshold in the recent elections in Serbia—where they twice failed to elect the Prime Minister. Even though he won, he did not get over the threshold. That does include some uncertainty. We need to encourage as many people to vote as possible. We have debated Clause 7, to make the Electoral Commission do things to encourage people to vote, without taking sides. We have to consider every possibility. There is a serious disadvantage with thresholds. I believe that the amendments are proposed from the best possible viewpoint. I am not criticising them, because the purpose behind all the amendments is to try to cajole, persuade and encourage more people to vote. I accept that, because it is being said that we are going to rig the system so that if one does not vote it will not count. If one is really interested, vote. I can understand the reasoning behind that, but I do not believe that the principle is correct.
On a low turnout—I shall not try to define what that is, so please do not ask, but you will recognise it when you see it—with a knife-edge result, the Secretary of State would have to think seriously about what happens afterwards. Therefore it is not game, set and match on a low turnout—or a derisory turnout—with a tiny majority. One would have to think seriously about the way forward.
On Amendment No. 119C, effectively to give each elector in the district a veto on the establishment of a regional assembly cannot be right. The majority can be frustrated in that way and it cannot possibly be justified. I freely admit that the turnouts at some of the mayoral elections have not been brilliant. There has not yet been one at 50 per cent. There was a turnout of 42 per cent in Middlesbrough and 42 per cent in North Tyneside and they are the only ones above 40 per cent.

613
By the way, looking at the end column, it is interesting to note that the two highest turnouts were all postal ballots. Interesting—listening over there, Lib Dems?
Noble Lords: Yes.
Lord Rooker: The highest turnout is 42 per cent, all postal ballots. One has to look at the experience. Now I digress—
Baroness Blatch: The constitutional outrage is not so much about what happens in a region, but that England, as constituent country of the whole of the United Kingdom, has no say as a country. If there were to be a referendum, I suggest that we should start with the people of England to decide whether they want their country carved up into nine parts. We were denied that choice when we lost the capital—the part in the middle of the donut that was taken out—and we are now being told that the Secretary of State, on the whim of what he thinks is the level of interest, will carve up the rest into eight areas. We are now trying to salvage the best of a bad lot.
The choice for the people of England is very serious. Scotland has the integrity of the whole country; Wales has the integrity of the whole country; England does not. Even Northern Ireland does. Therefore, this is a serious constitutional point for us.
Before responding to the bulk of the amendment, I must say that nowhere in the Bill can I see a provision that the Secretary of State has the flexibility not to introduce a regional assembly where the vote is in favour of introducing one. I understand that without reference to flexibility or a threshold, however derisory the turnout or the majority—a majority of one would be sufficient—. the vote is fora regional assembly. If the Minister could point out to me the flexibility in the Bill which provides that the Secretary of State may not appoint a regional assembly—
Lord Rooker: I am not prejudging anything. I have told the noble Baroness where the flexibility is—it is the Bill to set up the regional assemblies, and that is a completely different piece of legislation.
Baroness Blatch: That is a lie and a confidence trick on the public. I am not suggesting that the noble Lord is lying. If the people are voting yes or no to a regional assembly, and by whatever the turnout they win that vote, they have every reason to expect a regional assembly. It does not state on the paper, "If you vote for a regional assembly you may not actually get one", and nothing in the Bill suggests that flexibility. There is nothing in this Bill that states: "You can vote for one or against one, but we cannot guarantee you will get one even if you vote for one". I believe that the noble Lord ought to reflect on that flexibility and point to its legal underpinning for the Secretary of State.
Amendment No. 119 requires a turn-out of 40 per cent. All of my emotions support the amendment of my noble friend, although even 50 per cent is a modest expectation. The minimum requirement on my
614
percentage of 40 per cent and the minimum requirement on my noble friend's percentage of 50 per cent means that a turn-out of a mere 20 per cent plus one or a mere 25 per cent plus one could be a vote in favour of a regional assembly. That would be a fairly poor endorsement of such a huge constitutional change. Even if only one or two areas vote for a regional assembly, it will have an impact on the remainder of the United Kingdom. That is why we have fought so hard to include in the Bill the considerations that the Secretary of State must take into account under Clause 12.
The constitutional change caused by regional assemblies will mean that areas with two-tier authorities lose their county councils or, indeed, their district councils. A more remote regional assembly will be established. That is not a good deal for local people.
Contrary to the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, the setting of a threshold might stimulate people to go out and vote. If they want an assembly badly enough, the knowledge that they have to get over a hurdle of 40 or 50 per cent might stimulate interest rather than the other way round.
I did not use Scotland or Wales in my examples of poor turn-out; I used London and the mayoral elections. A referendum where only 12 per cent of the people vote for a mayor and 88 per cent either do not vote or vote against having a mayor is a very poor endorsement for such a change.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, "If you do not want regional assemblies you should go out and tell the world. You should get everyone behind you". I say to the noble Lord that we cannot compete with the vast resources of central government, the regional development agencies and the various regional bodies that are already illicitly campaigning for regional assemblies. There is no way that a member of the public or a small group of interested people, such as the one in the North East, can campaign against regional government. They do not stand a chance against the vast resources of these other bodies.
Lord Greaves: Does not the Conservative Party have a vast organisation, with thousands of workers and activists all over the place? I thought that that was what the Conservative Party is about.
Baroness Blatch: I have to admit that we are a bit thin on the ground in the North East. My point is more serious than that. Why leave it to political parties? I have said from the beginning that I do not regard the Bill as party political. I regard it as a constitutional Bill which will affect every person in the land. I do not see the people out there as Conservatives or Liberals organised by party political machines; I see them as having a real stake in the kind of local government they want. As individuals and small groups, they do not have the resources to even begin to compete with the national government and the regional bodies which are already illicitly campaigning.
Lord Woolmer of Leeds: I understand the noble Baroness's argument. There is obviously some merit in

615
the view that there should be a minimum turn-out. But, from the way in which she expressed these matters, would not someone who wanted to prevent or object to a regional assembly simply have to encourage abstention? If those against having a regional assembly simply abstained, 40 per cent of the whole electorate would positively have to vote in favour of one. Would not that be a problem? In other words, if you wanted to stop a regional assembly you simply would not vote at all and everyone who did vote would have to vote in favour. That means that 40 per cent of the whole electorate would have to vote in favour of a regional assembly, which would be an extraordinary achievement. Under the noble Earl's amendment, 50 per cent would have to vote in favour.
If there is a threshold, the way to stop a regional assembly is to encourage people not to vote. The worst thing would be to encourage people to vote no because that would lift the turn-out. What is the noble Baroness's answer to that point?
Baroness Blatch: I am not malign enough to consider positive abstention. That was not the thrust of my original argument. It was the noble Lord's interpretation of one of the consequences of my amendment. I am not arguing that, and I never would. Any energies that I have will not be used in persuading people not to vote; they will be used to persuade people to vote against an assembly. That is the point of my amendment.
The thrust of my amendments and the principle underpinning them are that if there is to be constitutional change in the regions of England, enough people should vote for them to make the assemblies confident, competent bodies with an underpinning support. I am not going down the road of persuading people not to vote in order to depress the turnout. I believe that if people do not want a regional assembly they should vote against it.
Lord Woolmer of Leeds: That may not be the noble Baroness's intention, but were this amendment to be on the statute book that would be its effect. Anyone wishing to stop a regional assembly would have every reason to abstain. If I were organising against a regional assembly, I should encourage people not to vote, because that would keep the turnout down.
Baroness Blatch: Forty per cent and 50 per cent are relatively modest figures anyway. As the Minister has said. in Scotland, on both occasions, the turnout would have passed the test in my amendment, and indeed that suggested by my noble friend. The same is true of the 40 per cent figure given. I am not going down the road suggested by the noble Lord. He may like to think that that would be the consequence of the amendment, but I believe that having a regional assembly based on a 10 per cent or 15 per cent turnout with a majority of one is simply unacceptable. That is a possibility, and I simply want to avoid it.
The Earl of Caithness: I agree with all the figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. They are the
616
same as those that I have in front of me. There is one figure that he did not mention: in Scotland, if my maths is correct, only 44.6 per cent of the electorate voted "Yes". So 50 per cent of people in Scotland did not vote "Yes"; the same was true in Wales. The Minister mentioned 25 per cent in Wales. He was right about the 60.2 per cent in terms of turnout—but the actual percentage of the electorate voting "Yes" was 44.6 per cent.
I like the Minister's instinct. I wish that he would follow his instinct and not his brief. He rather likes the idea of thresholds. He has the same feeling as my noble friend Lady Blatch and I have; namely, that the credibility of this exercise could well be diminished by a low turnout and a small majority. A great deal of credibility would be lost and regional assemblies would get off to a bad start.
I was fascinated by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I do not think that he has listened to much of what I have said during this debate. When I first spoke, I said that I rather liked unitary authorities. This proposal is not so horrible in lots of ways; some quite good things will come from the Bill. What I am trying to do is to make certain that a sufficient number of people vote in a referendum, because that would make the result credible. I do not believe that leaving the matter completely open will serve the right purpose.
I tabled Amendment No. 119C because there are two aspects to this question. I should have thought that the second would appeal to the Liberal Democrat Party. The first aspect is regional assemblies; but with that, and consequent upon it, is the requirement to get rid of the existing local government structure. The purpose of Amendment No. 119C is to protect the rural areas—about which the Liberal Democrats waxed so lyrical when we last debated this issue; they said how important this was for those areas where Northumberland borders on Scotland. I was trying to help the Liberal Democrat Party to keep their district councils, but if they do not want any help that is up to them.
This matter needs to be reconsidered before the next stage. I hope that the Minister will be able to spare us some time for a meeting on this and various other points. This is crucial. His instinct is absolutely right: we must try to find a mechanism, not to "up" the turnout—that is not the point of what I am trying to do—but to bring credibility to this operation. It has lost credibility with the mayoral elections in London and devolution in Wales. Scotland is more arguable; one can argue that 44.6 per cent is a good figure, although I would say that one needs to get over 50 per cent. I hope that the Minister will give us time for a meeting between now and another stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 119A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 119, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 119B and 119C', as amendments to Amendment No. 119, not moved]
Baroness Blatch: This is my final comment on percentages: if my noble friend Lady Hanham was

617
right when she described something like 5,000 responses to the soundings exercise out of a total voting population of about 20 million, I wonder whether the Minister regards that as an adequate return in terms of soundings for starting the process of regional assemblies in this country. We certainly shall return to this, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): Is it your Lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?
Noble Lords: No!
12.46 a.m.
The Deputy Chairrnan of Committees: The Question is that Amendment No. 119 shall be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say "Content". To the contrary, "Not-Content". I think the Not-Contents have it. Clear the Bar.
Division called.
Tellers for the Contents have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order 54. A Division therefore cannot take place, and I declare that the "Not-Contents" have it.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 9, line 3, leave out "may" and insert "must"
The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 121 to 124 and Amendment No. 126. The amendments concern the actions of the Secretary of State following a referendum and his subsequent decision that a regional assembly should be established. As a group, the amendments would ensure that the Secretary of State must put into effect the recommendations made by the Boundary Committee. Amendment No. 123 would mean that if the Secretary of State does not agree with the recommendations, he has the option to,
"make no changes to the existing local government structure within the region".
I asked the Minister earlier whether the Boundary Committee would be free to recommend that to create single-tier authorities would be too great an upheaval and would run counter to efficient and effective government in the region. He refused to answer that question, from which I deduce that the issue must at least be an open question.
As the Bill stands, there is no requirement that the Secretary of State pay particular attention to the recommendations made by the Boundary Committee for England in its review of local government, which will have been an extremely costly and disruptive exercise. That a procedure that is so expensive in resources and time may warrant no more than a brief consideration is surely not intended. Hence, we seek assurances that the Secretary of State will not change the recommendations made by the Boundary Committee without good reason. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: I am not clear about the overall purpose of this group of amendments. Amendment No. 121 would require us to give effect to the recommendations of the Boundary Committee concerning local government reorganisation before a regional assembly was established. In practice, it is likely that the orders giving effect to the Boundary Committee's recommendations will be made in advance of an assembly coming into existence. Those orders, however, will have to set dates both for the election to shadow unitary authorities and for the ultimate transfer of functions from the old to the new authorities.
Whether the transfer of functions which effectively brings the new unitary authorities into existence will actually have taken place by the time that the regional assembly first meets will depend on a number of factors such as the possible need for the Electoral Commission to revise electoral arrangements before there can be elections to the new authorities. Those elections would have to fit in with the current cycle of local authority elections. Therefore, it might be the case that regional assemblies come into existence ahead of the new unitary authorities. We need the flexibility in the Bill so that the limitations on the timing of the local government reorganisation would not unnecessarily delay the setting up of regional assemblies. Nevertheless, I can assure noble Lords that it is our intention to arrange things so that the regional assembly and the new unitary authorities should come into being as close together as possible.
The amendment would also provide that the Secretary of State must implement all the recommendations sent to him by the Boundary Committee. That unreasonably ties the Secretary of State's hands. For reasons to which I shall come, we need the discretion currently allowed in subsection (2). Indeed the remaining amendments attempt to amend the provisions for the implementation by the Government of the recommendations of the Boundary Committee and the Government's discretion in the implementation process.
Subsection (2) allows for discretion in the ma king of an order under this subsection. It provides that an order may be made to give effect to recommendations. Why do we need discretion in making these orders? The answer is simple. The Government may decide that the recommendations of the Boundary Committee are not appropriate. The Secretary of State may receive representations on the recommendations made to him by the Boundary Committee, and he must be able to react to those representations and give them full consideration. That may lead to making modifications to the recommendations or, if necessary, rejecting them. By seeking to remove that ability, the Government are denied the opportunity to consider fully the recommendations in light of circumstances at the time or to react to or reflect representations that may be received.
Similarly, the amendments seek to remove the ability to implement "all of any" of the Boundary Committee's recommendations. Again, that would remove the Government's discretion and place a duty

619
to implement all or none of the recommendations. The arguments for the inclusion of this provision are the same as those I have just given. The Government may decide that while some recommendations are appropriate, others are not and it is sensible to allow for this discretion.
The amendment to remove subsection (3) would remove entirely the Government's ability to make modifications, if necessary, to the recommendations of the Boundary Committee.
While the Boundary Committee is responsible for undertaking a review and making recommendations to the Secretary of State, it is the Secretary of State who is responsible for the implementation of any recommendations. Given that responsibility, it is only right that there be provision to exercise discretion over implementation and to make modifications where that is considered appropriate. Once again, as with many of the provisions in the Bill, this is identical to the tried and tested provisions of the 1992 Act.
Similarly, Clause 15(6) allows for mistakes in an order to be rectified should that be needed. This is not a general order-making power with wide-ranging effect, but a sensible provision limited to correction of errors arising in the preparation of orders where it appears no longer possible to make a further implementation order because the Boundary Committee's recommendations have already been given effect. By including this provision, we have closely followed the tried and tested provisions of the 1992 Act. That Act was not put on the statute book by the present Government, although I should not need to remind the Committee of that. The provision was deemed suitable and appropriate then and we think that it is indeed suitable and appropriate now.
As for the amendment to allow the Secretary of State to make no changes, that is odd as that is what would happen if no order were made under the clause. Each of the amendments seeks to remove discretion that we believe is proper given the Government's responsibility for the implementation of recommendations. I hope that following that explanation the amendments will not be pressed.
1 a.m.
Baroness Blatch: I hardly recognise my amendments from the response that the Minister has given as I argued for flexibility, including the flexibility not to reorganise local government if the Boundary Committee thought that that was appropriate. Earlier the Minister seemed to hint by refusing to answer the question that the Boundary Committee would be free to make a decision that unitary authorities were not appropriate for efficient and effective local government in a region. We have just heard on the previous amendment that a vote for a regional assembly in a referendum does not guarantee that that region will get a regional assembly. We also know that it is entirely in the gift of the Secretary of State to determine from his soundings whether or not there is a sufficient level of interest to hold a referendum. Now
620
we are told that whatever the Boundary Committee decides, the Secretary of State can do what he likes— accept the recommendation, not accept it, modify it—
Lord Rooker: I object to the words "do what he likes". The Secretary of State cannot operate irrationally, unreasonably, on a hunch or as a result of prejudice. He would be subject to judicial review if he did. We are talking about the same powers exercised by secretaries of state of all governments when faced with boundary reviews or even parliamentary reviews. To say that the Secretary of State may do what he likes is simply not true.
Baroness Blatch: That is my interpretation of the flexibility that the Secretary of State has at every stage of the Bill. The soundings have already taken place ahead of the Bill. They were completed as the Bill commenced its passage through this House. The Secretary of State will be free to determine a level of interest. He has to act reasonably as we all know that judicial review is available not to consider the decision he reaches but the way in which he arrives at it. As a result of the discussion on the previous amendment, we now know that if there is a referendum and the vote is for a regional assembly but the Secretary of State deems that the voting turnout was not sufficient, it is possible that those voters will not get what they voted for. Now we are told that there will be flexibility when the Boundary Committee has done its work. I believe that this matter constitutes a Secretary of State's fiefdom without too much check in the system. I shall withdraw the amendments but shall no doubt return to them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 121 to 126 not moved.]
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Payments to Electoral Commission]:
[Amendment No. 126A not moved.]
Clause 17 agreedto.
Clause 18 [Isles of Scilly]:
[Amendment No. 126B not moved.]
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Advice of the Electoral Commission]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 127:
Page 10, line 28, leave out from "if" to end of line 32 and insert "the Secretary of State is considering whether to cause a referendum to be held in that region about the establishment of an elected assembly for the region"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 127, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 131. The amendment would ensure that the Electoral Commission provides advice to the Secretary of State concerning the nature of electoral areas before any referendum is held in the region rather than afterwards, as the Bill is drafted. To allow the electorate to make an informed choice, they must be aware of the type of system that would be put in place if they opted for regional assemblies. An individual's

621
decision as to whether they wish to have a regional assembly will understandably be influenced by exactly how the regional assembly will be organised. If they vote for a regional assembly on the basis of certain expectations that are then unfulfilled, they may withdraw their support too late as their vote is already cast.
Amendment No. 131 would remove subsection (5) and hence prevent the Secretary of State from altering a previous direction that he had made by making a new direction. That amendment seeks to curb the powers given to the Secretary of State, by removing his ability to make direction after direction while there are no mechanisms in place to challenge his decisions. Subsection (5) gives the Secretary of State complete freedom from any scrutiny, such that he does not even have to consult or seek advice or recommendations from others. He can simply make further direction if he changes his mind. Removing subsection (5) would create more stability and place the onus on the Secretary of State to do everything in his power to get matters right the first time. Surely that must be a good thing. I beg to move.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: Clause 19 requires the Secretary of State to direct the Electoral Commission to give advice on one or more matters relating to electoral areas or the total number of members to be elected to a regional assembly. Subsection (1) means that that requirement arises only in respect of regions in which a referendum has been held and it is proposed to establish an assembly.
Amendment No. 127 would instead require the Secretary of State to give such a direction to the Electoral Commission if he were considering whether to cause a referendum to be held in that region. The White Paper, Your Region, Your Choice, clearly sets out the framework that we propose for the size of elected regional assemblies and the balance between constituency and top-up members. We believe voters will be able to take an informed decision on the basis of the policy we have set out.
We believe that the Boundary Committee should conduct local government reviews before a referendum is held in a region because there are many possible options that the committee could recommend. It could recommend a wholly unitary structure for current two-tier areas based on counties, districts or something different. In this case, the review needs to be carried out before any referendum so that voters know the basics before voting. They will already know the basic proposals with regard to electoral arrangements.
Requiring the Electoral Commission to provide advice on that before the referendum will simply distract from the main issues at the referendum. We believe that the proper time to seek advice on electoral areas is once people have voted for the establishment of a regional assembly. That is why, as currently drafted, the requirement applies only for regions where the Secretary of State proposes to establish an elected assembly, following a referendum held under Clause 1.
622
Amendment No. 131 would mean that a direction to the Electoral Commission to provide advice on electoral areas and total number of assembly members could not be varied. It is standard practice to include such a provision in an Act with regard to direction-making powers. It is a sensible approach so as to cater, for example, for unforeseen circumstances or indeed if it is necessary to give the Electoral Commission more time to make its recommendation on a review. That is precedented by a similar provision in Section 26(6) of the Local Government Act 1992, which relates to directions made in relation to structural review. Another example is Section 48(7) of the Local Government Act 2000.
Amendment No. 132 would mean that the Electoral Commission was not required to submit its advice given under a direction under Clause 19 within less than a year of being given the direction. We would, of course, discuss our proposals for the timetable for the preparation and submission of advice with the Electoral Commission before finalising it. Twelve months appears to be a rather arbitrary period, and we see no merit in putting that on the face of the Bill.
Of course, in giving a direction, we would be obliged to consider how long it would be sensible to give the Electoral Commission, taking into account that those who are interested must be given adequate opportunity to comment on the subject matter of the advice and any draft advice. With that explanation, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord has gone through about the next five amendments. Was that his intention? I moved only Amendment No. 127 and spoke to Amendment No. 131. He has referred to Amendments Nos. 130, 132, 135 and, I believe, 137.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I apologise to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may return to the amendments in question—that is, Amendments Nos. 127 and 131. The noble Lord will not be surprised to hear that I do not accept the explanation that he gave some minutes ago before he went on to talk about all the other amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 128:
Page 11, line 6, at end insert—
"( ) the balance of representation for rural and urban areas"
The noble Baroness said: It just proves that the Ministers are not listening to the arguments. They do not even wait for the arguments now; they simply press straight on with the answers. In order to put the question to the answer given by the noble Lord—I do not know what he will say in response to it—I now move Amendment No. 128 and shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 133 and 134.
Amendment No. 128 seeks to add an extra area on which the Electoral Commission should advise the Secretary of State—that is, the matter of establishing a balanced representation for rural and urban areas. The one theme that I have taken from the Government throughout the proceedings in another place and throughout those in this House thus far is that, frankly, the rural areas can go hang. There is no protection for them anywhere in the Bill. There is no protection in the soundings issue, and there is none in the way that the voting will be counted. There is no attempt to build in protection for the rural areas.
At the same time as considering where the electoral areas should fall, it is essential to bear in mind the need to ensure that the rural voice is not drowned out by a more populous metropolitan neighbour. There is a real risk that, unless a specific effort is made when designing the boundaries, rural voters will find themselves in the minority with important countryside issues overlooked while urban issues are prioritised.
Few people live in the countryside and therefore few votes are to be gained from tackling rural matters. Where there is any conflict of interest—for example, in greenbelt planning—the rural viewpoint will always be a secondary issue. Rural voters will feel alienated and cut off, unable to relate to the very people who are supposed to represent them. Even if they are active in voting in a referendum, they can easily be outnumbered by those in urban areas.
To avoid that, there should be an explicit commitment on the face of the Bill to protect the rights of the rural voter by requiring the Electoral Commission to establish a balance so that the rural communities have a guaranteed voice. Amendment No. 133 would provide more detail of the areas to which the Electoral Commission should pay attention when deciding upon the best boundaries for electoral areas. Specifically they should respect the historical nature of county and county borough councils.
The Bill currently puts no value whatever on maintaining the existing pattern of county councils. These are institutions to which people feel a strong allegiance. With the extensive disruptions and reorganisations that establishing a regional assembly will entail, surely there is every reason to stick as closely as possible to current arrangements.
Regional assemblies would be better off with this amendment as people would be happier to accept and work with a system that is familiar rather than one that is foreign and where there may be considerable cost as adjustment occurs with no particular benefit.
Can the Minister guarantee—he did not do so in his answer just now—that arranging the electoral areas will not simply be a process of change for change's sake? Amendment No. 134 would remove from the list of what the Electoral Commission should have regard to when making its recommendations guidance given by the Secretary of State.
Surely the Electoral Commission is directed towards achieving certain goals in the creation of electoral areas, paying attention to the importance of reflecting
624
the identities and interests of local communities as one such goal and attempting to create electoral areas with similar numbers of people as another. Hence, Clause 21 does a good job with its paragraphs (a) and (b).
However, paragraph (c) is more problematic. What is the point of bringing in the Electoral Commission at all if the Secretary of State, first, sets strict guidelines as to what its recommendations should be and, secondly, may then choose to ignore the advice that it gives? Surely the point of bringing in the Electoral Commission to carry out that important function is to bring in experts who can dedicate time and energy to deciding the best possible boundaries for electoral areas. That would be undermined if the Secretary of State has fixed ideas of how electoral areas should look and bypasses the advice of the Electoral Commission by making a judgment in advance as to what its conclusions should be.
Throughout the Bill the Liberal Democrats have tabled similar amendments about identities and communities of interest. I hope that they will see something positive in some of the amendments in this group. It is bad enough that the Secretary of State is able to take or leave the Electoral Commission's advice if he pleases, but worse still if he can place rigid limits on the final recommendations. I beg to move.
1.15 a.m.
Lord Greaves: This is a curious part of the Bill, particularly Clause 19 which is headed,
"Advice of the Electoral Commission".
It details advice that the Electoral Commission would be expected to give about the electoral areas, the number of such areas, the names and so on. Yet here we have a clause that makes an assumption about what the electoral system will be without setting out what it will be. It is based on the assumption set out in the White Paper that the electoral system will be a form of the additional member system, with first-past-the-post constituencies and a top-up list across the whole region. I understand that the proposal is to provide at least a degree of proportionality. although perhaps not much. However, it does not state that but simply makes the assumption.
That is yet another example of where the Bill puts the cart before the horse. It assumes that when Parliament legislates to set up regional assemblies it will choose such an electoral system. The Government may want Parliament to choose that, but I am sure that we shall have vigorous debates in the two Houses about the electoral system. Some people may want the first-past-the-post system—there are dinosaurs everywhere—but there may also be those who want a more sophisticated and effective form of proportional representation such as the single transferable vote, which may be suggested from these Benches.
I make the point that the situation in front of the Committee is based on assumptions that may not be true. It seems extraordinary to legislate in detail for an electoral system that is not even named or described in the Bill; it is just implied in various clauses.

625
If the noble Baroness will forgive me saying so, her amendments are a little strange. She asks for a balance of representation for rural and urban areas. I do not know what that means. Does it mean that rural areas, regardless of the number of electors, have to have as many seats as urban areas, or does it mean that the boundaries of the areas have to be drawn so that some of them are distinctly rural constituencies? In trying to make sense of that, those are the only two conclusions that I can draw. Clearly, the balance of representation for different areas has to depend on the number of people living in each area. If rural areas are a minority in a particular region, that may be unfortunate, but a fact of life. One cannot fiddle an electoral system in favour of certain areas as opposed to others.
It is worth remembering that, according to the Government's proposals, we are talking of constituencies that may be as large as two or three parliamentary constituencies. If the whole of the North West has 30 or 35 members, or the whole of the North East has 25 members, they would make enormous constituencies. How one balances representation for rural and urban areas in those circumstances I am unsure. With respect to the noble Baroness, that is silly.
Amendment No. 133 is even more odd. It states that,
"in particular, the importance of preserving the historic identity of county and county borough councils".
I do not know whether the noble Baroness is talking about the historic counties. lf, at any time, she would like to come to our part of the world I will take her to the main road between Colne and Skipton where one goes through two sets of county boundaries. There are the present county boundaries of Lancashire one way and North Yorkshire the other, and then there are the historic county boundaries which say West Riding of Yorkshire one way and Historic County of Lancashire Palatine the other. They are a few miles apart.
Some people get very worked up about historic county boundaries—for example, the campaign for real Yorkshire and so on. They have no relevance to modern local government. My recollection of county borough councils is that they were abolished in 1973. In 1974 they went out of existence. The City of Leeds no doubt was a county borough council at the time as were places such as Burnley, Blackburn, Blackpool and Preston in Lancashire. It is a nonsense to try to maintain their integrity as wholes in the middle of the present Lancashire. With the greatest respect, I do not think that these amendments have been thought out.
Lord Rooker: For the avoidance of any doubt or confusion, I shall speak only to Amendments Nos. 128, 133 and 134, as indeed did my noble friend in the previous debate only refer to the three amendments which were tabled relevant to that debate, contrary to what the noble Baroness said. She is confused and not my noble friend.
Baroness Blatch: If the noble Lord reads Hansard he will know that the noble Lord mentioned at least Amendment No. 132 and I am not sure that he did not
626
also mention Amendment No. 135. He definitely mentioned Amendment No. 132 and we have not reached it yet.
Lord Rooker: We can check in Hansard for what my noble friend said. Our advice is that he spoke to the relevant amendments. Anyway, I just make clear that those are the three I shall deal with, which are the three referred to by the noble Baroness.
Amendment No. 128 would mean that the Secretary of State could seek the commission's advice on the balance of representation for rural and urban areas if he thought that appropriate.
I agree with the noble Baroness that it is important to ensure that all parts of the region are represented in the assembly. We realise that if we were simply to require all electoral areas to have a broadly equal number of electors, a rural area would have to be much larger than an urban area. That could make it difficult for the assembly member to represent the needs of the whole area.
However, the interests of rural communities—and it is paramount to make sure that they are not snuffed out—can be taken into account by the commission. The Bill does not require the Electoral Commission to give advice regardless. So there is no question that the commission cannot look at the special issues involved.
Clause 21 specifically outlines what the Electoral Commission must have particular regard to when exercising its functions under Part 3; in other words, when preparing its advice. Alongside the need to secure so far as practicable electoral areas with similar numbers of electors is the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities. Such communities, by definition, can be rural communities.
Furthermore, the requirement to take into account the need to secure electoral areas with similar numbers of electors is qualified by the requirement to take account of special geographic considerations. As is well known, there is one constituency in the country which is extremely small. One could not extend it because the sea is in the way one way and the mountains the other. I refer to the constituency of Copeland of my right honourable friend Jack Cunningham. I do not know the size of the electorate, but it is quite small. However, its geographical considerations are such that it would be impractical and unfair to have a wider area simply because of the mountains and the sea.
So, as the Explanatory Notes say, this issue is designed to address problems that could arise if no regard were paid to the fact that an area is sparsely populated. Paragraph 71 is worth quoting. It states:
"For an electoral area to have a similar number of electors to an urban electoral area in the same region, the rural area would need to be much larger. This could make it more difficult for its assembly member to represent the needs of the whole area. So in such a case, the need for effective representation … could outweigh the need for similarity in numbers … between areas".
So the amendment is unnecessary.

627
Amendment No. 133 would add in another matter to which the commission must have regard:
"the importance of preserving the historic identity of county and county borough councils".
I shall not labour the point which has been made that county boroughs do not exist. However, I understand the thrust behind the amendment: our attachment to our history and geography—our heritage, if you like. People are sensitive about that—none more so than elected representatives at either council or parliamentary level when the name of their ward or constituency must be chosen.
One always wants to preserve historic links—not because of a dewy-eyed view; they are an important part of our heritage. That tradition extends just as much to urban as to rural areas. I take second place to no one in making clear that we attach great importance to it.
Clause 21(a) already requires the Electoral Commission to have regard, in particular, to the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities. In formulating its advice, the commission will have regard to local government boundaries. It will also consider the extent to which communities identify with their county and with more local geographical areas. As I said, the amendment refers to county boroughs, but the clause's provisions will ensure that that history and sense of identity will be continued.
It may be worth putting on record that if as a result of any local government re-organisation a county council as an administrative unit is reorganised, that will not mean abolishing the counties. We will continue to promote county identities. The Government will make changes to the definition of "county" for the purposes of sheriffs and lord-lieutenants, so that counties continue to reflect the ceremonial and traditional arrangements that exist today. As in previous reorganisations of local government, we shall also consider the establishment of charter trustees to ensure that our historic towns and cities, if affected by structural change, retain their privileges and historic identity. That is fundamental.
I may as well put on record that in any change to local government arrangements as a result of a local government review, we foresee no effect on the role of the Lord Lieutenant or High Sheriff. If there is a boundary change between two county areas as a result of a local government review, the area represented may change to reflect that.
Turning to Amendment No. 134, Clause 21(c) requires the Electoral Commission to have regard to guidance issued by the Government when preparing and submitting its advice on electoral areas and total numbers of assembly members of elected regional assemblies. It is entirely proper that it should.
We are not seeking to interfere with the commission's independence. The preparation of advice will be for it. All that it will be required to do is to have particular regard, among other relevant matters, to guidance issued by the Secretary of State. The power to give guidance does not mean that the
628
Secretary of State will be able to dictate the advice that he receives—I make that absolutely clear. It will only be among the whole gamut of relevant factors to which it must have particular regard.
Just as in local government reviews, it is important that the Boundary Committee should have regard to the Secretary of State's guidance, so should the Electoral Commission, when giving guidance to the Secretary of State for purposes in connection with the establishment of assemblies. It is clearly right that, when preparing its advice, the Commission should have an indication of what we consider to be important factors affecting the composition and total number of members of an elected assembly.
I shall not be drawn down the road of discussing particular systems, but the single transferable vote has no legs. One day the Liberal Democrats will have to wake up to that. I favour proportional representation—I converted many years ago—but if they are serious about PR, they will have to dump STV. The same applies to the Electoral Reform Society. It does not have a prayer. For a start, it sets party member against party member to fight the seats, as is the case in Ireland. It destroys the historic link of constituency or ward boundaries with single members.
There is no perfect system. The best that we have come up with is the additional member system (AMS), which we have used in this country. Under that system we at least get constituency representatives. I know that we get a top-up, but it can be manipulated in various ways. I am putting a case that goes well beyond my remit.
Lord Greaves: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I am provoked. Did he say that the top-up system could be manipulated? It was an interesting remark. Will be be prepared to retract his statement about STV having no legs in future when, as is highly likely, it is adopted in Scottish local government within the next few years?
1.30 a.m.
Lord Rooker: "Manipulated" was probably a bad choice of word. There is flexibility in how to achieve the top-up members. There are several routes. Let us not forget that this county imposed the AMS system in post-war Germany. It has worked reasonably successfully there. I do not think that STV has any legs. We will not make any progress on PR in this country while the Liberal Democrats stick to STV.
Baroness Hamwee: For how long would the Minister speak on the subject if he were intending to do so?
Lord Rooker: That is the problem—for much too long. I hope that I have responded to the noble Baroness's three amendments to her satisfaction.
Baroness Blatch: I wish to reflect on the helpful comments made in the middle of the discussion. At least the noble Lord's heart is in the right place, as he expressed some empathy at least with the aim of my amendments. I am grateful for that.

629
I do not wish to enter into the details of the spat between the Labour and Liberal Democrat Front Benches about proportional representation, except to say that in European elections there are no constituencies. In my region we simply vote for eight people. The parties then decide who the top-up members shall be.
One of our concerns about rural areas is that regional assemblies will have so few members representing very large areas—from 2.5 million in one part of the country to 8 million in another. There will be 25 to 35 assembly members. ft is possible that rural areas will be seriously under-represented by top-up members. All the political action is much more likely to take place in urban and suburban areas, so we are concerned about the protection of rural areas.
The noble Lord has given me something to think about and a lot to read. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 129 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 130:
Page 11, line 8, at end insert "and shall specify how many members of the assembly not directly elected by an electoral area are to be appointed"
The noble Baroness said: This amendment would provide that when the Secretary of State gives the direction to the Electoral Commission, it may include not only a maximum or minimum number of electoral areas, but detail on how many members of the future assembly would be appointed. Surely it is important that the Electoral Commission has that information prior to making its recommendations in order to achieve a fuller picture of the nature of the planned assemblies.
As there are to be two types of members of regional assemblies—elected and appointed—presumably each shall perform a slightly different role. It makes sense to provide the Electoral Commission with a breakdown of how the Secretary of State intends those roles to develop. The Electoral Commission could then consider that information when making its recommendations. We know that the issue is causing huge tension in Scotland. A member with a constituency has a fixed point of reference, whereas a top-up member floats around on the edge looking for a role. It would be helpful to have the matter sorted out before the Electoral Commission has to make its recommendations. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: The noble Baroness refers to the issue of top-up members in Scotland. I accept that the system is new to this country. I hope that, over time, it can be moulded. We can make an electoral system do what we want it to do, and it is all right to do that. For example, we could write it into the rules that top-up members could not stand for election in a direct constituency within, say, 10 years. That would stop them undermining the constituency members, as is alleged in Scotland, where top-up Members with no constituency are free to try to undermine constituency
630
Members. There are all kinds of things that can be done to prevent such difficulties and make the system run as well as possible.
The objective of the exercise is to make representation broadly comparable to the votes cast by the electorate. "First-past-the-post" does not do that, which is why there are no Conservative Members of Parliament in Scotland. However, the Conservatives are well represented in the Scottish Parliament because of the additional member system. It is the same in Wales. It is important that a major area of political opinion is not snuffed out, as it would be under "first past the post". That is what has happened in Scotland and Wales in the national Parliament but not in the devolved parliaments. There are several ways of overcoming such difficulties. I shall not refer to any more details of the electoral system, but we are in that part of the Bill, and it is important.
Amendment No. 130 would mean that a direction to the Electoral Commission would have to specify how many members of the assembly not elected by electoral area were to be appointed. The amendment would unhelpfully constrain the Electoral Commission's flexibility to offer advice on electoral matters. In our White Paper, we indicated that there would be 25 to 35 elected members for each assembly and that the proportion of regional list members would be around a third of the total number of seats. The Government might want to specify only a range for the total number of members and the number of electoral areas and give the commission the necessary scope to tweak the balance between the list members and the constituency members to reflect the electoral geography of the areas that make sense for the region concerned. The composition would be tailor-made for the region.
The amendment would tie the commission's hands and prevent it from advising the Secretary of State as to the best detailed balance between constituency and top-up members. We should not second-guess the commission's work, so I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment. The issue can be revisited not only in the context of other parts of this Bill but when the orders are being made and the main legislation is being considered. If it were important to specify to the commission how many list members there would be, it could be done indirectly under Clause 19(4). That subsection would enable the direction to specify the total number of members and the total number of electoral areas, with the number of list members being the difference between the two.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation, but I am not sure that it satisfies in every sense. I referred to the Scottish example, and I believe that there are real tensions up there. A Member of another place said that there were local councillors, MEPs, national MPs, directly elected MSPs and top-up MSPs and that they were all running around looking for a role. They include some of the people who thought that, if we added to that list elected Members of this House, people would wonder what they were doing.

631
In England, we are doing something similar: it will produce people with a constituency of between 250,000 and 500,000 electors. One person will represent over 250,000 people. There is no way that one person can relate to all the problems and concerns that a constituency of that magnitude may have. Then we would have the top-up members. In a region with 8 million people, there will be a few top-up members for all those people. We do not even know what the balance between the two will be. It would be helpful to know, ahead of the game, what the split will be. How many constituencies will there be? How many electors per constituency will there be? How many top-up members will there be?
We are not going to get those answers at this stage, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 131 not moved.]
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Preparation and submission of advice]:
[Amendment No. 132 not moved.]
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Electoral Commission exercise of functions]:
[Amendments Nos. 133 and 134 not moved.]
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Payments to Electoral Commission]:
[Amendment No. 134A not moved.]
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Funding for regional chambers]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 135:
Page 12. line 23. after "the" insert "regional planning"
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 136. Again, it is a great pity that we are discussing the amendment at this stage, because it is important. Amendment No. 135 states that the money provided in the form of a grant to regional assemblies should be used for regional planning. The amendment challenges the Government to make clear precisely what powers will be devolved from central government to regional assemblies. If these powers stretch only as far as planning—and the Government have yet to convince us otherwise—then it is only right that money should be made available for this purpose. If there are other areas where regional assemblies will gain powers from Westminster, then they should be identified in the Bill. Consequently, grant money could also be used for that purpose. It seems altogether wrong for regional assemblies to be provided with an indefinite sum from central government, with no corresponding breakdown of what its duties are likely to be.
Amendment No. 136 refers to the making of grants, following the discharge of regional assembly functions relating to spatial planning. The amendment seeks a guarantee that whenever a grant is made to a regional assembly, it is done by order, so that there is at least a chance for parliamentary scrutiny. It is only proper
632
that such grants are considered by Parliament, so that there is an opportunity to analyse the costs of running regional assemblies in relation to the benefits which they bring to the community. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: We have Amendment No. 135A in this group. I want to know if there is any significance in the term "activities", rather than what might more normally be referred to as the "carrying out of functions", or, in the amendment to which the noble Baroness has spoken, the "discharge of functions". "Activities" is a good, straightforward term. I do not object to it, and one must assume that the activities would be intra vires. However, it is not the language to which we are accustomed. It could be that there is nothing sinister in this at all. I hope the Minister can assure me of that.
Lord Rooker: I do not want a play on words about "activities". I do not know what other words in the thesaurus would do. Parliamentary counsel has chosen that word. I do not know if it could have been "functions", but there is obviously a reason for choosing "activities". If there is a special reason, I have no doubt that I will be told. I do not think it should unduly worry the noble Baroness.
Earlier on, I had a good note that was passed to me after I had made some point, and I tucked it away in one of the folders, which I disposed of about half an hour ago. That was on the principle of funding—"no new money, no new powers", and was to remind me to point out that regional assemblies, while having no new powers and no new money, would take over aspects of the Government Offices. When I talked about new money, I meant new function money. There is a great deal of money already going out into the regions via the Government Offices and so forth, and the regional assemblies would take over part of that activity. I wanted to say that, so that I am not accused later on of misleading the House. I meant "no new money, no new powers", but there is existing money and there are existing powers. However, as I said, I disposed of the note because I had tucked it in another folder.
Amendment No. 135 seeks to limit the new grant-making power just to the funding of the chambers' regional planning activities. We do not believe that that is necessary. There is no sensible reason for us to have to pay grant to the chambers under two separate Acts of Parliament. It is much better to have a clear and specific power to pay the grant to the chambers.
Amendment No. 135A seems intended to limit the grant payment to the statutory functions of the regional chambers. However, not all the activities for which we may wish to pay grant are statutory functions; for example, the scrutiny of the regional development agency, which is funded by the chambers' fund, is not arguably a statutory function. It is an activity which the Government have funded under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, but that does not make it statutory. The Regional Development Agencies Act 1988 does not

633
explicitly empower chambers to do anything. It requires the RDA itself, for example, to take into account advice from, and to consult with the chamber.
I understand the motivation behind the amendment, but I do not believe that it works; nor is it necessary or sensible. Clause 23 as it stands sets the right basis for the Government to be able to work to support the chambers financially in their valuable work.
Amendment No. 136 would mean that a grant to the regional chambers in connection with their role as regional planning bodies could be made only by means of an order. But because of Clause 27(1) and (2), that would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in both Houses. That would mean both Houses of Parliament annually debating £6 million of expenditure. That is not a sensible use of Parliament's time. Nor is it an approach followed, for example, in relation to the grant-making powers we are already using under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act.
I do not deny that this is an important clause—any funding of regional chambers will set bells ringing and lights flashing at whatever hour we are sitting and it is important that I am able to satisfy the movers of the amendments that they are not necessary.
Baroness Blatch: I believe that like Topsy these will grow and the sums of money that will flow will increase. The noble Lord said that Clause 27 would have to come under the affirmative resolution procedure. No, it does not. We can make a special arrangement for it. We can bring it in under the negative procedure simply by amending the Bill to achieve that. That is not a strong argument for not accepting Amendment No. 136.
The beginning of Chapter 4 refers to powers and provides that assemblies will be given a range of powers to help them deliver these strategies. They will therefore be a delivery agent of some kind and they will take on some of the functions from Westminster, from government offices, from regional development agencies or other bodies in the region referred to in paragraph 4.2. One must then ask what will happen to government offices. They will remain post the establishment of regional assemblies and so, too, will RDAs. There will be a little spreading around of some of the work, but they will be given powers—the word appears in the summary of Chapter 4 and in the body of the chapter.
We still do not know what powers they will have to determine anything. Therefore, if it serves no other purpose, it is important that if an order has to be made explicit in it will be the sum of money and the purposes for which it is being granted. That is the whole purpose of my Amendments Nos. 135 and 136.
However, I have heard what the noble Lord has said and I shall reflect on it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 135 and 136 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 137:
Page 12, line 24, after "grant" insert "shall be subject to a condition that no part of it shall be used for any purpose in connection with campaigning for or against any question to be put in a referendum pursuant to section 1, or in anticipation of such a referendum and otherwise, and"
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to Amendment No. 137, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 147.
Amendment No. 137 seeks to forbid the use of a grant provided by the Secretary of State to a regional chamber from being used to campaign for a particular outcome in the event of a referendum. It should be clear on the face of the Bill that taxpayers' money should not be used for this purpose. I am sure that we all agree that this is a wasteful use of resources that could be better spent elsewhere—in which case, there is every reason for making this explicit in the Bill.
Amendment No. 147 seeks to exclude payments to regional chambers from the list of bodies described in the Bill as qualifying for money from Parliament. It is a probing amendment which seeks to obtain from the Minister an explanation of why the funding of regional chambers is examined in a Bill which relates to the establishment of regional assemblies. There is already extensive legislation in the 1998 Act which deals with regional chambers. It is not clear for what purpose the issue is brought up again here.
As we have already discussed, it is obviously out of hand for taxpayers' money to be used to fund campaigning in the run-up to a referendum. Can the Minister give a legitimate reason for providing funding from Parliament to these voluntary bodies? Can he give an assurance that this is not a major change in the nature of funding regional chambers which the Government are attempting to slip in without too much notice in the regional assemblies Bill? I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: I hope that I shall be able to satisfy the noble Baroness. As she said, Amendment No. 137 would rule out government grant being used to fund either a "Yes" or a "No" campaign in a referendum by requiring a condition of grant to that effect. This has been a theme from the first hour of our debates three weeks ago. I have made it clear on many occasions that there is a standard condition for the grant which currently goes to regional chambers. It is:
"The accountable body may not use any grant paid under [the] funding agreement 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".
We do not believe that there is any need to have the provisions of Amendment No. 137 on the face of the Bill. Again, if anyone has complaints about the misuse of funds, there is a tried and tested complaints procedure for that purpose.
Amendment No. 147 seeks to amend Clause 28 so that the Secretary of State has no power to pay grants to chambers under Clause 23 from money voted by Parliament. But there is no other source from which

635
the Secretary of State could pay grant if moneys are not voted by Parliament. This is an attempt to undermine policy on decentralisation. It would stop us supporting regional chambers in their work and particularly in their preparation of regional spatial strategies. This approach is unsupportable. It reflects a dislike of anything happening in the regions.
The money has to be used for legitimate purposes which are not part of a fiddle or of political campaigning. We have repeatedly said that. There is no difference between us on this issue, as Ministers in another place have made clear. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that there is no justification for having the provisions of the two amendments on the face of the Bill. The Secretary of State has to get money from somewhere, and he cannot get other than that provided by Parliament.
Baroness Blatch: Other than that provided by the taxpayer to Parliament. That is the only money the Government have to allocate to other bodies.
The Minister referred to spatial planning in the context of regional chambers. My understanding, if Box 4.1 is anything to go by, is that spatial planning will be a function of the regional assemblies, not of the chambers. Is there to be another split responsibility? Will spatial planning be the responsibility of the chambers and the responsibility of the regional assemblies? If so, that will cause huge confusion because it is a particularly controversial area of policy.
Lord Rooker: It has been made clear that they are one and the same thing. We have already debated this. In some areas of the country, regional chambers are already calling themselves "regional assemblies". They are the same bodies.
Baroness Blatch: But when the regional assemblies are established they will not be the same bodies. The regional assemblies will be totally new, with new memberships.
Lord Rooker: I know, but we shall not have the chambers. What is the use of the chambers when we have an elected regional assembly?
Baroness Blatch: We have learnt something else.
Lord Rooker: It is common sense.
Baroness Blatch: It would also be common sense if the RDAs, the Government Offices, the learning skills councils and some of the other bodies mentioned earlier in the debate were removed, so that the regional assemblies had a function in the region.
Lord Rooker: No, we need to look at the basics. Not all the functions of the Government Offices are being, as it were, transferred to the regional assemblies. There will still be a role for the Government Offices of the Regions. They will be slimmed down, it is true, because some staff will move over to the regional assembly.
636
That is why we say that there is a gross cost and a net cost of setting up an assembly. We have given a figure for what we estimate to be part of the net savings—I believe it is £5 million—on the transfer of staff. But there will still be a role for the Government Offices of the Regions and for other government departments whose functions and activities are not part of the regional assembly. The Home Office is a good example.
Baroness Blatch: I hope the Minister will forgive me, but the debate that has been held by the Government throughout this process has been about bringing democracy to those bodies that are out in the regions. Most will still be there post the establishment of regional assemblies. We have just heard of one that will not be; namely, the planning chambers. But the Government Offices, the learning and skills councils, the sector skills councils and the regional development agencies will continue to operate in the regions, at some cost to central government. Regional assemblies will be superimposed upon them. This is not what the Government have argued for as the rationale for introducing regional assemblies.
The Minister keeps repeating his point about there being no more money in the regions. The regional assemblies will have precepting powers. If they are to substitute for the chambers, they will not only have government grant but powers to precept on the other local authorities in the region. So they will have more money. They will have new powers. They are not even established bodies yet. Once they are established, they will be given powers, and those powers will be new. They will come from somewhere. As the noble Lord has said, some will come from national government, and some will come from the regional bodies in the area.
What we have been attempting to tease out of all these debates is what will be left. Will it be a minor sharing of some of the things that the Government Offices and the RDAs presently do and all of the things that the regional chambers do? We are merely trying to make sense of what this creature will be when it is up and running. The noble Lord's answer to most of our questions has been: "Wait and see. All will be revealed". But the whole point of passing a Bill in Parliament is to understand what we are legislating for. At this stage, we simply do not know. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Enactment establishing assemblies immaterial]:
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 138:
Page 12. leave out line 36 and insert—
"This Act shall not come into force until there is an enactment conferring"
The noble Baroness said: Clause 24 enables the Secretary of State to use powers set out in this Bill once it has been enacted, regardless of whether legislation exists enabling him to establish elected regional assemblies. This seems inadvisable and to some extent

637
illogical. A regional assemblies Bill might never make it to Royal Assent, yet the powers conferred by this preparations Bill would still be able to be exercised. It is for that reason that we challenge the inclusion of Clause 24.
Amendment No. 138 gives an alternative version. The implication of this Bill, as we all know, is that people will be asked to decide in a referendum whether they want an elected regional assembly for their region, but the powers of the assembly will not have been defined by statute. I shall not delay the Committee long: we believe that the information in the White Paper is not a sufficient basis on which to hold a referendum. The amendment proposes that the wording of Clause 24 should be amended to say that the Act,
"shall not come into force until there is an enactment conferring",
power on the Secretary of State to establish elected regional assemblies. Amendment No. 139 makes a consequential amendment to Clause 25.
Amendment No. 140 is more of a probing amendment than anything else. Why should Parts 2 and 4 not be subject to the same two-month commencement rule as the other parts of the Bill? This is more evidence of the Government's intention to rush on as quickly as possible.
Previously in Committee, my noble friend Lady Blatch gave the Minister a run for his money about the Government's timetable for the initiation of the Boundary Committee's reviews and the eventual establishment of regional assemblies. We now have that on record. All I ask here is to be given some explanation about why Parts 2 and 4 are treated differently regarding commencement. I beg to move.
2 a.m.
Baroness Hamwee: I wish through Amendment No. 140A to probe further into Clause 25 than the noble Baroness has done. It provides that the preceding provisions of the Bill—those contained in Clauses 1 to 24—come into force at a certain time, except Parts 2 and 4. Why is there a distinction? What has happened to Clause 26 onwards? Those provisions contain some pretty important provisions but do not appear to be covered. When will the provisions to which Clause 25(1) does not apply come into force?
I have examined other pieces of legislation to see what they say about commencement. Where provisions are to come into effect on the date the Bill is enacted, it normally says so. My researches were not extensive. It was a question of what I had on the shelf at the time. However, I could not find an example of the matter being left entirely open. Perhaps the style of parliamentary drafting is changing. I would be grateful for clarification.
Lord Rooker: I shall try and cover all the amendments. I am in some difficulty, because there is a new clause floating around. My noble friend Lord Evans is checking on it for me.
638
Amendment No. 138 would prevent anything being done under the Act until legislation was in place enabling the regional assemblies to be established. In that case, we do not really need this Act of Parliament, do we? The amendment would turn things upside down. It would delay the process of setting up elected assemblies in regions that want them. I presume that that is the plan. We want to give people the opportunity to have an assembly if they want one and to give them that choice during this Parliament. That is what we are pledged to do.
I recognise the issue about people voting for or against establishing an assembly before the legislation to do so is enacted. I understand the constant theme throughout our debates. This is because people allegedly would not know enough about the functions, but it is not as though we have not had the White Paper. We have set out our proposals and will base the legislation on the White Paper. There is work to be done, such as the Boundary Committee's recommendations, and so on. I realise that.
Parliamentary time is in short supply, so it makes no sense to use it to examine and enact a substantive Bill before we know that people in at least one region want to establish an elected assembly. The legislation will not be brought forward until there is a satisfactory yes vote in a region. It is exactly the same two-stage process we used in London, Scotland and Wales, so there is nothing novel about it.
Amendment No. 139 would prevent this Bill being enacted before the Act setting out the powers and constitutional arrangements was in force. The amendment would severely delay the process of setting up the assemblies.
Once we have received the Boundary Committee's recommendations for local government in the region, we will publish a short statement of our proposals. It will be a summary of what the assemblies will do, how they will work and our proposals for local government reorganisation, so that when people vote they will know the implications of their vote. That is a two-stage process that we have used before, quite satisfactorily. There is no complaint to be made in logic or fundamental principle about this two-stage process. If people did not vote in the referendums, there would not have been the legislation, and valuable parliamentary time would have been used for something unsatisfactory. It would not make sense.
Amendment No. 140 would prevent Parts 2 and 4 from commencing on Royal Assent. Part 2 relates to local government reviews and Part 4 to the new power for funding the existing regional chambers. The purpose of commencing these parts early is to prevent unnecessary delay in starting local government reviews and to ensure that a suitable mechanism for funding the regional planning responsibilities of the regional chambers is up and running as soon as possible. That is the purpose of the different commencement times.
Amendment No. 140A relates to Clause 25(1), which means that Parts 1, 3 and 5 of the Bill come into force two months after Royal Assent. The amendment would mean that those parts of the Bill came into force

639
as soon as the Bill received Royal Assent. There is obviously a keenness for referendums. Clause 25 allows Parts 2 and 4 to come into force on Royal Assent, which the amendment would prevent. The purpose of commencing these parts early is to prevent unnecessary delays, as I said. We have heard arguments that local government reviews should take place after the referendums are held, but we believe it essential that the local government reviews are carried out before the referendum. Unless the reviews are completed before the referendum, people voting in the referendum will be unaware of the implication of voting. We must put that clearly—a good story is worth repeating, because I obviously did not get it across earlier. People need to know what they are voting for, and it is our job to ensure that they have all the necessary information.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked why Clauses 26 onwards were not referred to. We do not need to do that because, without explicitly referring to them, they come into force on Royal Assent. That is probably part of some legislation elsewhere, dealing with the passage of Bills into Acts.
Clause 25(1) refers to "preceding provisions", while subsection (2) derogates from the rule in subsection (1), since Parts 2 and 4 precede Clause 25 and need to come into effect immediately. That is a long-winded way of making a separate case for a special commencement date for Parts 2 and 4.
There is no ulterior motive in having different dates for different parts. We simply want to ensure that different organisations gel. Some can keep going, but others we need legislation for. As regards the funding of the existing regional chambers, we do not want any hiatus or black hole between one organisation coming to an end and the new one starting.
Baroness Hamwee: The Minister seemed to start by saying that Clauses 26 onwards—he referred to Parts 1, 3 and 5—would come into force at the end of the period of two months. Later, he said that Clause 26 onwards will come into force on Royal Assent. I do not think it appropriate to detain the Committee now. However, if I am correct that there have been conflicts in what has been said, perhaps we can correspond on it later.
Lord Rooker: If there is any doubt about the chronology I would be happy to write to the noble Baroness and other noble Lords. However, I think that I have it right because I actually stuck to the notes. It is probably the way in which the amendments are drafted and have been considered. I would be happy to write to set the record straight.
Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for his reply. I think that we are discussing the issue at this very late stage because of the problems associated with having the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill before we have the details of the regional assemblies Bill. We
640
have been seeking to get that information throughout the course of this rather protracted Committee stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Commencement]:
[Amendments Nos. 139 to 140A not moved.]
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Regions]:
[Amendments Nos. 141 to 143 not moved.]
Clause 27 [Orders and regulations]:
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 144:
Page 13, line 11, after "order" insert ", a direction"
The noble Baroness said: I shall be as quick as I can for this, the last gasp. These amendments are important in principle and I should appreciate a moment of the Minister's time to explain my reasoning.
Amendment No. 144 would include directions on matters that would have to be exercised by statutory instrument. The Secretary of State has significant scope for issuing directions under the Bill as drafted. Directions are not subject to any kind of parliamentary scrutiny, as we discussed earlier. Amendment No. 144 would impose a degree of control and ensure that any directions given have passed under the watchful eye of Parliament. This is not intended to cause trouble. One would hope that, in most cases, the process will be straightforward and the directions laid before Parliament and summarily approved—merely a matter of procedure rather than anything else. It is important to have safeguards, especially when it is unclear how the directions for referendums will work.
Amendments Nos. 145 and 146 are probing amendments. Amendment No. 145 challenges the flexibility that Clause 27(3) provides. This subsection contains a limited Henry VIII power to make consequential, incidental, supplementary, repealing or revoking enactments. The Minister may argue that this approach was used in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, but we would like to hear from him why this subsection is deemed necessary. It appears to allow a greater freedom to the Secretary of State than is perhaps advisable.
Amendment No. 146 relates to the "hybridity" mentioned in subsection (4). The relation between orders made under Part 1 of the Bill and those made under Section 129(1) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, the resulting hybridity and the practical effect of subsection (4) are perhaps obvious to the Minister but they are not quite so clear to me. I would welcome a final bit of illumination for this evening. I beg to move.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: Amendment No. 144 would mean that any direction-making powers under this Bill, including those to amend or revoke directions, would have to be exercised by statutory instrument. The basic direction-making powers under the Bill are the power to direct the Boundary

641
Committee to carry out a local government review in a region, and the power to direct the Electoral Commission to provide advice on electoral matters. It is not normal practice for directions to be made by statutory instrument. The power under the Local Government Act 1992 for the Secretary of State to direct the Local Government Commission to carry out structural reviews was not required to be exercised by statutory instrument. Nor indeed were the powers in the GLA (Referendums) Act 1998 which are analogous to those found in Part 3 of this Bill. We fully intend to publish any direction made under this Bill and to deposit copies in the House Libraries.
Of course, under Clause 15, the Secretary of State can only implement the recommendations of the Boundary Committee by order. And that order-making power would, under Clause 27, only be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. A similar situation applies to directions given to the Electoral Commission under Part 3 of this Bill. We would not be able to act on its advice regarding electoral matters until the Bill enabling elected regional assemblies to be established is enacted. And that subsequent legislation would, of course, be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny. When the Delegated Powers Committee scrutinised the Bill last month it raised no objections to the existing provisions in this area. In the light of that explanation I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw Amendment No. 144.
I now turn to Amendment No. 145, which seeks to remove subsection (3) from Clause 27. Clause 27(3) enables an order or regulations to contain such consequential, incidental, supplementary or transitional provision or savings as the person making the order or regulations thinks appropriate. The wording used is similar to that found in Section 156(5) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 and loosely follows the approach in Part 2 of the Local Government Act 1992. I can assure the Committee that there is nothing sinister about this provision.
A number of consequential amendments to other Acts to take account of the existence of a Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003 are set out in the schedule to Clause 15. However, the nature and extent of some other consequential or supplementary requirements, including the necessary legislative amendments, may not become apparent until after the Bill is enacted. For example, it is not possible to foresee, ahead of receiving recommendations from local government reviews, what changes to legislation may be necessary to give effect to recommendations and orders for local government reorganisation. And of course any such provision would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny under the affirmative resolution procedure by virtue of Clause 27(2). All of this was made clear to the Delegated Powers Committee last month. It raised no objections to this
642
provision and of course it very carefully scrutinises this sort of provision. Again, I hope that in the light of my explanation the noble Baroness will withdraw Amendment No. 145.
I now turn to Amendment No. 146. This amendment seeks to delete subsection (5)(c) of Clause 27. This amendment would mean that if an order made under Section 129(1) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 for the purposes of our referendums were hybrid, it would be subject to the procedure for making hybrid instruments. As the Committee is aware, the hybrid procedure is complex and time-consuming. I believe that it would not be justified in this instance. Let me explain. We intend to apply the same provisions to all referendums on establishing a regional assembly, subject to the possibility of general change over time as new voting methods are established.
That might seem to indicate that applying subsection (4) to conduct orders is unnecessary because hybridity—by definition—could occur only if we had at least one order making different provisions for different regions.
However, this subsection is needed for certainty reasons. Regional referendums will not all take place at the same time. It may be several years before some regions become interested in a referendum. We cannot predict what a conduct order might look like in five or 10 years' time or how parliamentary conventions and other circumstances might have changed.
The question of hybridity is a difficult one to judge. I have explained the circumstances in which it could arise within the context of this Bill. I hope that Members of the Committee now see that there is nothing sinister in our intent, but rather that we are seeking practical measures to tackle issues that may arise some way in the future. That was made clear to the Delegated Powers Committee last month. and it raised no objection to the provision either.
With that explanation—a long and complicated one very early in the morning—I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister. I am really glad that I asked all those questions. I shall enjoy reading the answer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 145 and 146 not moved.]
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 [Expenditure]:
[Amendment No. 147 not moved.]
Clause 28 agreed to.
Remaining clause and schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past two o'clock.

  China: Aid
  China: Aid
  Cayman Islands Attorney-General
  Cayman Islands Attorney-General
  Prisoners: Resettlement
  Prisoners: Resettlement
  Corruption Bill
  Corruption Bill
  Immigration Officers: Checking Validity of Passports
  Immigration Officers: Checking Validity of Passports
  OGC: Design of Public Buildings
  OGC: Design of Public Buildings
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Indices of Deprivation
  Indices of Deprivation
  Unitary Structures of Local Government
  Unitary Structures of Local Government
  US Customs: Airline Passenger Information
  US Customs: Airline Passenger Information
  Ram Doctrine
  Ram Doctrine
  Army Manpower Requirement
  Army Manpower Requirement
  Iraq: War Correspondents
  Iraq: War Correspondents
  Brazil: Poultry Meat Imports to UK
  Brazil: Poultry Meat Imports to UK
  Brazil: UK Exports
  Brazil: UK Exports
  ESPHCA Council, 6 March
  ESPHCA Council, 6 March
  University Admissions
  University Admissions
  Calthorpe Clinic, Edgbaston
  Calthorpe Clinic, Edgbaston
  Food Supplements
  Food Supplements
  Works of Art: Government Indemnity Scheme
  Works of Art: Government Indemnity Scheme
  Northern Ireland: LMC Levy
  Northern Ireland: LMC Levy
  Intelligence Services Commissioner
  Intelligence Services Commissioner