Sitting of 30 June 2004

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

    Grammar Schools
    Sir Teddy Taylor: How many representations he has received about the future of grammar schools in Northern Ireland. [180480]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Barry Gardiner): As at 10.30 this morning, there were 65.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the Government reconsider their decision to abolish academic selection for grammar schools, given that it is clear that the majority are opposed to the change and that Northern Ireland has such an excellent educational record? Is it not genuinely strange for a Labour Government to introduce a scheme that will deprive able children from working-class homes of the opportunity to break through the system, and to replace it with a system of class segregation whereby wealthy people in wealthy areas will get the best education, while poor children living in poor areas will be stuck where they are? Does the Minister agree that a Labour Government should think again about that, because it is not fair and not right?
    Mr. Gardiner: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's focus on children, because in the ongoing debate we often look at structures instead of standards and children's needs. I remind him, though, that two thirds of respondents to the Northern Ireland household survey clearly stated that they wanted an end to the 11-plus, or secondary transfer test, and a similar proportion said that they wanted some form of academic selection. I am surprised that we sometimes understand the word "selection" to mean segregation, because it is not. Children can be set appropriately in maths, French or history; but what on earth makes us think that because one is good at maths, one has to be good at history and French, too, or that because one is bad at one of those subjects, one is bad at all the others? There is no need to segregate children at the age of 11.
    Mr. Brian Jenkins: Does my hon. Friend share my sense of disappointment that the question has not been answered by the Minister who made the decision on selection in the Northern Ireland Assembly, to which he is accountable under the watchful eye of the people of Northern Ireland? Does this snapshot of education in Northern Ireland misunderstand the complicated situation there?
    Mr. Gardiner: Of course it would be better were these decisions taken by the Northern Ireland Assembly, but my hon. Friend will understand that the post-primary review was inaugurated by that Assembly, and in that sense we are carrying on its work.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: It has been clearly shown that our education system in Northern Ireland is socially inclusive, that a higher percentage of pupils gain university places than elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and that standards of achievement in our secondary schools continue to improve. Will the Minister therefore tell the House why he seeks to destroy our grammar school system? The proposals were rejected by a majority of respondents in the widest consultation ever to take place in Northern Ireland. Why has no alternative to the existing transfer procedure been proposed; and why is the Minister helping to wreck an education system that has proved successful for all the people of Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Gardiner: We are not trying to do away with or abolish the grammar school system; that is clear. The hon. Gentleman focuses on the good things that the Northern Ireland education system has achieved, and he is right to do so. I pay tribute—as, no doubt, would he—to the teachers, students and parents who have contributed to those achievements. As he will know, however, 21 per cent. of all children in Northern Ireland leave secondary education without a single qualification at GCSE grades A to C, and 24 per cent. of young people aged 18 to 25 have no literacy or numeracy at skills level 2. That is why we need the entitlement framework and the proposals made by the post-primary working group.
    Mr. David Lidington: The Minister has voted in the past for parents in England to have a ballot before academic selection was ended in their locality. Why will not he allow a similar ballot to parents in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, you will forgive our incredulity at the Tories' posing as the great protectors of the grammar school. Mrs. Thatcher closed more grammar schools than any other Secretary of State for Education. When will they learn that standards, not structures, matter in education? They do not care about grammar schools. Even now, they propose to take £1 billion out of our schools, including grammar schools, to pay for—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I must have shorter questions and shorter replies.
    Mr. Lidington: The Minister was clearly embarrassed by his inability to justify the double standards that the Government apply to their policy on grammar schools

    267
    in England and Northern Ireland. He made a great deal of the 11-plus and his objections to it. Why will not the Government consider seriously the alternative models of academic selection that the grammar school head teachers propose and which operate in countries such as Germany, which have academic selection without the 11-plus?
    Mr. Gardiner: We are listening to all the proposals because we are in the consultation period. However, I emphasise that the review was initiated in the Assembly and that the household survey was subject to the widest consultation in Northern Ireland. We are determined to push the proposals because they originated from the will of the people of Northern Ireland.
    Ian Lucas: Will my hon. Friend make clear the comments of the Costello report about the educational benefits of the 11-plus?
    Mr. Gardiner: Yes. I would welcome doing that. The report made it clear that there were no educational benefits to segregating children into academic and vocational routes at the age of 11. It also pointed out that it was wrong to presume that more able pupils should always follow an academic rather than a vocational route.

    Pension Payments
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Whether an equality assessment was made of the impact of the decision not to pay double pensions through the Post Office bank account in Northern Ireland for 12 July. [180481]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Spellar)Customers paid by direct payment have their accounts credited on the last banking day prior to the holiday in all cases.
    As that arrangement did not change with the introduction of the Post Office card account, there was no requirement to conduct an equality impact assessment.
    Direct payments due to credit accounts on 12 or 13 July 2004 will be credited on 9 July.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I am amazed by that answer, because postmasters and others have been in touch with me about the impact of the decision and the misleading guidance of the Bank of England, which states that 12 July must be viewed as a local holiday whereas 17 March and the Scottish day at the beginning of the year are also local holidays. Is it not passing strange that the Bank of England, which owes its existence to the Williamite revolution, targets us for commemorating it?
    Mr. Spellar: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that brief historical journey. However, on pensioner benefits, those who were due to be paid on 12 and 13 July, which is a local bank holiday, as he rightly says, will be credited on 9 July. They will therefore get their money slightly early.

    Asylum Seekers
    Lady Hermon: What alternatives to HMP Maghaberry have been identified by the Department as appropriate accommodation for asylum seekers in Northern Ireland. [180482]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ian Pearson): Currently, 140 people are supported by the National Asylum Support Service in Northern Ireland. A total of 14 immigrant detainees are currently accommodated by the Prison Service. One is temporarily in Maghaberry, three are in Hydebank Wood and 10 are in hostel-type accommodation adjacent to the old Crumlin Road jail. All 14 have been offered the option of being held in a detention centre in Great Britain.
    Lady Hermon: I am grateful for that detailed response but I remain unhappy and concerned about the conditions in which asylum seekers are kept at various locations in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister please facilitate a visit by me and representatives of various Churches to all the locations where asylum seekers are currently held?
    Mr. Pearson: I would certainly be very happy to facilitate the visits that the hon. Lady requests. She will be interested to know that the Law Centre and Amnesty International have viewed the accommodation at the outworking centre by the Crumlin Road jail, and said that it is far more suitable than the accommodation at Maghaberry prison. I hope that she will take some reassurance from that.

    Paramilitary-style Assaults
    Mr Adrian Bailey: What efforts he is making to eradicate paramilitary-style assaults on the civilian population of Northern Ireland. [180483]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ian Pearson): The police are doing all that they can to bring those responsible for these vicious assaults to justice, but it is not solely the responsibility of the Government to seek to bring these attacks to an end; it requires the support of the whole community. We continue to call on those with influence over the paramilitary groups to demand a complete cessation of these barbaric acts.
    Mr. Bailey: I thank the Minister for his reply. The first report of the Independent Monitoring Commission stressed that everyone in Northern Ireland with a community responsibility had a duty to do everything in their power to end these attacks. Will my hon. Friend tell us what progress has been made on that front?
    Mr. Pearson: The Government are engaging with politicians and community leaders at all levels in an attempt to bring these barbaric acts to an end. In addition, the policy of community policing is being vigorously taken forward, the better to integrate police on the beat with their local communities and to build support and trust within those communities. It is

    269
    important that we continue to do all this work with the police acting on the ground at community level and with the Government engaging with political and community leaders. We are quite clear that all paramilitary activity must cease, and that must be the clear objective of the intensive discussions that will take place in September.
    Lembit Öpik: One paramilitary-style assault that led to a conviction for murder was the killing by two Scots Guardsmen, Mark Wright and James Fisher, of Peter McBride in 1992. Is the Minister aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather), together with The Irish World and other media outlets, has sought to highlight the findings of the independent assessor for military complaints procedure, Jim McDonald, who criticised the readmission of Wright and Fisher to the armed forces? What assessment has the Minister made of Mr. McDonald's assessment?
    Mr. Pearson: I admire the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity in asking that question. I have not yet had a chance to read that report, but this is essentially a matter for the Ministry of Defence, and I shall bring it to that Department's attention.
    Mr. Seamus Mallon: The Minister will be aware that in the past three weeks, two of my constituents were beater almost to death, one by loyalist paramilitary groupings, the other by republican groupings. Does the Minister agree that this type of cudgel policing in parts of Northern Ireland is being used by paramilitary groups to gain a stranglehold? Will the Government again make it clear, along with the Irish Government, that any political grouping that continues to associate with illegal armies has no place in the legitimate political process?
    Mr. Pearson: I agree with my hon. Friend. These paramilitary-style attacks—so-called punishment beatings—are completely unacceptable. I totally reject the term "punishment beatings" which is sometimes used, because it gives a spurious respectability to the activity and hides the level of violence that is taking place in Northern Ireland today. People are being crippled, made limbless or becoming brain damaged as a result of these attacks. They must cease, and we must call on all responsible politicians in Northern Ireland to ensure that that happens.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: The Minister was quite right to stress the importance of policing as a response to paramilitary assaults. However, the number of officers who have left the part-time reserve since June 2000 has been 313, while only 108 have joined. How can he therefore contemplate dispensing with the services of the full-time reserve?
    Mr. Pearson: The Chief Constable will review the issue of the full-time reserve and produce recommendations in the autumn. The policing budget in Northern Ireland this year is some £726 million. I believe that we have a reforming and totally transformed police service in Northern Ireland that is doing an effective job at community level and in tackling paramilitary activity wherever it occurs, and I am sure that it will continue to do so.

    Devolved Government
    Helen Jackson (Sheffield, Hillsborough) (Lab): What recent assessment he has made of the prospects for the reinstatement of devolved government in Northern Ireland. [180484]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy): As the Prime Minister said on Friday, it is time to complete the negotiations with a conclusive agreement or find another way forward. The Prime Minister made it clear that there will be intensive talks in early September. Our position is clear—we need to see an end now to all forms of paramilitary activity, and it is imperative that we restore as soon as possible a stable and inclusive partnership government in Northern Ireland.
    Helen Jackson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. When we were in Northern Ireland recently, it was trade unions, business and community organisations that urged us most strongly towards an early reinstatement of devolution in Northern Ireland. That was not a criticism of him or his fellow Ministers but a desire for an early return to normality. What chance has he had to discuss the issue closely with those organisations, to enable them to make their voices heard?
    Mr. Murphy: My hon. Friend is right. Last week, I talked to the Irish TUC, its general secretary and president, and to the CBI and other business leaders. It is important that civil society in Northern Ireland recognise the accessibility of devolution and local administration. We want a swift end to the present situation of direct rule and the restoration of the Assembly and the Executive. It is also worth reminding the House that all political parties in Northern Ireland also want an end to direct rule and the restoration of devolution as soon as possible.
    Mr. David Trimble: I welcome the fact that the Government are finally planning in the autumn to have a series of intensive discussions, which, unfortunately, are much postponed. Will the Secretary of State make it clear, however, that that is not just yet another target but that it really is a deadline, and that the Government will stick to this—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps we could have some quiet in the Chamber.
    Mr. Trimble: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Secretary of State make it clear that this really is a deadline and not just another disposable target, and that if the deadline is not met, there will be firm action by the Government to make it clear to the parties that have been dragging their feet over the past couple of years that the Government will move on, close down the Assembly and put in place alternative arrangements?
    Mr. Murphy: I understand that there are other attractions besides me in the Chamber this morning. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that both the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach said on Friday that these talks in September must decide the issues that

    271
    are in front of us. We cannot go on for ever in this way. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson), who said rightly that there is an appetite for devolution in Northern Ireland to return, we understand the issues that must be dealt with when we return in September. The right hon. Gentleman is right that we must decide them then.
    Mr. Stephen Pound: As one whose head feels even more naked than usual today, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he was as intrigued as I was to read in this morning's paper that the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) has stated that the Democratic Unionist party will enter into talks with Sinn Fein towards a devolved government when Tim Henman wins the men's singles at Wimbledon? May I ask my right hon. Friend, whose skills and abilities are widely respected in this House, whether he can offer us any hope that this happy event may come about? While we are cheered that at least the DUP is talking about talking about talks, we may, at the end of the day, yet again be cheated by the Swiss.
    Mr. Murphy: I have always believed that international involvement in the Northern Ireland peace process is important, but that is a rather roundabout way of getting to it.
    As my hon. Friend says, the parties must engage with each other in the talks. I believe that the DUP is serious in wanting an end to direct rule and the restoration of the Assembly and the Executive; but like other parties in Northern Ireland, it wants an end to paramilitary activity first.

    Decommissioning
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: What recent progress has been made on the decommissioning of illegally held weapons and explosives.[180486]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ian Pearson): There have been four acts of decommissioning to date. The latest act occurred on 21 October 2003, when the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning reported that it had witnessed a third event in which IRA weapons were put beyond use.
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: I accept that there have been four such acts, but does the Minister accept that, although the last was slightly larger than the previous three, they have been only token acts of decommissioning? If Sinn Fein/IRA are serious about democracy and wanting to share power in Northern Ireland, they will have to decommission considerably more arms and make those decommissioning acts more meaningful. Is it not about time that the Government took this more seriously, and pressed Sinn Fein really, genuinely, to decommission its weapons?
    Mr. Pearson: We are taking these matters seriously. It is important not to lose sight of the fact that three acts of decommissioning by the Provisional IRA have taken place. That was the start of the process, and the hon. Gentleman is right in the sense that the process must continue until all the apparatus of terrorism in all its
    272
    forms has been dismantled. That is the clear objective of the Government, and it will be the clear objective of the intensive talks that we will hold in September.
    David Burnside: Why should the IRA decommission? The deadline was June 2000. The Government did not stick to the deadline. The Blair promise of action and expulsion was not adhered to. Why should the IRA decommission, when it has a very useful negotiating tool for the next raft of concessions to Sinn Fein/IRA?
    Mr. Pearson: What is important is to recognise that the decommissioning process has started. Certainly we as a Government are not complacent. We want to see an end to all paramilitary activity, we want to see full decommissioning, and we want to see Sinn Fein take its place on the Policing Board. We need to ensure that all the parties are agreed and signed up to this, and that the Provisional IRA and the other terrorist groups all put their weapons beyond use.

    Core Syllabus
    Mr. Graham Allen: Pursuant to his oral answer of 11 February 2004, Official Report, columns 1403–04, on the core syllabus, what advice he has received from the working party on (a) the core syllabus in relation to religious education and (b) ensuring that children understand both Catholic and Protestant versions of Christianity; and if he will make a statement. [180488]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Barry Gardiner): As part of the initial public consultation in September, respondents were given the opportunity to discuss their views further. Those meetings were conducted earlier this month, and views expressed are currently being considered by the working party. I now expect its advice in the autumn.
    Mr. Allen: May I ask Ministers to redouble their efforts to ensure that all children in Northern Ireland, as elsewhere, are given the broadest possible base for both religious and non-religious education in values? Does my hon. Friend agree that the only people who will suffer from less religious bigotry in Northern Ireland schools are the men of violence?
    Mr. Gardiner: I heartily agree. It is of course essential for children from all communities to experience not only the religious traditions of the other side, but the breadth of other faiths and world religions, which we are trying to make part of the curriculum. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There are still a few minutes before Prime Minister's Question Time. May I ask the House to come to order?

    Security Situation
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: If he will make a statement on the current security situation. [180489]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ian Pearson): Dissident republicans remain a threat to the peace process, but for the most part their activities have been thwarted, intercepted or nullified by good policing operations. The latest round of internal feuding between loyalist paramilitary groups ended following the murder of Brian Stewart in east Belfast last month.
    Let us be clear about this: it is time for republican and loyalist paramilitary groups to make a commitment to ending all forms of violence.
    Mr. Bellingham: Although, as the Minister says, the security situation is relatively stable, and as a consequence troop numbers are at their lowest level for a generation, what contingencies does he have for reinforcing troop numbers if that is necessary, especially given the huge overstretch in the armed forces?
    Mr. Pearson: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the recent announcement that two rear-based battalions will be taken from the authority of the General Officer Commanding Northern Ireland and transferred to other functions. Those matters are kept under constant review. The situation is such at the moment that the police have the full backing of the Army as and when they require it. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that will continue to be the case.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Lynne Jones: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 30 June.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.
    Lynne Jones: My right hon. Friend will recall his visit to Birmingham's university hospital trust. Since then, there have been year-on-year improvements in services, with waiting times for in-patients and out-patients now down to seven weeks. We are also getting a new hospital. However, will my right hon. Friend take care not to ape the desire of the Tories to reintroduce the market into public services, particularly when everyone knows that market mechanisms—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementaries are supposed to be short. I call the Prime Minister to answer the question.
    The Prime Minister: I will make sure that we make the health service a place where we can offer the very best quality care on the basis of need and not ability to pay. What my hon. Friend says about waiting lists falling is now true in her area and right throughout the whole country. All the waiting list figures are better, and I am
    274
    sure that the House will be especially interested in the accurate figures for the East Kent Hospitals NHS trust, which show an 81 per cent. reduction in the total outpatients who are waiting 30 weeks or more. The Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS trust shows a 76 per cent. reduction in out-patient waiting. I am sure that that will be particularly welcomed by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who I hope will apologise this week for running down the national health service last week on the basis of wrong information.
    Mr. Michael Howard: Let me deal straight away with the Prime Minister's last point. My constituent was told that she would have to wait 20 months for radiotherapy. It turns out that that was a mistake. She should have been told—[Interruption.] She was told 20 months, but she should have been told 20 weeks, which is five months. If the Prime Minister and the party in government think that a five-month wait for treatment for someone with a life-threatening illness—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the right hon. and learned Gentleman speak—[Interruption.] Order. If an hon. Member defies the Chair, they might have to leave the Chamber. That is the message that I am sending across the Chamber. Do not defy the Chair.
    Mr. Howard: If the Prime Minister and his party think that the fact that someone has to wait five months for treatment for a life-threatening illness is something to boast about, they are even more out of touch with opinion in this country than anyone would have thought. Waiting lists are a British disease; the right to choose is the cure for them.
    Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether he has won his battle against the Chancellor and the Education Secretary to set up 200 academies rather than 50?
    The Prime Minister: Before I deal with city academies, let me first say this to the right hon. and learned Gentleman: I do not want anyone to have to wait for life-saving operations, but I point out that it is under this Government, with our mixture of investment and reform, that waiting lists are tumbling right round the country. His Government could not even meet an 18-month waiting list target.
    We will publish our proposals on city academies next week, but I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will see that there is indeed an expansion of city academy schools. They are of course mixed ability schools that service their local area, and they will give children from some of the most disadvantaged backgrounds the opportunity to get high-quality education. Contrast that with the proposals that he announced yesterday, which are elitist, divisive and reactionary.
    Mr. Howard: Let me make it clear: we welcome academies, which build on the successful Conservative idea of city technology colleges that the Labour party opposed. But the Prime Minister is only giving freedom to up to 200 schools. There are 20,000 state schools. Why cannot they all enjoy the same freedom?
    The Prime Minister: I have to point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that actually, all the schools are getting much greater freedom and the specialist schools have greater freedom, which is one of the reasons why school results are going up. If he is talking about his party's record in education, I welcome this debate. Let me remind him that when he sat in the Conservative Cabinet, year on year, they cut spending per pupil. It is now up £800 a year per pupil since 1997. They had a capital spend of under £700 million; it is now £4.5 billion. They cut the number of teachers; we have raised the number of teachers. And barely half of 11-year-olds were getting the right results in primary school; now, three quarters are doing so. So let us have a debate about the right hon. and learned Gentleman's record and our own.
    Mr. Howard: What the Prime Minister does not understand is that people are not just interested in the money that goes into education; they are interested in the standard of education that their children receive. Under this Government, one in three 11-year-olds cannot read, write or count properly; 1 million children played truant last year; a teacher is attacked every seven minutes of every school day; and the number of parents appealing against the school allocated to their children by the state has gone up by 50 per cent. since 1997.
    The Prime Minister is selecting an elite few schools and favouring them with more money and more freedom. Last night the Minister for School Standards spoke about Labour's vision
    "of empowering our best schools."
    Why should it be only our best schools? Why should Labour be creating a two-tier school system? Why cannot the Prime Minister treat all schools the same? Why cannot freedom be extended to the many. not the few?
    The Prime Minister: I really do welcome this debate. First, let me point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman—again—that actually, all schools are given far greater freedom now than under the previous Conservative Government. [Interruption.] Yes, they are. Secondly, in relation to the difference between us on policy, he is saying that schools should now decide all their admission policy, which would mean a return to selection at the age of 11. That would mean not parents choosing schools, but schools choosing parents. He is combining that with a private school subsidy that would cost, according to his own figures, about £1 billion a year. That would be money going straight out of the state system and into the private sector.
    The truth of the matter is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's policies on health and education are elitist, divisive and reactionary, because at their heart is always this idea that the best one can hope for in public services is to get out of them. It is precisely because we recognise that public services are for the many, not the few, that we are investing in them, improving them and making them fit for all.
    Mr. Howard: No, we are not taking money out of the system. We are putting an extra £15 billion into the system, and if the Prime Minister thinks that that is a cut, he should start attending his own numeracy classes.
    276
    What on earth is the Prime Minister complaining about? Let me remind him and his colleagues that just three months ago he said:
    "choice is crucial to individual empowerment and—by enabling the consumer to move to an alternative provider where dissatisfied—to quality of service."
    He said that the ability to move to an alternative provider is crucial to quality of service. Those were his words, not mine, just three months ago. Why can he not have the courage of his convictions and stand up for what he believes in?
    The truth is that, under his system, a tiny proportion of schools will get more freedom; under ours, they all will. Under his system, successful schools will 'not be allowed to expand; under ours, they will. The freedom that our system brings will drive up standards in all schools and allow teachers to impose discipline in classrooms. Does it not all boil down to this: under our system, every—[Interruption]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I give some elbow room to the Leader of the Opposition, but he really is pushing his luck. I think we will leave it at that.
    The Prime Minister: We do indeed increase choice if we expand the number of good schools. That is the purpose of investing in them and creating specialist schools and city academies—to bring greater diversity into the system. What is not the answer, however, is ending up reintroducing selection at the age of 11 and subsidising private education. As to the £15 billion extra that the right hon. and learned Gentleman says he is going to spend on schools, may I remind him that he went into the Lobby and voted against even the investment that we are putting into our schools system? The idea that it is credible, after all the money that we have invested, for him to come along and say, "Actually, I am going to spend £15 billion more" is, as the Secretary of State for Health has put it, "Laa Laa land". It is another example of the same phenomenon.
    The fact is that where the right hon. and learned Gentleman's policies are coherent, they are reactionary and divisive; and where they are not reactionary and divisive, they are utterly incoherent. That is why I am delighted that, at every Prime Minister's Question Time from now until the election, we will carry on this debate.
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Yesterday the Secretary of State for Health visited Milton Keynes general hospital and saw for himself the extra staff and extra facilities funded by this Government. Of course we would like even more funding to meet the needs of our growing population, but will the Prime Minister assure me that he will never propose to take £1 billion of funding out of the NHS to subsidise private health care for those who can already afford it, as proposed by the Conservative party?
    The Prime Minister: I assure my hon. Friend of that. We will continue to ensure that the health service is provided free at the point of use, and based on need, not the ability to pay. Our investment and reform programme in the national health service is delivering real results. People can see that in constituencies up and down the country. Whatever the attempts of the Conservative party to run down the health service, the

    277
    fact is that many people know that they are getting superb treatment out of the national health service—and we shall continue to deliver it.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Can the Prime Minister confirm that his review of the funding of local government has ruled out replacing the council tax as the principal source of local taxation? Of course, he inherited it from the last Conservative Government, but is he saying that he is ruling out replacing that unfair and deeply unpopular local tax?
    The Prime Minister: No, I am not saying that. It should be an open review, and that is what it is.
    Mr. Kennedy: Will that open review take into account the question whether it is at all fair that the poorest 10 per cent. of people in our country now pay four times as much as a proportion of their income in council tax as the richest 10 per cent. of people? What does that say after seven years of a Labour Government?
    The Prime Minister: What it says, I am afraid, is that we entirely accept that there are problems with the council tax. However, I have to say that there are problems with virtually every system ever introduced for local taxation, and arguments went on under the old rating system, then with the poll tax and now with the council tax.
    Bob Russell: What are you doing about it?
    The Prime Minister: What we are doing is having the review that people asked for and we agreed to provide. We will come forward with the results of that review, once it is concluded. Nothing is ruled out; nothing ruled in. I have to say that, personally, I do not believe that the idea of the local authority taxing people on the basis of their income carries much conviction. The review can look at all the options, but when the right hon. Gentleman goes round the country, as he does, saying that the Liberal Democrats will get rid of the council tax, it is right that he explains to people that it will be replaced by at least 6p on the standard rate of income tax.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: I call Denzil Davies.
    Geraint Davies: How is it that—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not call Geraint Davies; I called Denzil Davies.
    Denzil Davies: Now that sovereignty in Iraq has been transferred from the coalition, would an Iraqi Government be free to acquire, produce or indeed hold weapons of mass destruction, or will the instruments of transfer contain a stipulation to prevent that?
    The Prime Minister: No, and I have absolutely no doubt that the new Iraqi Government, who are working
    278
    extremely well with us, will, if they are allowed to defeat the terrorism that besets them, be an immensely stable partner for the international community and will contribute not to the proliferation but to the reduction of weapons of mass destruction.
    Dr. Evan Harris: The policy of the US Administration not to allow any of their aid funds to be used for the support of HIV prevention programmes involving the use of condoms in AIDS-ravaged Africa is costing tens of thousands of lives and putting pressure on Department for International Development budgets. May I urge the Prime Minister not to be discouraged by his failure to persuade his good friend and ally, George Bush, on Kyoto and Guantanamo and to continue to press the US President to stop that policy for the sake of the African continent, and will he condemn that policy now?
    The Prime Minister: What I will do, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me, is set out the policy of the UK Government. The policy of the UK Government is to increase the amount of help we give for HIV/AIDS; actually, we have ended up trebling the amount of aid we give Africa. I am responsible for UK policy; it is one of which we can be proud. The money and help we are giving Africa is far in excess of anything the Liberal Democrats have ever asked for.
    David Taylor: The Prime Minister has shown this morning why he has a reputation for the effective promotion of the virtues of choice. Can he tell us whether he will be using his powers of persuasion to allow the 6 million United Kingdom citizens who live in local authority housing to have the right to opt to retain their landlord while still having the right to have a decent home by 2010?
    The Prime Minister: We will be bringing forward proposals to try to help local council tenants and housing association tenants to have greater choice over the lettings available to them. I also point out to my hon. Friend that we have doubled—it is somewhere in the region of that—the amount of money going into social housing, which obviously has an impact on those houses, too.
    Mr. Michael Howard: Last week, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff) made some extremely serious allegations in the House about events during the recent elections in Birmingham. He said that
    "regular phone calls were made to the police by people complaining about the pressure that they were being put under … A postman complained to his superiors that the brother of one of the candidates had offered him £500 for his sack of postal votes".
    He quoted a front-page editorial in The Birmingham Post, headed "Bribes, bullies and ballots", which referred to
    "a … councillor 'sorting out' ballot papers in the shadows of a back street car park at midnight".—[Official Report, 22 June 2004; Vol. 422, c. 1232–34.]
    Does the Prime Minister agree that such incidents call into question the integrity of our electoral system, and should not all the mainstream political parties work together to stamp them out?
    The Prime Minister: I do not want to comment on the individual allegations, as I do not know the details, but of course I agree that it is important for all political parties to stamp out corruption or malpractice wherever it exists.
    Mr. Howard: The Electoral Commission has in the past argued that allowing observers to oversee elections would promote the transparency of the democratic process. The chairman of my party has written to the Electoral Commission asking it to appoint observers at the current by-elections in Leicester, South and Birmingham, Hodge Hill. Will the Prime Minister join me in urging the Electoral Commission to respond positively to that request?
    The Prime Minister: I will consult with colleagues and get back to the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the proposal that he has just made—literally, right now. I shall have to investigate its implications and I shall get back to him as soon as possible.
    Mr. John Hume: Given the enormous damage, especially to young people, caused by the illegal drugs industry, does the Prime Minister not think that the time has come when Governments should work together internationally, with the countries where those drugs are produced, to get that industry stopped completely?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and that is precisely what we are doing, not least in countries such as Afghanistan, which are still obviously in danger of developing an economic dependence on drugs, but I agree that international action is one, major part of what we should do, and we are acting on it.

    Hazelwood House, Devon
    Mr. Anthony Steen: If he will make an official visit to Hazelwood House, Kingsbridge, Devon.
    The Prime Minister: I have no current plans to do so.
    Mr. Steen: Although Hazelwood provides reconciliation and hope for the few, there is no hope for the rest of my constituents if they are in pain because there is not one NHS dentist in the whole of south Devon to help them. What can the Prime Minister say to a low-income family from Kingsbridge whose children have teeth problems and cannot afford to go private or a pensioner who has an abscess but nowhere to go for treatment? Is not he, as the Prime Minister, ashamed to preside over a Government who tolerate such neglect of the people?
    The Prime Minister: I agree entirely that there are real problems in relation to dentistry and dentists at the moment—that is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will bring forward proposals on that in the next few weeks—but I hope that the hon. Gentleman would agree with me about the origins of the problem: a 1990 contract for dentistry that was disastrous and, in addition, a massive cut in the
    280
    number of training places for dentists. So although we have been describing some of the real progress that has been made in the national health service, I agree that, in respect of dentistry, there is a lot more to do, but I do not believe that the Conservative party is in any position to criticise.

    Engagements
    John Barrett: Will the Prime Minister tell my constituents how far he thinks it is reasonable for them to walk to their nearest post office?
    The Prime Minister: I obviously do not know the exact details of the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but we are putting between £300 million and £400 million a year into support for post offices. It is true, particularly in urban areas, that closures will take place, but the only way to stop those closures is to provide even greater subsidy and money. I am afraid that we cannot afford to do that, so we will continue to work with the association of sub-postmasters to provide as much help and cover as we possibly can. We set down minimum targets for the distance that people would have to go to a post office. The hon. Gentlemen will know that the reason for closures is that more and more people are putting the money that they get directly into their bank account. As I say, the only answer is an even bigger subsidy, which is not viable. So we are putting in, as I say, between £300 million and £400 million, which is, frankly, the most that we can afford at the moment.
    Mr. Kevin McNamara: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the decision of the United States Supreme Court about the conditions under which prisoners are held at Guantanamo Bay and their entitlement to legal representation to appeal against their conditions. He will also be aware of the statement of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General that the British Government are not satisfied that British detainees at Guantanamo Bay can have a fair trial. In those circumstances, first, to what extent are Her Majesty's Government prepared to help to fund any appeal that may made by British detainees to the Supreme Court to examine their cases and, secondly, will the British Government seek to appear as an amicus curiae before the court to make representations on their behalf?
    The Prime Minister: Our position is that the British detainees should be either tried fairly in accordance with international standards or returned to the UK. We have concluded that the military commissions process does not provide guarantees to the standards that we require. As my hon. Friend will know, five of the detainees were returned to the UK in March. We continue to work to resolve the situation of the remaining four detainees, and discussions with the United States are continuing.
    Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: Following the weekend revelations that the Home Secretary is or was the patron of an anti-vivisectionist society, what comfort can the Prime Minister give to the British scientific community and the hundreds of my constituents who continue to be

    281
    terrorised by animal rights terrorists and who feel that the Government, and specifically the Home Office, are not giving them the protection that they deserve?
    The Prime Minister: First, it is wrong of the hon. Gentleman to run a perfectly fair point with a totally unfair point. The fact is that the Government are doing everything that we possibly can to protect people against what are clear abuses, and we have tightened the law, not loosened it, since we came to office. We are now looking at what we can do further but let me make it absolutely clear that the activities of those who harass and intimidate people engaged in legitimate research are completely unacceptable. It is for that reason that we have, as I say, already tightened the law. We are prepared to do so even further. The hon. Gentleman will know that many of his constituents have been in direct contact with us about this matter.

    Indonesia
    Mr. Win Griffiths: If he will visit Indonesia after the presidential elections there later this year to discuss with the newly-elected President what further support the UK can give for its programme of reform.
    The Prime Minister: I have no current plans to do so, but we look forward to developing a strong bilateral relationship with the Indonesian Government following the presidential elections. We will continue to focus on areas including support for democratic transition, tackling poverty and co-operation on fighting terrorism.
    Mr. Griffiths: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and urge him, whatever the outcome of the presidential elections, to make a quick visit to Indonesia to underline our support for its reform programme of rebuilding democracy, tackling human rights abuses, overcoming international terrorism, healing Muslim-Christian conflicts and strengthening the economy. Does he agree that such a visit would help to rebuild our relations with the Muslim world and encourage British industry to invest in Indonesia and help its economic recovery, which is vital if the reform process is to be a success?
    The Prime Minister: I am sorry that I cannot promise my hon. Friend that I will visit Indonesia in the near future, but I can say that we are in close contact with the Indonesian Government. We continue our work with the consultative group on Indonesia and with the Indonesia-British Business Association. I assure him, especially because of the incoming President, that we believe that there is a real opportunity to make progress in Indonesia on democracy, human rights and trade. Indonesia, as he rightly points out, is an immensely important country in the Muslim world, and how it develops will have a crucial impact on relations between the west and the Muslim world. Even if I am not visiting the country personally, I assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to be closely engaged in its development.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I am sorry that the Prime Minister's busy schedule does not allow him to pencil something in because as Indonesia is the largest Muslim country in the world, now is the time when a visit by a British Prime Minister would be helpful, especially following the inter-faith visit led by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) several years ago. That visit helped, but will the Prime Minister accept that there has been a resurgence of atrocities in which moderate Muslims, as well as Christians, have been murdered by extreme Islamists?
    The Prime Minister: I have to repeat what I said about visiting Indonesia, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important for us to continue to help the country to make progress. It is faced with a difficult situation regarding terrorism and extremism, as are many other countries. It is a tribute to the Indonesian Government and authorities that they are trying to make progress while not imposing undue restrictions on civil liberties. We will continue to work with them to ensure that human rights, democracy and, of course, freedom from terrorism are pursued.

    Engagements
    Ms Oona King: On the subject of antisocial behaviour, does the Prime Minister agree with a survey of Tower Hamlets residents that concluded that the key drivers of antisocial behaviour were lack of parental control and drug misuse, and that the key solutions were more police and youth services? We have had more police appointed, so will he tell us what further improvements might be made and what can be done to alter the Cinderella status of youth services, which are important to the future of our young people?
    The Prime Minister: I hope that we will be able to ensure that our youth services are put on a stable footing in the long term through the comprehensive spending review, because they are immensely important. My hon. Friend will agree that the new measures on antisocial behaviour are also important. It is important for us to continue to ensure that fixed penalty notices are issued for disorderly behaviour, that we close down drugs dealers' houses and that we place antisocial behaviour orders on people who continually abuse the rights of their local communities. We are tightening up the law for those who are on drugs but refuse to have treatment. I only hope that when new measures are brought before the House, we will for once have the support of the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats in taking them forward.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the Prime Minister confirm that in the 1960s the islanders of Diego Garcia were cleared from their island to make way for a military base? In 2000, they won a High Court judgment that established their right to return, but in the past few weeks he has overturned that with an Order in Council because America wants to hang on to the base, perhaps to use it as another Guantanamo Bay. How is any of that compatible with natural justice for the 2,000 islanders

    283
    and their descendents? How can the Prime Minister pursue a shoulder-to-shoulder relationship with George Bush when he seems to spend most of his time on his knees?
    The Prime Minister: First, in respect of Diego Garcia, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary set out the position in a recent statement. Secondly, there is no
    284
    question of using Diego Garcia as another Guantanamo Bay and, thirdly, I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman exhibits his usual lack of judgment in thinking it a bad thing for this country be a key ally of the United States of America. That may be something that the Scottish National party resents, but I think that the vast majority of people in this country realise it is an important part of our security.

NATO Summit/Special EU Council
12.30 pm
The Prime Minister Mr. Tony Blair): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on the NATO summit in Istanbul, and briefly report on the special European Council in Brussels last night.
First, I thank the new NATO Secretary-General, Mr. de Hoop Scheffer, for his chairmanship of the NATO Summit, and President Sezer and Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey for hosting it. I am placing copies of the summit declaration in the Library of the House. We were joined in Istanbul by NATO's seven new members from central Europe. They bring a renewed perspective to the alliance, and their recent history of repression makes their attachment to security, freedom and democracy that much keener. We were also joined by NATO's partners: Russia, Ukraine and others from across stern Europe and central Asia. We endorsed capabilities targets to ensure that we make the best use of NATO forces. We supported the further reform of NATO's structures to adapt the alliance to the new threats that we face. We agreed to end the NATO mission in Bosnia, SFOR, at the end of the year and committed to a successful handover to a European Union force.
The two main issues on the NATO agenda, however, were Iraq and Afghanistan. The summit opened just as the new Iraqi Interim Government assumed full authority and sovereignty in Iraq. Politically, Iraq now has a broad-based and representative Government; a timetable and a process for its first democratic elections; a new constitution guaranteeing basic freedoms and the rule of law; a devolved system of government—almost all towns now have municipal councils and those that have been elected are largely secular; and guaranteed protection of minority rights. That is in place of a dictatorship that brutalised the people and ransacked the country. Economically, Iraq now has an open economy with an independent central bank, a real budgetary process, and a new and stable currency. A start has been made to rebuild Iraq's hugely damaged and underinvested infrastructure—a process that will now continue under the guidance of the new Iraqi Government. That is in place of an economy where a country rich in resources had, under Saddam, 60 per cent. of its population dependent on food vouchers.
Britain can be proud as a country of the part that we, and in particular our magnificent armed forces, played in bringing that about. We express our deep condolences to the family of Fusilier Gordon Gentle and to all those who have lost their lives in that struggle. We should pay tribute, too, to the many British public servants, policemen and women and volunteers, so ably led by David Richmond, the UK special representative, who played a crucial role in helping the Iraqi people to rebuild their lives under difficult and stressful conditions. Her Majesty The Queen has graciously agreed that their extraordinary contribution should be recognised with the award of a special civilian medal.
One overwhelming central challenge, however, remains in Iraq: security. Former Saddam supporters, and increasingly terrorists from outside Iraq linked to al-Qaeda, see progress in Iraq and its potential, and hate all that it represents. They are therefore killing as many
286
innocent people as they can, trying to destroy oil and power supplies and create chaos, so that the path to stability and democracy for Iraq is blocked. At the NATO summit, the Iraqi Government requested NATO's help with the training of the new Iraqi security forces, and NATO agreed it. The crucial task is now to put in place the training, leadership and equipment to give Iraqi police, civil defence and armed forces the capability to take on the terrorists and beat them. The determination of the new Iraqi Government is inspirational, but the challenge, especially around Baghdad, is formidable. None the less, I hope that by the end of July, the Iraqi Government and the multinational force will agree and publish plans to ensure that over time that capability exists. There is simply nothing more important to the stability of Iraq or that of the wider region. Britain, the United States and the rest of the former coalition remain dedicated to helping the Iraqi people in that task.
In addition, NATO as a whole has agreed urgently to consider further proposals to support the nascent Iraqi security institutions in response to Prime Minister Allawi's request.
In respect of Afghanistan, President Karzai gave a typically forceful presentation, both on the progress made in that country over the past two years and on the huge challenges that remain to be overcome. President Karzai explained that more than 5 million Afghans have now registered to vote in the September elections, 3.5 million refugees have returned to Afghanistan, and 3 million girls are in school. Living standards are rising and the economy is growing by 20 per cent. a year. But again, terrorists with the same intent as in Iraq stand in the way.
NATO agreed, therefore, to expand the role of the international security assistance force outside Kabul, with provincial reconstruction teams to help build Afghan force capability. Some of those teams are already set up in the north. The UK is providing two. The next stage will be to establish similar teams in the rest of the country too. In addition, we agreed a package of support for the upcoming elections in Afghanistan, including a role for the NATO response force. Finally on Afghanistan, we now have an agreed process of stability in the command of the international security assistance force for the years ahead. We have offered to provide the UK-led Allied Rapid Reaction Corps, one of NATO's high-readiness headquarters, to lead ISAF in 2006.
The role that NATO is playing in Afghanistan and the new role it is taking on in Iraq reflect the new security challenges that we face. Our adversary is no longer the Soviet Union, but terrorism and unstable states that deal in chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and the possibility of the two coming together. Both Iraq and Afghanistan face the same struggle for democracy and freedom. Both were used as terrorist bases, and both were horrific examples of repression organised and promoted by their Governments while their people were deprived of even the most basic dignity and human rights. Both now have the hope of a new dawn, but are confronted by the remnants of the past they seek to escape.
Let us be quite plain about what is at stake. If we succeed, the Iraqi and Afghan people prosper, their states become valued partners in the international

287
community, and the propaganda of the terrorists—that our purpose is to wage war on or dominate Muslims—is exposed for the evil nonsense it is. Should we fail, those countries would sink back into degradation, threaten their neighbours and the world, and become again a haven for terrorism. The terrorism that we face is not confined now to any one continent, let alone any one country. From Saudi Arabia to the cities of Europe, it is there, active and planning. Since 11 September 2001 in New York we have known its potency. So what now happens in Iraq and Afghanistan affects us here as it does every nation, supportive or not of the actions we have taken.
NATO's focus on these issues shows at least a start to understanding this threat and its implications. But I worry, frankly, that our response is still not sufficient to the scale of the challenge that we face. I repeat what I said at the NATO plenary session: this threat cannot be defeated by security means alone. It also needs us to focus on the causes of it. Progress on the Israeli-Palestinian issue remains a vital strategic necessity, as does the recognition that our ultimate security lies in the spread of our values—freedom, democracy and the rule of law. The more we can assist in the development of these values in the wider middle east, in partnership with reform-minded Governments and people, the better will be our long-term prospects of defeating the threat.
But the battle is here and now in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even for those who passionately disagreed with our decision to go to war, the issues are now clear, the side we should be on without doubt, and the cause manifestly one worth winning. Succeeding in it would be a fitting way to reinvigorate the transatlantic Alliance and heal its divisions.
Finally, on the way back from Istanbul I attended a special European Council. It agreed the Portuguese Prime Minister, Jose Manuel Durao Barroso, as the new Commission President. He is an excellent choice, committed to economic reform, committed to the transatlantic alliance, and committed to a European Union of nation states. It was a good finale to a brilliant Irish presidency of Europe.
Mr. Michael Howard: I join the Prime Minister in welcoming the decision on the new Commission President.
The whole House will, I am sure, wish to join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the bravery of our armed forces in Iraq, and that of our public servants in that country. The House will also be as one in condemning the killing this week of Fusilier Gordon Gentle. He is the 60th British soldier to have lost his life since the start of the war in Iraq. We send our sincere condolences to his family.
May I also join the Prime Minister in welcoming wholeheartedly the transfer of sovereignty in Iraq? We wish the Interim Government well in the challenges that lie ahead. Their first few weeks are clearly vitally important. Could the Prime Minister therefore answer some specific questions on the implications of the handover?
First and foremost, can the Prime Minister update the House on the immediate security situation? Are there now clear rules of engagement for the multinational
288
forces, clear lines of command, and agreement on the precise nature of political control to be exercised by the Interim Government, including control over sensitive operations? Does he envisage any increase in British troop deployment, and is there now any potential for further troop deployment from non-NATO members, including Arab states?
What are the implications of the handover for the ability of the security services in Iraq to purchase arms with which to defend themselves and carry out their responsibilities? What progress has been made so far in training the security services in Iraq? We welcome NATO's decision to offer assistance to the Government of Iraq with the training of its security forces. Can the Prime Minister inform the House of the likely numbers involved, including the UK contribution? Will all the training take place in Iraq? Can he confirm that France has insisted that there should be no NATO flags or insignia on the uniforms of soldiers sent to help Iraq? What is the basis for such an objection, when all countries are now united behind United Nations resolution 1546, when NATO pledged its
"full support for the effective implementation"
of that resolution, and when it was the Iraqi Government themselves who requested the NATO training support?
What are the prospects for an acceleration in reconstruction work in Iraq, with electricity supply, for example, still falling well short of target, and for better employment prospects for the citizens of Iraq? Following the announcement from the Iraqi authorities that Saddam Hussein has now been transferred to the legal custody of Iraq, what is the position of the other prisoners being held in Iraq?
We welcome the ongoing NATO commitment to enlargement. The Prime Minister said this week that
"it makes sense to build up European military capabilities equally available to NATO and to the European Union".
Does that represent his view of the future balance between the military responsibilities of NATO and the EU?
The Prime Minister also referred to the additional troops to be provided to Afghanistan. What, once again, is the UK contribution to be? Can the Prime Minister tell us more about the nature and size of our proposed contribution to the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps, to which he has referred? What are the prospects of finding enough troops to extend peacekeeping in the longer term, including outside Kabul? The Prime Minister wrote on Monday that the challenge for NATO was to come up with the military resources. Does he think that it has met that challenge?
The NATO Secretary-General recently said, with reference to Afghanistan, that it was "simply intolerable" that he was forced to get out his begging bowl as a standard operating procedure. NATO's members, he said, announced political decisions to undertake missions, but then, he said,
"we suddenly find out that nations are not prepared to make available the necessary capabilities".
What lessons can be learned from this? Is not the presence in Afghanistan precisely the kind of operation in which a post-cold war NATO should have come into its own?

289
We welcome the measures announced to enhance the fight against terrorism and on non-proliferation, and also the ongoing review of NATO's capabilities, but does the Prime Minister agree that a step change is necessary in the thinking of NATO members themselves? In particular, the communiqué itself calls for greater willingness and preparedness of nations to provide the resources and capabilities required. What progress does the Prime Minister envisage being made in that area?
Does not the Istanbul summit point not only to the progress NATO has already made in adapting to changed circumstances, but to the huge amount that there is still to do? Does the Prime Minister agree that the future development of NATO as a whole is at a crossroads? Will he do his part in ensuing that having helped to win the cold war, NATO is better equipped to help achieve a lasting peace?
The Prime Minister: I agree entirely with the last part of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, and I am pleased that we are in agreement on that. The truth is that NATO is changing to reflect the new security threat, but as I implied in my statement, I worry that the nature of that threat and the need to gear up to it are not yet sufficiently understood.
I would answer the question on Afghanistan and our response in this way. If NATO is asked for and sends the NATO response force, that would be a significant step change in its attitude to Afghanistan, but I make no secret of the fact that I would have preferred to have a larger number of troops there from the very beginning. That would have been a better thing and we should have done it, and I agree with the remarks of the NATO Secretary-General. Since that time, we have had the Berlin conference that has donated, or put aside, $8 billion-worth of aid for Afghanistan, and we have had the NATO summit, but we want to be under no illusions at all.
The fact is that in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the problem is not complicated to describe, but simple: it is security. Everything else in those two countries would move ahead at speed if the security situation were better. That is precisely what NATO should be able to do. There is still, at least in certain quarters, not the right sense of urgency—willingness would perhaps be putting it the wrong way—in meeting the challenge that we face.
Listening to President Karzai and the new leaders in Iraq is truly inspirational. In such countries they are dealing with problems that we cannot even contemplate, and they are doing so under threat to their personal safety every day, but in the knowledge that the vast majority of their people are on side with them. We should step up to the mark and help them. The summit marks a move forward, but there is more still to do.
Let me deal with some of the other issues that the right hon. and learned Gentleman raised. In respect of Iraq, the rules of engagement remain pretty much the same for the multinational force, as does the chain of command. The thing that has changed is that, in respect of whether to do a particular operation, the political control is with the Iraqi Government. We are there in a supporting role, but there is no question of coalition or British troops or the multinational force being subject to
290
an order to do things that we do not think are right or necessary. The British troops in the south of the country have already undergone something of a change of posture. Already in the south, there are significant numbers of trained Iraqi police and civil defence people who can take on some of these tasks. Some of the councils have already elected local leaders and they are taking charge of political control. Around Baghdad the situation is more difficult, but in time I hope that we can resolve it.
In respect of the supply of arms and their control and purchase, there is a part of the agreement with the new Iraqi Government that deals with that. Basically, they are obviously subject to restrictions in respect of weapons of mass destruction, but in respect of arms supply they are subject to the same rules as other countries. In the short term at least, we will be supplying; the coalition will have to supply the right equipment.
I suspect that the training will be done mainly in Iraq. It is possible for some to be done outside, but I think that the reality is that we would want it done in Iraq. I had not heard the comments about the flags and emblems, but I am sure that the NATO soldiers will be there as NATO soldiers.
On electricity supply and oil, the only problem is the terrorism. That is why the new Iraqi Prime Minister wants to train specialist units of either armed forces or civil defence people who can guard the electricity supply better. In the long term, of course, we are now letting the contracts to build major new power supply and equipment in the whole of Iraq. Those contracts will obviously make a huge difference to the people in Iraq.
Finally, on NATO in the European Union, as we make clear in the European defence document, NATO remains the cornerstone of our security, but as I think we are proving in Bosnia, there can be a role for European defence. I would only point out that it was unanimously agreed at the summit that the relationship between NATO and the EU is important. Specifically, it endorsed the concept of European Union defence as we set it out.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: May I join the Prime Minister and the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) in expressing our sympathies to the family of Fusilier Gordon Gentle, who so tragically lost his life this week in Iraq? Whatever views people in the House and across the country legitimately hold, everybody wishes the handover of power from the occupying forces to the interim Administration every chance of success. The handover is in everybody's interests—not least, of course, those of the Iraqi people themselves.
I want to ask the Prime Minister some specific questions arising from both summits and, indeed, the exchanges that have just taken place. I welcome NATO's agreement to help train Iraqi security forces, but I want to press the Prime Minister further. Given the recent statements from the previous Secretary-General of NATO, Lord Robertson, and the new Secretary-General of NATO about the strain imposed on NATO by its operations in Afghanistan, is the Prime Minister satisfied that NATO can prioritise the training of the

291
Iraqi security forces while maintaining, and if necessary extending, its commitment in Afghanistan? What was the view on that question at the summit?
Where does that decision leave the outstanding consideration for the British Government, namely the possible deployment of 3,000 additional British troops to Iraq? In earlier exchanges on that issue, a number of Liberal Democrat Members made it clear that we do not want to see a significant additional British troop presence outside our existing territorial area of operation and responsibility. When can we expect the Government to announce a decision on a possible significant deployment?
As a result of the handover taking place in Iraq this week, do the Government envisage making public any phased withdrawal of British troops from Iraq, and what is the current status of such considerations? A few moments ago, the Prime Minister referred to the essential political control of the new Administration. If, as a result of the continuing horrible levels of violence, the new Administration decided, for example, that they want to impose martial law, what position would the British Government take on the policing and administration of martial law in Iraq by our forces? Was the Prime Minister's reply to the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) at Prime Minister's questions a tacit acceptance that, given the status of the new Iraqi Government, weapons of mass destruction no longer exist within Iraq?
Was Sudan discussed, either formally or on the margins, at either the European summit or the NATO summit? The Prime Minister did not refer to Sudan in his statement, and it may be that the issue did not arise. What action are the Government taking to get the Government of Sudan to accept responsibility for the horrendous violence occurring within Sudan's borders? Will they move to give urgent aid to the authorities in neighbouring Chad to help deal with the growing refugee crisis as a result of events in Sudan? What more can the UK do to help ensure that the terrible situation in Sudan does not spill over into Chad? Was the matter discussed as a result of the European Union position on placing monitors in that country?
Finally, we wish the new President of the European Commission well and congratulate him on his appointment. We hope that his period in office will be successful both for him personally and for Europe as a whole. Given that that appointment has been agreed, a subsequent consideration is the appointment of the new Commissioners. The Prime Minister would perform a valuable service and, perhaps, put one or two Labour Members out of their misery if he told us when he expects formally to submit the name of the new British Commissioner and who it will be.
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman must wait a little longer in suspense for the answer to his last question. I thank him for his immensely constructive contribution—I do not know whether there is any significance in that. [Laughter.]
On training, NATO has the resources, but they will be stretched. The vital long-term point concerns capability: leaving aside the United States, NATO contains
292
hundreds of thousands of soldiers, but how many of them are operational, and how many of them can actually fight? The Secretary-General of NATO reminded us that—George Robertson often used to say this—we must obtain capability. If, apart from the modest role that we have assigned to it, European defence has one benefit, it is that it allows us to try to get other European countries to focus on defence capability, which sometimes does not match the number of troops on paper.
I cannot say whether we will need more troops in Iraq, but the matter is kept under constant review, and no decision has been taken.
Mr. Kennedy: When?
The Prime Minister: Well, because the matter is under review I cannot say when I might decide or not decide. All I can say is that no decision to send additional troops has been taken.
As for the phased withdrawal of existing troops, when the Iraqi Government and the multinational force publish the plans—I hope that that will occur towards the end of July—we will be able to see a clear plan for the build-up of Iraqi police, civil defence, specialised units and armed forces, and it may be easier at that point to give people a clearer idea of how the need for British troops will diminish We will stay in Iraq for as long as it takes to get the job done. Obviously, the whole purpose of the process is to build up the Iraqi security capability so that we can reduce the necessity for the multinational force.
As I said a moment ago, our forces remain under our command, and martial law in Iraq is the latest hare to be set away in that particular debate. The Iraqi Government obviously want to take tough security measures. The terrorists have killed coalition troops, but the principal victims of terrorism in Iraq are innocent Iraqi civilians. Some reports in the newspapers about the thousands of Iraqis who have died since the conflict began, or even since the conflict ended, seem to suggest that that was a result of the coalition's actions. Of course, some situations in which civilians were killed involved coalition forces, but terrorists, whom coalition forces are trying to stop, are responsible for the vast bulk of the killings in Iraq.
I do not believe that the Iraqi Government want to introduce martial law, but they want to take tough security measures. It is perfectly obvious that one reason for the full transfer of sovereignty is to give responsibility to the Iraqis. One can talk about Iraqi public opinion, because now people can express their views, and, as far as I can make out, the Iraqi people's concern about the multinational force is not that its measures were too tough, but that they were not tough enough.
I spoke to the Secretary-General of the United Nations about Sudan yesterday, and we are doing everything that we can. Colin Powell is currently in Sudan, and we continue to urge the Government of Sudan to co-operate in every possible way. I must get back to the right hon. Gentleman on the help that we are providing for refugees who enter Chad, but we are providing significant support for the Government and the people of the region.
Donald Anderson: The current Secretary-General and his predecessor both called Afghanistan a test case for NATO now that the out-of-area debate is over. When the Foreign Affairs Committee was in Afghanistan last month, it was made clear to us that NATO was failing that test. Apart from the praise for the British contribution to the provincial reconstruction team in Mazar-e-sharif, it was clear that several NATO countries were not delivering on their promises and that even if they did supply troops, they were so surrounded with cautions and reservations that they were unable to do their job effectively.
My right hon. Friend says that 5 million of the electorate have been registered, but that is still less than half the total, and only in the easy areas. Can he truly say that he is satisfied that the other NATO members have recognised the seriousness of the situation—that it is indeed a test case—and that this time they will deliver all that is necessary?
The Prime Minister: The honest answer to my right hon. Friend is that I hope that they do. It is very clear how NATO should develop over the coming years. We made a good start at the NATO summit, but I would describe it as a start and, as yet, no more than that. We need the capability and commitment. As regards Afghanistan, as President Karzai pointed out, the people who are being killed are innocent civilians—in particular, women who want to register to vote, because terrorists have an issue with those women. Two female registration officers were assassinated the other day. I hope that if we get the right report back on the NATO response force, we will deploy that force specifically to help with the election process. There may still be many people to register, but 5 million is an extraordinary achievement for Afghanistan.
Sir Peter Tapsell: At the NATO summit, did the Prime Minister boast, as he has today, of the part that he has played in handing over to a disarmed transitional Iraqi Government a country that he helped to plunge into blood soaked chaos—it is in that state now, and getting much worse than it was under Saddam Hussein—all of which was done in the search for non-existent weapons of mass destruction?
The Prime Minister: First, on WMD, let me remind the hon. Gentleman that Saddam used those against his own citizens. We have already found the remains of about 300,000 people in mass graves in Iraq. One million people died or suffered serious injury as a result of the Iran-Iraq war.
Whatever problems Iraqi people may have with the coalition forces, it is extraordinary to suggest that they would prefer Saddam. The hon. Gentleman says that life was better under Saddam, but that is not their view. Their view is that they have the prospect of making their own lives of better, of having democracy and the rule of law, and of having proper civil rights and civil liberties—but that the terrorists stand in their way. Even people who totally disagreed with the decision to begin the conflict can surely see that there is only one side to be on now—that of the Iraqis, the international community, and the American and British soldiers who are making the place better.
Sir Gerald Kaufman: Taking into account what my right hon. Friend said about the vital necessity of progress on the Israeli-Palestinian issue; taking into account, too, the right of the Palestinian people to democracy and freedom; noting yesterday's ruling by the Israeli courts on the huge damage that is being inflicted on the Palestinians by the present line of the Israeli wall; in the expectation of the ruling by the international court next week on the legality of Israeli wall; and taking into account the continued deaths on both sides, including the deaths of Palestinian and Israeli children, will my right hon. Friend now make his top international priority the pursuit of progress on the road map?
The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend about the importance of that topic; a very large part of my bilateral meeting with President Bush the other day was devoted to it. That is why the Quartet—the United States, Russia, the United Nations and the European Union—is publishing plans for Palestinian security and economic and political reform. In my view, it is essential that when the disengagement plan goes ahead, we are in a position that at least in Gaza and parts of the west bank, the Palestinians have the beginnings of what can be the nucleus of a viable and democratic state.
That is not to say, in any shape or form, that that will be the end of it. There have to be final status negotiations that allow us—based, as we have said before, on the 1967 boundaries—to create a viable Palestinian state. The primary objective that I am working for is to ensure, first, that the disengagement goes ahead, and then that the international community is ready to step into the vacuum that will come about in respect of Gaza and the west bank. I assure my right hon. Friend that I will continue to make this a huge priority for the Government and for our work in the international community.
Sir John Stanley: Is the Prime Minister aware that the failure of significant numbers of NATO members to deliver on their force commitments to Afghanistan not only threatens the credibility of NATO out of area, but seriously threatens the future of stability and democracy in Afghanistan itself? Will the Prime Minister do his utmost, with his Defence and Foreign Secretaries, to persuade the backsliding NATO members to deliver on their force commitments? Several of us who have recently been in Afghanistan believe that unless the security situation is significantly improved—that means boots on the ground—it will be too late.
The Prime Minister: I agree, and it is for precisely that reason that we insisted that Afghanistan should form the major part of the discussions that we had at the NATO summit. The strategic importance of succeeding there is absolutely obvious. We have taken important decisions, particularly on the deployment of the response force. I hope that we will manage to get that force to support the elections, because that will make a difference. The next few months will be a real test of NATO's commitment.
David Winnick: Arising from what my right hon. Friend said about the rule of law

295
earlier today and in his statement, did he take the opportunity over the weekend to tell President Bush directly that what is being proposed for the British detainees in Guantanamo Bay is simply unacceptable, and that the patience of both Houses of the British Parliament is wearing rather thin? Does President Bush understand the feelings expressed on this issue by those of us who certainly have no time for terrorism, and never will have?
The Prime Minister: It is precisely for that reason that we have been in discussion with the United States over a period of months, and that is why five of the detainees are back. We continue to discuss the fate of the remaining four, although it is important that if we do have them back here we are able to guarantee the security of our own people.
Mr. Robert Jackson: The Prime Minister deserves congratulations on reaching this milestone in Iraq, but I want to ask him about France. Over the past month, the French have blocked the appointment of an excellent British Commissioner to the presidency of the Commission on grounds that imply that we would be permanently excluded from appointments to that position. They have impeded the NATO deployment for training purposes in Iraq, and they are preventing the adequate deployment of NATO forces in Afghanistan. Like the Prime Minister, I count myself as a Francophile, but does he share my concern about what those events may tell us about France's reliability as an international partner?
The Prime Minister: Earlier today I resisted the temptation to speak for American policy, and I think that I am even less qualified to speak for French policy in this regard. All I can say is that we will continue to work with France and with other countries. We secured agreement in Istanbul, eventually, and we will continue to work with France and other countries to ensure that we fulfil our obligations to people. There will be disagreements from time to time, I am afraid, but we just have to try to overcome them.
Jeremy Corbyn: Was the use of Diego Garcia discussed at either summit that the Prime Minister attended? Why, on 10 June, was an Order in Council issued that prevents the Chagossian people from returning not only to Diego Garcia but to the outer islands from which they were so scandalously taken in the early 1970s? They won their legal right of return in a court order in Britain in 2000 against which the Foreign Office did not appeal.
The Prime Minister: The reasons are those set out in a statement on 10 June. Diego Garcia was not discussed at either summit that I attended. However, I point out that it is an important base for this country's security. Of course, it is important to take account of the rights of the people there, but I hope that my hon. Friend understands that Diego Garcia has played a vital part in the security of this country over the years.
Tom Brake: Does the Prime Minister support the BBC World Service
296
proposal to establish an Arabic satellite TV channel that could present an alternative view to that of al-Jazeera? Does he believe that that would help to defuse tension in the region?
The Prime Minister: There is some merit in the proposal, but a cost comes with it. We must therefore ensure that it can be done within budget. It is interesting that the new Iraqi Prime Minister, President and Government are now given a somewhat fairer wind than hitherto even in parts of the Arab media. Having an Iraqi face explaining what is happening there and the need for our action makes a tremendous difference. I have had some discussions about the BBC World Service's proposal and there may be something in it, but the budgetary issues must be resolved.
Ann Clwyd: The coalition and the Iraqis should be congratulated on capturing most of the most-wanted members of the former regime. The trials will start and charges will be made against them. Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who have lingering doubts about the morality of toppling the regime, such as the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell) and the bishops who have written to my right hon. Friend, remained silent over the past 25 years when Saddam Hussein executed, tortured and ethnically cleansed his own people? Does he also agree that, if we are considering morality, they should feel the same moral outrage as anybody who stood at the side of a mass grave containing hundreds of thousands of people?
The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and thank her again for her immensely courageous and important work.
Mr. Andrew Mackay (Bracknell) (Con): Returning to the comments of the Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley), I underline that those of us who went to Afghanistan and saw President Karzai, many of his Ministers and the commanders of the international security assistance force, left with a clear impression that unless NATO acted quickly we would have a disaster on our hands. Does the Prime Minister appreciate that there is little time, given the approaching elections? Clearly, he is not satisfied by the backsliding of some of his NATO colleagues. What more will he, the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary do in the next few days to ensure that there are more troops in Afghanistan? They are desperately needed.
The Prime Minister: We will continue to put pressure on our NATO partners to ensure that there is no backsliding on the commitments that have been given. The Secretary-General is entirely seized of that view. At the bilateral meeting with President Bush, Afghanistan was as much a topic of the conversation as Iraq. The test will be the deployment of the response force. The Government will want it and there is no reason why it should not go. I accept that the situation is urgent because the elections will take place in September. There has been a tremendous boost to registration—according to President Karzai, about 100,000 people a day are

297
being registered. However, if they cannot vote properly without fear and intimidation, the elections will not count. I therefore agree that the position is urgent.
Tony Lloyd: Let me continue on the theme of Afghanistan. My right hon. Friend is entitled to exempt himself from the following criticism, but one of the worrying features of Kosovo and Afghanistan is that the world moves on quickly and loses interest in completing the job. It is vital, for reasons that my right hon. Friend has already mentioned, that we properly finish the job of reconstruction in Afghanistan, for both that country and the signals that that will convey elsewhere. Will he speculate on American reaction to the failure of NATO allies to play a proper role? The Americans have the opportunity to walk away from NATO.
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend's point is correct. The NATO alliance depends on strong American commitment and people should recognise how vital that is. The Americans have some 17,000 troops in Afghanistan, where the strategy is to put provincial reconstruction teams in the north and west of the country. Problems with various private militias exist there, but none the less the Afghan force capability can be built up reasonably successfully. We have been doing that at Mazar-e-Sharif. The real problem is therefore in the south, where pockets of the Taliban and al-Qaeda exist. That requires a fighting force, which the Americans are providing.
The American contribution is vital to the security of our world. I have always said that the danger is not that the Americans exert their power, but that they could pull up the drawbridge and tell us to get on with our business. We need the Americans. The most powerful contributions at the NATO summit are by the east European countries, which are now democracies and know well the value of the transatlantic alliance.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: Will the Prime Minister share the evidence for the increasing role of foreign terrorists in Iraq? Can he provide a sense of the number of attacks—which involve launching lethal weapons at coalition forces—that come from non-Iraqis?
The Prime Minister: There is no scientific answer to that. The view of the Iraqi Government and leaders is that outside terrorists are increasingly responsible and that, in particular, al-Zarqawi, who is part of the al-Qaeda network, has a big role. Former Saddam elements have access to the weapons that were there in Saddam's time and they join in that action. However, the Iraqi Foreign Minister and Defence Minister, to whom I spoke, said that they believed that they needed to reach out to Sunni elements, and even former Ba'ath people, who could perhaps be brought into some arrangement in the new Iraq and who had all sorts of issues with the coalition that would not apply to an Iraqi Government. Increasingly, they believe that the real problem is outside terrorists using the country as a base for their activities. As I said, I have no scientific basis for that, but that is their strong view and they live there.
Joan Ruddock: My right hon. Friend has today recognised the continuing
298
violence against women in Afghanistan. Given that only one third of those registered for the election are women, may I endorse the calls for extra NATO troops to be sent as soon as possible, not only for September? Will my right hon. Friend use his best endeavours to ensure that all Departments of the UK Government pay specific attention to the needs of women in both Afghanistan and Iraq in the preparation for democratic elections?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is one of the reasons for ensuring that we continue our support. In Afghanistan and Iraq, women now play a part in the political process. My hon. Friend is right that fewer women than men are registering to vote in Afghanistan, but President Karzai told me that, in some provinces, the numbers of women are significantly up. It is worth reflecting that, a few years ago, women were effectively unable to play any proper part in the political process in Afghanistan or Iraq.
Mr. Simon Thomas: Will the Prime Minister concede that the battle is not only in Iraq and Afghanistan but in Gaza and the west bank? Does he acknowledge the moral authority and right of the Palestinian people to sovereignty? As the Israeli armoured bulldozers and tanks demolish civilian properties, especially in Gaza, what specific steps is he taking now to ensure that the Israeli Government are brought to book on those illegal, collective punishments of a civilian population? Will he give an undertaking to take action so that we can at least try to break the cycle of violence that is currently so destructive in Israel and Palestine?
The Prime Minister: I agree that the Palestinians have the right to a sovereign, independent and viable state, and we are committed to that. I also agree that we must reduce the cycle of violence. However, that depends on both sides—innocent Israeli civilians die in terrorist attacks as well. It is important to recognise that the single biggest obstacle to political progress at the moment is the absence of a proper security infrastructure that allows us to be able to say definitively that the Palestinian Authority are doing what is necessary and what they are able to do to stop the terrorism, so that a political process can begin. It is necessary to have empowered Palestinian Ministers who are able to take those decisions.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Might not the new Iraqi Government wish to avoid a rush to rip-off forms of privatisation at knock-down prices, as occurred in Russia following the fall of communism? Will the British Government act to ensure that undue pressure is not brought to bear on Iraq by the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the US to reach that position?
The Prime Minister: It is important that Iraq should take a step-by-step approach to an open economy. The Iraqi Ministers are well aware of that, and are proceeding with care. It is worth pointing out that Mr. Bremer, when he was head of the coalition authority, specifically made it clear that he thought that there were

299
limits to how fast Iraq could be opened up to the private sector. The point made by my hon. Friend is well in the minds of Iraqi Ministers.
Mr. John Randall: At Defence questions, the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, the right hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), said that the United Kingdom would not be supporting the aspirations of Macedonia to join NATO. Will the Prime Minister tell us why that is the case, and whether any applications for new membership were discussed at Istanbul?
The Prime Minister: There has been a meeting between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and the Macedonians. It is important to assess whether people can meet the relevant criteria. There was some discussion of new members at the NATO summit, and I am sure that NATO will continue to expand. I understand the issues that the Macedonians feel strongly about in relation to future membership, but they have to be matched against our criteria.
Mr. Andrew Miller: I know that my right hon. Friend will join me in wishing every success and a safe return to my constituents who are currently serving with the Cheshire Regiment in Iraq. On NATO training, is it our intention to play our part in that equation, and will we be offering the resources at Shrivenham and the wonderful royal college of defence studies to that retraining effort? [Interruption.]
The Prime Minister: I am not quite sure whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence was agreeing to the last part of that question.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Yes.
The Prime Minister: I congratulate the Cheshire Regiment on all that it has done in Iraq and, yes, we shall certainly play our full part in ensuring that the Iraqi forces are properly trained.
Richard Younger-Ross: Could the Prime Minister expand on the future of Iraqi detainees? In the light of his letter to the Intelligence and Security Committee, could he also tell us when British intelligence became aware of the abuse of detainees by Americans? He says in his letter that the concerns of the staff were passed on to the US authorities, but can he tell us when they were passed on, when the intelligence officers became aware of them, at what level the US Government were advised of them, and what response we received in reply?
The Prime Minister: I cannot recall off-hand the exact time when those concerns were passed on, or in what form they were passed on. However, I would like to point out that in respect of ourselves and, to be fair, in respect of the Americans, the allegations covered by the Red Cross had already been the subject of investigation and prosecution long before this became a public issue. So far as we are concerned, every complaint has been
300
investigated and, where prosecutions should result, they are resulting. The Red Cross said recently, in relation to those whom we were detaining, that we were making sure that they were treated properly. Everybody from the President of the United States downwards has condemned without equivocation or hesitation the mistreatment of people at Abu Ghraib prison. It is precisely for that reason that people are now being prosecuted.
David Cairns: The day after the Afghan conflict began, my right hon. Friend said from the Dispatch Box that dealing with the Afghan opium poppy trade was one of the key aims of the conflict. I welcome the additional troops that have been pledged, but is it not the case that, unless NATO alters its terms of engagement in Afghanistan specifically to include counter-narcotics activity—however that might be defined—we shall continue to see the increases in the poppy yield that we have seen over the past two years, which will inevitably mean cheaper and more readily available heroin on Britain's streets?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and this is an issue that we have consistently raised. President Karzai's view is that the Afghans have to develop their own capability in regard to this issue. Part of our discussion was about how NATO could assist in that. His view is that the situation is changing, in the sense that people now know the risks for the stability of the country involved in becoming some kind of narco-economy. It is fair to say that there have been some successes in eradication, but for a long time under the Taliban this trade provided a main source of income for them. It would certainly help if this became part of the NATO tasks, but we shall have to continue to have that debate.
Hugh Robertson: The former Iraqi governing council estimated that Saddam Hussein and his immediate entourage enriched themselves to the tune of $10 billion as a result of institutional corruption during the oil-for-food programme. That money is now being used to fund the insurgency against our troops and the new Iraqi Government. What discussions did the Prime Minister have with other leaders about this issue during the summit, and what specific steps are his Government taking to support calls for a full, independent inquiry that must, necessarily, be independent of the United Nations?
The Prime Minister: We have raised the issue, and we continue to look at the best way of ensuring that we get a proper account of what took place under the oil-for-food programme. I am not yet in a position to say what the right way forward will be, but this has formed part of the discussions that we have had with the United Nations, too. The issue was not specifically discussed at the NATO summit, but it is part of the discussions that we have with our partners in Iraq and, obviously, with the new Iraqi Government. One thing that will happen under the new Iraqi Government is that there will be a great uncovering of what took place, and it will be very educative to allow people to see just how much corruption there was inside Iraq and to see the links

301
between what happened inside Iraq and outside. I hope and believe that some interesting things will emerge from that.
Kevin Brennan: Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that many of us who sincerely opposed the military action now equally sincerely wish success to the new Government it Iraq, and not just because the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister of the new Iraqi Government spent some of their exile in Cardiff? Is it not the responsibility of us all to put aside whatever stance we took, either in favour of the war or against it, so as to help that Government to succeed? Does that not apply with even greater urgency to our partners in NATO?
The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and I agree with him. An interesting question for people to reflect on is why outside terrorists and al-Qaeda people are trying to get into Iraq and to stop the Iraqis succeeding. It is because they know very well that if the Iraqis succeed, they will fail. Their primary targets now are not the coalition forces—although they will kill members of the coalition forces when they can—but innocent Iraqi people. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend: whatever view people took of the conflict, this is a fight that we can all support. That is why NATO should realise that, whatever divisions there were among the NATO membership about the wisdom of the conflict, there should be none about the wisdom of supporting the new Iraqi Government.
Dr. Vincent Cable: Following the Prime Minister's rather brief five-line summary of the European Council, could he explain the statements by the French and German Governments that, in return for Mr. Barroso, they would be allocated the key economic portfolios, from which they would try to reverse liberal competition policy, introduce a more protectionist industrial policy and reverse the Lisbon process?
The Prime Minister: I gave only a brief summary of the European Council because, thankfully, it was a brief summit.
The new Commission President will allocate posts. We supported a proposal for a Commission Vice-President who particularly looks after economic policy. I think that Mr. Verheugen, should the Commission President wish to appoint him, would be a very good choice; he has shown himself to be an immensely capable Commissioner. In respect of anything else, there will be the normal discussion and debate with the Commission President, but I would not, were I the hon. Gentleman, believe everything that I read in the papers.

Points of Order
1.30 pm
John McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, the Department for Work and Pensions announced possibly the most significant reorganisation of its local services in the past decade, which would involve the closure of 550 of its 650 local benefits offices. That will affect virtually every constituency in the country, and could result in tens of thousand of jobs being lost in the civil service—yet the announcement was made in a written statement, not in an oral statement in the Chamber. Therefore, Members were given no opportunity to question the Secretary of State. Will you consider the development of a protocol that would provide guidelines for the Government on what matters should be announced in written statements, and what matters should be announced in oral statements, based on their significance to our constituents?
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. As I said in the House on Monday, not all Government statements can be made orally. If he wishes to bring this matter to the Floor of the House, as he clearly does, there are various ways of doing so. As an experienced Member, he knows as well as anyone what the options are. I am sure that he will find a way of doing so.
Jeremy Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you give some indication as to the importance of statements? We have no notice of statements being made, other than on the day on which they are made, no opportunity to question them if they are written statements, and no automatic right to question Ministers. Therefore, something as important as the matter to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) refers, or the Orders in Council made on 10 June concerning the Chagos islanders, cannot be challenged other than by the lottery of Adjournment debates.
Mr. Speaker: It would be very difficult for the Speaker to judge which statements were important. Some hon. Members would consider one statement important and another not so important. The Adjournment debate is not the only facility available to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), whose experience I mentioned: questions can be put to the Leader of the House, asking for a statement or debate, and further parliamentary questions can be put. The picture that I am painting is that there are many ways of ensuring that the Minister concerned is accountable to the hon. Gentlemen.

Northern Ireland (Severe Learning Disability)
1.33 pm
Rev. Martin Smyth: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for identification of persons in Northern Ireland with severe learning disability; to make provision for the assessment of their health, social care and other needs; to make provision for appropriate services for such persons and for independent advocates to act on their behalf; and for connected purposes.
A learning disability is a lifelong condition acquired before, during or shortly after birth, and can affect someone's life in many ways, causing difficulties in learning, communicating or doing everyday things. Two per cent. of the population—or 33,000 people in Northern Ireland—have a learning disability. Just over 16,000 people with a learning disability are in contact with health and social services.
This Bill defines someone with a severe learning disability as
"any person aged 16 or over who has been recognised by a competent professional as having severe impairment of intellectual ability with associated impairment of social and economic competence, originating before birth, at birth or before age 10."
In 2000, there were 1,671 children in the severe learning disability education sector, of whom 325—some 19 per cent.—were profoundly disabled.
Currently, people with a learning disability should have an assessment of their needs in accordance with section 4 of the Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1989. Those provisions, however, are less formal, with an outcome that is less clear, and with considerably weaker accountability than those in the proposed Bill. The Bill's provisions on entitlement to services are similar to those in section 3 of the Act, which is entitled "Assessment by Boards of needs of disabled persons". Section 3 has never been implemented, and it seems unlikely to be implemented for all disabled people owing to resource issues. I am introducing the Bill because the needs of people with severe learning disability, their parents and carers are so pressing. Section 1 of the Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 provides for the recognition of individual advocacy agreed with the disabled person, but that, too, has never been implemented. I therefore bring this Bill before the House because it is important, in my judgment, that those people are looked after.
The Bill confronts the problem of the allocation of, and access to, services for people with a severe learning disability. It also confronts the problems that carers and parents encounter in their struggle to ensure that the person for whom they care has the best possible services. People with a severe learning disability face huge obstacles in accessing the services that they require. There are very real problems of communication. They use a wide range of health and personal social services, reflecting their specific needs. They begin their lifelong service-using careers at birth or in early childhood. They and their families are likely to rely on a range of social care services, including social work support, the development of social and living skills, long-term housing and support services, practical help in everyday
304
care and personal assistance with everyday tasks, as well as access to services for families needing a break from caring.
In contrast with other people who use health and personal social services, services provided for people with a learning disability may be concerned with encouraging independence and learning new skills. Services are provided not to prevent something, or because someone is no longer able to do something, but to develop and build on the individual's ability to maximise their potential. Families are often so caught up with providing much needed support or care that they remain isolated and not informed about services or opportunities for support that are available. People with a severe learning disability must be empowered to help them to live a full and healthy life. They require personal and specific support to lead that full life.
At the same time, caring for a person with a severe learning disability is a lifelong responsibility. Often, there is an over-dependence on family support, which can leave families' lives unacceptably restricted. We need to replace core family support with independent support that increases the individual's contact with the community. The aim is to ensure that the horizon of the person with a learning disability is not restricted by the family's front door.
We must recognise the needs of families as well. The frustration that they experience often leads directly to stress and exhaustion. They have to fight for services again and again. Rather than having easy access to services for the person with a learning disability, many parents find that there is a postcode lottery—that the quality of service depends on where they live rather than on what they need.
There is a difference between the legislation in England and that in Northern Ireland. The Bill provides a route to services, as well as clarity about what is needed. In contrast to provision by the Department of Health in England, there seems to be little published information in Northern Ireland about the criteria used to decide whether people are eligible for services. For instance, on 14 March 2004 the Department of Health produced a document called "Fair Entitlement to Care Services", containing guidance on eligibility criteria for adult social care. Northern Ireland has no community care Act, and the "people first" policy that is our equivalent does not have the same strengths. Eligibility under community care provisions is related to the breakdown of family support and the need for residential care. "People first" does not cover the full range of needs in Northern Ireland.
Parents, particularly those whose children are leaving school, face problems in finding their way through the maze of needs and services. They must move from a relatively structured education environment, with well-established points of contact and relationships, to adult health and social services, where they will have to negotiate a system that is fragmented, diffuse and diverse. There is no clear process to help them identify their needs and those of the person with a learning disability. The difficulties are compounded by the absence of any clear statement of what services will be provided in response to the identified needs. As a result, families must fight to retain services. People with learning disabilities and their families require a clear process, involving clear statements about needs and the

305
services that will be provided to meet those needs. Many parents talk about the build-up of stress when they must care for an increasingly unhappy family member 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, year in, year out with no respite.
The Bill aims to provide a definition of severe learning disability; an entitlement to an assessment of needs for people with severe learning disability, carried out by a responsible agency; an entitlement to implementation of the recommendations of the assessment by a responsible agency; and an entitlement to an independent advocate to support the person with a learning disability in the processing of the assessment and its implementation. It aims to achieve identification and recognition of the needs of people with severe learning disabilities.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Rev. Martin Smyth, Mr. David Amess, Mr. Roy Beggs, David Burnside, Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson, Mr. Tom Clarke, Lady Hermon, Mr. Eddie McGrady, Lembit Öpik and Mr. David Trimble.

Northern Ireland (Severe Learning Disability)
  NORTHERN IRELAND (SEVERE LEARNING DISABILITY)
  Rev. Martin Smyth accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for identification of persons in Northern Ireland with severe learning disability; to make provision for the assessment of their health, social care and other needs; to make provision for appropriate services for such persons and for independent advocates to act on their behalf; and for connected purpose: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 15 October, and to be printed [Bill 130].
Opposition Day
[14TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Regional Government
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of 361the Prime Minister. There is a 12-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches. I appeal to Front Benchers and to all hon. Members to bear it in mind that as a result of an important statement time has been lost. I hope that some regard will be paid to the time taken in the principal speeches, so that everyone who wishes to speak will be able to do so.
  1.45 pm
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I beg to move,
  That this House deplores the continuing confusion surrounding the Government's regional policy; notes in particular that the disagreement about all-postal voting between the Government and the Electoral Commission has thrown into doubt plans for the referendums in the autumn on the Government's proposed elected regional assemblies in the North of England; further notes the continuing splits in the Government over the powers that the proposed assemblies may be granted; regrets a similar lack of clarity relating to the projected costs of the proposed assemblies and of local government reorganisation; further notes that the Government's information campaign on elected regional assemblies fails to resolve any of this confusion; demands that the draft Bill, setting out in detail the proposed powers of elected regional assemblies promised by the Government, be published in good time to be debated by this House before rising for the summer recess and that Government time be provided for such a debate; and further demands that any referendums should be conducted by a system that restores the voters' choice to vote in person and in secret at polling stations on polling day, rather than by all-postal ballot.
  The motion is not about whether we are for or against the principle of elected regional government. The Government's amendment seeks to rerun those arguments in case they can win some support, but that is not what today's debate is about: it is about how the Government have pursued their policy. Whether we are for or against the assemblies is not the point. In fact, if I were for regional assemblies I would be extremely unhappy with the way in which the Government have been pursuing their policy—and there is every indication that the yes campaigns in the three regions and their supporters, including many Labour Members, are in utter despair over the sheer incompetence of the Deputy Prime Minister and his fellow Ministers. Perhaps, indeed, they have not even bothered to show up.
  Let us consider the history of the Government's policy on regional administration. Proposals for elected regional assemblies were first included in Labour's 1997 election manifesto, as Labour was committed to both Scottish and Welsh devolution and needed a policy to provide some kind of answer to the infamous West Lothian question, which is really the English question. The issue was fudged; the English were to be offered a sop. However, following the near disaster of the referendum on a Welsh Assembly, when only 50 per cent. of the electorate voted and barely half of them voted in favour, the Government lost their nerve on

  307
  referendums for regional assemblies in England. The proposals for elected assemblies were delayed, and it is only during this second term that the Government have returned to that agenda.
  Labour's agenda for constitutional reform has always been a mess. It is based not on any coherent overarching vision for the United Kingdom, but on a series of disjointed measures amounting to little more than a policy designed to cement Labour ascendancy in Labour strongholds. That is why there are to be three referendums in the north of England. The regional assemblies proposed for the north are based on the same principle, and on regional boundaries that were constructed by Whitehall for its administrative convenience, not because of any intrinsic sense of their identity. They do not represent real communities with a historical identity, like Scotland or Wales. That is why the Government's consultation exercise entitled "Your Region, Your Say" received such a derisory response. There were fewer than 8,500 replies from a potential 40 million English people, although the deadline was extended twice.
  Nevertheless, with the wrong concept of England's place in the United Kingdom constitution, with so-called regions that had been artificially created and with a complete lack of public enthusiasm, the Deputy Prime Minister proceeded with his White Paper on elected regional assemblies two years ago. From that document it was immediately clear that, unlike the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, English regional assemblies would be nothing but toothless talking shops. In almost every paragraph of the White Paper there is mention of "creating strategies", "influencing budgets" and "consultation with stakeholders". Nowhere do we see real devolution of power from Whitehall to regional government. The Government have made great play of the claim that regional assemblies will control hundreds of millions of pounds, but the truth is that a regional assembly would control less than 2 per cent. of public spending in any region. What sort of devolution is that?
  Even those who are campaigning for a regional assembly are complaining. In July last year Lord Rooker, a Minister of State in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, said in another place that regional assemblies would have
  "no new money, no new powers".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 July 2003; Vol. 651, c. 757.]
  That is the benchmark of the policy.
  The Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope) said:
  "The powers and functions of assemblies were set out in full in the White Paper."—[Official Report, 8 December 2003; Vol. 415, c. 347W.]
  That seems to be perfectly straightforward.
  Ann Winterton: Is not the situation much worse than that? Not only will there be no extra money or powers; in future, if a United Kingdom Government wanted to target further moneys at disadvantaged areas in the north-west such as Manchester or Liverpool, they would be unable to do so
  308
  because that provision would fall under state aid rules. That would have to go through the Commission, which would decide on it. That is another example of further powers being taken away from the United Kingdom Government.
  Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend makes her own point in her own way extremely effectively.
  In December last year, it started to become clear that the Deputy Prime Minister regarded the policy set out in the White Paper as merely an interim negotiating position. A leaked minute from a private meeting with "yes for the north-west" and others in his Department reveals that he raised the issue of the Barnett formula and that he believed that
  "the introduction of regional assemblies would provide a great opportunity to open up the debate."
  How is that debate going? The Treasury quickly and comprehensively trashed the whole notion. In January, recognising the failure of the appeal of his proposals to the people of the north of England, the Deputy Prime Minister threw the Government's proposals into further turmoil. When questioned about the powers that an assembly would have, he said:
  "There are battles to be had between government departments on what is included. Those are battles I am prepared for."
  Perhaps the Minister will expand a little on those battles. What are they about? How are discussions going on the Barnett formula, or police authorities? On that same day, the Deputy Prime Minister said:
  "Some of our police authorities are just too small at the moment. Things are changing all the time and I know David"—
  meaning the Home Secretary—
  "has spoken about the need of maybe changing some police decision-making."
  I therefore tabled a question to the Home Secretary, asking what plans he had to place police authorities under the control of elected assemblies. But who should reply? Not the Home Office, but the Minister for Local and Regional Government, who is here today. Clearly, the Home Secretary had heard nothing of those proposals and, perhaps in panic, had passed the question to the Minister for Local and Regional Government, who replied:
  "The White Paper. sets out the powers of Elected Regional Assemblies."—[Official Report, 2 February 2004; Vol. 417, c. 709W.]
  Mrs. Louise Ellman: The tenor of the hon. Gentleman's comments suggests that he thinks that the proposed powers for the directly elected regional assemblies are not strong enough. Will he, therefore, support the battle to bring in stronger powers for the assemblies?
  Mr. Jenkin: I am pleased that the hon. Lady has confirmed that there is a battle going on; it is called a split, and I shall be talking a great deal more about it.
  The yes campaigns is urge that assemblies be given greater transport powers, so I tabled a question to the Transport Secretary The reply said:
  "The transport powers of elected regional assemblies were set out in the White Paper".—[Official Report, 3 February 2004; Vol. 417, c. 825W.]

  309
  So, after months of bluster and false promises about extra powers for regional assemblies, we are back to the hopeless White Paper that no one can sell. The Home Secretary, the Transport Secretary and the Treasury are clearly much better prepared for battles in Whitehall than the Deputy Prime Minister.
  Kali Mountford rose—
  Mr. Jenkin: I am going to make some progress.
  What about the Education Secretary? The Deputy Prime Minister went into battle again. In Manchester, at a public debate hosted by the Manchester Evening News in January, the Deputy Prime Minister stated that the proposals in the White Paper were "not fixed in concrete", adding:
  "And there are obvious candidates like Learning and Skills Councils."
  The following day, he added at a meeting in Newcastle:
  "I certainly think that the Learning and Skills Councils should be answerable to the region rather than nationally."
  What could be clearer than that?
  Clearly, the Deputy Prime Minister was shaping up for the mother of all battles with the Education Secretary, because when I asked the Education Secretary what plans he had to transfer powers and responsibilities to elected regional assemblies, the reply said, "None". My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) then wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister demanding clarification over the powers that the assemblies were intended to have. The reply said:
  "The draft Bill will reflect the proposals set out in the White Paper."
  Understandably wanting to clear up public confusion, my hon. Friend then issued a press release stating that the Government had clarified that the powers set out in the White Paper would be the powers that regional assemblies would have. However, that was immediately contradicted by an anonymous spokeswoman in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, who said:
  "Nothing is definitely ruled in and nothing is definitely ruled out. The debate is still ongoing."
  In the meantime, the Education Secretary himself went north to explain that he opposed "major structural reform" such as handing the control of learning and skills councils to regional assemblies.
  The situation is a farce more ridiculous than anyone could have made up. The Education Secretary has come clean about where responsibility for the control of learning and skills councils will lie; will the Minister for Local and Regional Government now admit to this House that elected assemblies, if they come into existence, will not control learning and skills councils or police authorities? The Deputy Prime Minister might well be having "battles", to use his word, but in Whitehall, as everywhere else, his pet proposals for regional assemblies are met with abject apathy. He and his little vision are the contempt of his colleagues. The truth is that he has lost every single one of his battles.
  Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend's point about the learning and skills councils is doubly important because, as he knows, they control the funding for all post-16 education, including sixth forms
  310
  in schools. The proposals to which he has alluded, if they came to fruition, would therefore hand to regional assemblies a significant proportion of the education powers currently wielded by local education authorities and central Government.
  Mr. Jenkin: As my hon. Friend accurately describes, that is centralisation within the region, not devolution.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: One person who could clear up any confusion that may exist in the Government is the Prime Minister. Does the hon. Gentleman have any quotation from the Prime Minister that sets out his view on elected regional assemblies?
  Mr. Jenkin: I must have missed that. I regret that I shall have to fail the hon. Gentleman on that, apart from the fact that, by convention, it is the Prime Minister who puts certain policies into his own White Paper. He represents a constituency in one of the regions concerned, and I presume that he visits it and attends public engagements there, but there is nothing on the recent record that shows any significant enthusiasm for these proposals.
  The only powers that have been added to those proposed for the assemblies in the White Paper are those that the Deputy Prime Minister continues to steal from local government. This is Labour's real agenda: centralisation within each region. We know from the White Paper that assemblies would suck up powers from local government over planning, housing and transport, and produce strategies in those fields as well as on waste, culture, environmental health and spatial planning, all of which are currently local government responsibilities in respect of which local government has not previously faced interference. The Government have made great play of the powers that have been handed to regional assemblies since the publication of the White Paper, such as fire and rescue services and planning, which are currently county and district based. However, that is just the taking of more powers from local authorities, another centralising measure. The key point is that this truly is fake devolution.
  There is significant confusion about the cost of regional assemblies and the reorganisation of local government. It is astonishing that just five months before the referendums are due to be held, the Government have still not given any clear indication of the likely cost of restructuring local government. Let me give the House not my estimate, but that of the leading authority in the country on this issue, Professor Michael Chisholm of Cambridge university. He estimates a cost to residents in two-tier local authority areas of at least £110 per resident. That is based not on optimistic ministerial predictions but on the hard evidence of past reorganisations.
  The Minister for Local and Regional Government (Mr. Nick Raynsford): Past reorganisations?
  Mr. Jenkin: Yes, past reorganisations.
  Mr. Raynsford: Tory ones.
  Mr. Jenkin: Oh, I can hear the Minister sneering, but on his present form, and given the state of his own

  311
  Department, he cannot possibly be the judge of what is done well or badly. I prefer to rely on academic research. If I am wrong about past reorganisations, let the right hon. Gentleman name one local government reorganisation that has both hit the budget in terms of the cost of reorganisation and yielded the anticipated savings.
  Mr. Raynsford: I have the greatest of pleasure in responding to the hon. Gentleman's challenge. Of course, all the reorganisations took place under the previous Conservative Government. They certainly did not meet any targets, which was a result of their incompetence.
  Mr. Jenkin: How very convenient for the right hon. Gentleman, but I have a horrible feeling that he might be heading for some of the same experiences that he watched from the Opposition Benches. It is a sad thing when people cannot learn from the mistakes of others, let alone from their own.
  We have also yet to hear a realistic estimate of the cost of actually running an assembly. In the White Paper, the Government presented the figure of just £25 million a year, but what evidence is there to back such optimism? The London assembly has just 25 members and cost £60 million to run in 2003–04. That is three times the original Government estimate. An elected assembly would have between 25 and 35 members. Given that personnel costs tend to constitute the highest proportion of any organisation's budget, can the Minister explain how it is that a regional assembly with up to one third more elected members than the London assembly would have half the running costs of the London assembly?
  The Government are also completely incapable of justifying their estimate by giving a breakdown of the £30 million. Astonishingly, the Minister has admitted that there are no savings to be made from the abolition of the non-elected regional chambers. I asked him
  "what estimate he has made of the costs of abolishing regional chambers … where an elected assembly is established; and how those costs would be met."
  He replied:
  "It will be for the voluntary regional chambers to decide whether they should abolish themselves."—[Official Report, 8 March 2004: Vol. 418, c. 1228–9W.]
  [Laughter.] My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) has got it. The Government claim that elected assemblies are about reducing bureaucracy, but there could be two regional assemblies in every region. So many of the important questions surrounding the Government's regional agenda remain unanswered.
  Yesterday, I received a letter from the Minister, in which he said—presumably while trying to keep a straight face—that
  "the priority is for people in the regions to have all the information they need to make their choice and use their vote."
  So why will he not give us that information? What have the Government got to hide?
  Mr. Eric Pickles: Where is the Bill?
  Mr. Jenkin: Where is the Bill, as my hon. Friend asks? Unfortunately and predictably, the Government's so-called information campaign is about giving out anything but clear answers to all the questions that I have raised.
  The Government are spending millions of pounds of taxpayers' money on an information campaign that does almost nothing to give the public real information on what the powers will be. It does nothing to inform them of the real costs, or to allay the confusion that surrounds every aspect of the debate. That campaign is not just a total waste of taxpayers' money; it is clearly intended to distort public opinion ahead of those referendums.
  We have taken counsel's opinion on the question of compliance with the guidelines in respect of the Government's information campaign. Not only does that campaign fail to inform the public; we are advised that the "Your Say" leaflets produced earlier this year are clearly intended to promote a yes vote in a referendum. They are therefore in breach of the Government's own guidelines on the work of the Government Information and Communication Service. [HON. MEMBERS: "Take them to court, then."] Unfortunately, this is not a legally enforceable matter. The guidelines are not statute, so they are not enforceable by a court of law. The basic conventions of those guidelines state that activities of the GICS
  "should be objective and explanatory, not tendentious or polemical; should not be, or be liable to misrepresentation as being, party political".
  They continue:
  "The emphasis is on the factual basis and exposition of Government policies rather than on partisan argument."
  I have in front of me a copy of the "Your Say" leaflet for Yorkshire and Humber. Those on the front cover with their thumbs up are smiling, and those with their thumbs down are straight-faced. It hardly seems logical for people to smile at the thought of paying a new regional council tax. However, that point is not explained in the leaflet.
  Kali Mountford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Jenkin: If the hon. Lady will allow me, I will finish this point. If we look inside the leaflet, we find a series of questions:
  "Will the elected assembly make a real difference to your life?"
  The unequivocal answer given is yes. The next question is:
  "Would it represent the whole region?"
  The answer given is yes. A further question is:
  "Would the assembly work for the whole region, not just the cities?"
  The answer given is yes. Another question is:
  "Would an elected assembly work well with local government?"
  The answer given is yes. And finally:
  "Will elected regional assemblies reduce bureaucracy?"
  The answer given is yes.

  313
  The Government's guidelines on the GICS state that the Government must ensure that
  "the presentation of arguments and counter-arguments take account of the need to avoid criticism that public funds are being used to disseminate party political propaganda".
  Where are the counter-arguments?
  Mr. Raynsford Mr. Raynsford rose—
  Mr. Jenkin: If the right hon. Gentleman will answer that question, I will give way to him.
  Mr. Raynsford: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Perhaps I can give the counter-argument that he himself will have read from the counsel opinion to which he referred. When asked to give an opinion as to whether the leaflets were tendentious and pursued party political grounds, the learned counsel whom the Conservative party consulted said:
  "In my opinion, however, the leaflets do not play on any association between the Labour party and the benefits of regional assemblies nor advocate the policy in favour of regional assemblies on party political grounds."
  Will the hon. Gentleman now with draw?
  Mr. Jenkin: No, I will not; I will continue, because the right hon. Gentleman did not answer my question. Where are the counter-arguments? The Government still have no idea what the constituencies of assembly members would be. Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that people in Middlesbrough and Teesside fear that an assembly for the north-east would be dominated by Tyneside? Is he not aware that people in Northumberland fear that metropolitan interests would dominate the rural agenda? The Government's assurances that an assembly would represent the whole region are clearly polemical and tendentious.
  As for regional assemblies reducing bureaucracy, we need only look to the London assembly, the Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Parliament employs more officials per head of population than any other Parliament in the world. The number of press officers has more than doubled since devolution—from 30 to 72; the number of Ministers has increased from four to 12; and the number of special advisers has increased from two to 11. In the three English regions, two thirds of the population of each region currently live under single-tier local government, so a regional assembly would certainly represent an extra tier of bureaucracy—of paid politicians and bureaucrats. This hardly matches the claim that elected assemblies will reduce bureaucracy. The Government have failed to spell out the arguments in favour of regional assemblies as advanced in these leaflets, and the arguments against.
  However, there is a subtle but highly significant distinction to be made between official Government policy—that regional assemblies should be established in those regions where the people have voted in favour of an assembly at a referendum—and the Government's intended outcome, which is a party political position: that people in the three northern regions vote yes in the referendums.
  314
  I sent our legal advice—from the leading chambers in this field—to the Cabinet Secretary, which is why the Minister has a copy. Today, I received Sir Andrew Turnbull's reply, which the Minister will also doubtless have. In it, Sir Andrew disputes counsel's opinion, from which the Minister has just quoted. Sir Andrew wrote:
  "The suggestion that such explanation should eschew the fact that the Government is in favour of regional assemblies seems rather artificial."
  That is not a very strong statement. He continues:
  "However, contrary to what seems to be suggested at paragraph 25 of the opinion, we do not consider there is a requirement for Government publicity to explain both the case in favour of regional assemblies and the case against it."
  If I may, I shall quote again from the guidance that the Cabinet Office is meant to enforce:
  "In such cases, subject matter, presentation and handling are again crucial, particularly when publicity deals with issues on which there is no consensus."
  There is no consensus. It continues:
  "The presentation of arguments and counter-arguments take account of the need to avoid criticism that public funds are being used to disseminate party political propaganda."
  Nothing could be clearer than that. That is the point of the opinion with which the Government disagree, so it is invidious and misl—I am sorry; I should not use the word that I was about to use. It is invidious and not correct for the Minister to claim the opinion in support of his position. It is clearly a criticism of the Government's position.
  Mr. Raynsford Mr. Raynsford rose—
  Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman will have time to reply in due course. I am sure that he is going to take a little snippet out of the opinion, but the fact is that he should explain why it was necessary for Sir Andrew Turnbull to dispute the legal opinion with which he was presented.
  How all that contrasts with the scrupulous way in which Donald Dewar approached the Scottish referendum in 1997! Nothing better demonstrates how Labour is at the heart of the corruption of our constitution. Sadly, there is no legal redress here, but it serves to underline how desperate the Government are to try to fix the results of these referendums.
  Lately, I have seen the new TV adverts, and they are even more biased than anything yet seen. If the Government believed in truth, fairness and properly informed debate, they would halt the information campaign now—but there is no hope of that.
  The latest twist in the web of confusion is over the conduct of the ballot itself. The Electoral Commission is due to deliver its report and recommendations on the recent all-postal pilots in September. However, in last week's debate, the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) announced that if the Electoral Commission were to conclude that all-postal voting

  315
  was unsafe, the referendums would have to be postponed. Yesterday, the Minister for Local and Regional Government was reported as saying:
  "If there were to be a delay it would mean putting the thing back beyond a General Election."
  How convenient that would be for the Government. He added:
  "If there were to be a suggestion that some new regulations were required, then a delay would take place."
  That is what he said. That, Mr. Deputy Speaker, seems like a foregone conclusion.
  Last year, reporting on the pilot schemes at the June elections, the Electoral Commission recommended changes to the legislation such as individual voter registration and an extension of police powers to arrest people at any location on reasonable suspicion of impersonation. That would require changes to legislation. After the postal pilots earlier this month, it is inconceivable that the commission would not issue similar, if not more stringent, recommendations in the report later this year.
  We know that the Electoral Commission would prefer the Government to wait until its report is published before laying the orders for the referendum in Parliament, although the Minister has sought to deny that. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, stated quite clearly earlier this week:
  "The commission believes that there would be benefit in Parliament having available to it the Electoral Commission's evaluation reports on the June pilot before taking a decision on whether to approve the orders specifying the form of the referendum."—[Official Report, 28 June 2004; Vol. 423, c. 16.]
  Yet again, the Government have ignored the advice of the very commission that they set up to advise them. However, to appease their critics, they have thrown open the question of whether the referendums will actually take place at all.
  Mr. Colin Pickthall: In praying in aid what the Electoral Commission may or may not be saying, how does the hon. Gentleman square what he said with the remark of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) in this place last week:
  "I do not care what the Electoral Commission said."—[Official Report, 22 June 2004; Vol. 422, c. 1208.]
  Mr. Jenkin: It is quite clear. We did not support the establishment of the Electoral Commission. We think that these decisions should ultimately be taken by Parliament. The Electoral Commission is a quango, but a quango established by the hon. Gentleman's Labour colleagues to advise the Labour Government on policy. It is extraordinary that, having set up such a body, the Government consistently ignore its advice—and at taxpayers' expense.
  Irrespective of whether the referendums will actually take place, the announcement last week will have been of grave concern to those campaigning both in favour of and against regional assemblies in the north of England. As the Minister will know from his Department's
  316
  propaganda campaign, advertising space and leaflet printers have to be booked weeks in advance of publication. However, if there is no guarantee that the referendums will actually go ahead, how can the yes or no campaigns commit to contracts and liabilities for their forward campaigns? Will the Government underwrite those commitments, so that designated organisations will be compensated if the referendums are cancelled? Under what legislation would the Government have the power to do that?
  If the referendums are postponed after the official campaigns have been designated, will the Government confirm that they will not seek to recover the grant given to those campaigns? We know that the Electoral Commission has floated the idea of reimbursing the designated campaigns for expenditure incurred before they receive the grants, but would that still happen if the referendums were to be postponed before the grants were issued?
  What is the Government's real agenda behind all this mess? Is it merely to take account of a report from the Electoral Commission—a quango that they created but have so often ignored—or is it to use the Electoral Commission as a convenient alibi for cancelling the referendums, if it is convenient to do so? We know, as the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) pointed out, that the Prime Minister is less than enthusiastic about these referendums. After suffering a record humiliation at the local elections, he is no doubt even less inclined to receive another kicking—to use the Deputy Prime Minister's words—before the next general election.
  We know that many in the Government are opposed to holding the referendums. Andrew Marr of the BBC reported that three senior Ministers to whom he had spoken believed that the Government would lose all three. We know that the Labour Party is split on the issue. We know that Lord Haskins, chairman of the yes campaign in Yorkshire, has told Labour MPs in Yorkshire that the referendums should indeed be postponed. We have even had a Yorkshire Labour MP saying that the Prime Minister was "scared to tell John"—the Deputy Prime Minister—that he has to "pull the plug".
  The Deputy Prime Minister was due to meet Labour MPs in the three northern regions yesterday to discuss whether the Government should continue with the referendums. Well, what happened? Perhaps the Minister would like to inform the House of the outcome of those discussions because they clearly have a bearing on the public interest. [HON. MEMBERS: "It's tonight."] Oh, the meeting is tonight, so perhaps we will have a statement tomorrow. I will table a question to elicit an answer.
  It is all too clear that, if the Government look likely to lose the referendums by the time the Electoral Commission is due to report in September, they will cancel them. Perhaps the Minister will assure the House that whatever is decided will apply to all three referendums. It would surely be invidious for just one or two of the referendums to be allowed to go ahead because they were deemed to be politically convenient for the Government.
  Our position on the referendums is clear. The people in the north of England have been promised a referendum on regional assemblies. We should make

  317
  sure that that promise is kept. There are two simple steps that the Minister can take to reduce the confusion surrounding the Government's policy and to ensure the referendums are held on schedule.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can clarify. I understood the Conservative position—it has certainly been expressed in the House—to be that the people of the north of England should not have a referendum in which they would be entitled to choose whether to have a regional assembly. Is the hon. Gentleman now insisting—if so, I welcome it—that they should have such a referendum?
  Mr. Jenkin: The simple fact is that the Government have announced that the referendums are going ahead, and the legislation has been passed A promise has been made to the people of the north of England, and it is reasonable for politicians to want to keep other politicians to their promises. If I may say so, I certainly understand if the right hon. Gentleman is joining some of the other yes campaigners in hoping that the referendum will not go ahead. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman himself whether he believes that the referendums should go ahead?
  Mr. Beith: I put a question to the hon. Gentleman. Is he now prepared to say that the people of the north of England should have the opportunity to vote on whether or not they want a regional assembly? The last time that question was addressed from the Conservative Front Bench, the answer was that they should not be given that opportunity. My view is that they should.
  Mr. Jenkin: This far down the track, a promise having been made to the people of the north of England that they will have their say, I say let the people speak.
  The Minister could reduce the uncertainty and confusion by taking two steps. First, the Government must publish the draft Bill detailing the powers that the elected assemblies would have, so that we could put an end to the endless battles in Whitehall, in time for debate in both Houses before the summer. Secondly, the Government must restore the option of voting in person at the ballot box for the regional referendums. That would not only obviate the need to wait for the Electoral Commission's report in September—there is one reason—but restore public confidence in the voting system for the referendums.
  Mr. Kevin Barron: I do not believe that anyone should second-guess what the outcome of the Electoral Commission's work will be. However, one of last year's pilots in the May local government elections was held in my constituency. The report that was produced in July said that there was no difference at all between all-postal votes, any other form of postal votes or anything else. It seems likely to me that the Electoral Commission will give the go-ahead.
  Mr. Jenkin: I have already explained that the Electoral Commission is unhappy with the current state of the legislation on all-postal voting. I should have thought that the experience of the large-scale postal pilots would be as evident to the right hon. Gentleman as to everybody else: there were lots of problems.
  318
  A new problem is likely to arise in all-postal referendums: the possibility of massive vote harvesting. The Government must abandon the principle that ballot papers should be sent out in the post to anybody and everybody whether or not they have requested them. That is a recipe for electoral fraud, and it invites the misuse of those ballot papers. If interest and party—[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope) says, "If you can't win the vote, fix the electoral system," but it is his party that is fixing the electoral system. If ballot boxes were good enough for the Scottish and Welsh referendums, why are they not good enough for the people of the north of England? That is the tried and tested voting system that people want; they do not want new-fangled ideas.
  The danger of vote harvesting is that the unscrupulous will make use of the ballot papers of the disinterested. We know that apathy as regards elected regional assemblies is rife, and that turnout is likely to be well below 50 per cent. In that case, ballot papers are likely to be floating around in bins and skips all over the place. It is a recipe for chaos, confusion and mismanagement of the electoral process.
  Kali Mountford: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way on that point, as I consider it an outrageous slur. Does he have any evidence to prop up that slur and the allegations he has just made? What possible objection could he have to an election turnout of more than 50 per cent.—not ballot papers in bins, but ballot papers counted?
  Mr. Jenkin: The Electoral Commission wants individual voter registration, which requires provision in legislation. In place of that, however, Parliament decided that for the electoral pilots there should be witness declarations of voter identity.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that a further simple step to reduce fraud would be for postal votes to be issued only to those people who request them? After all, that is the system at present.
  Mr. Jenkin: I fully agree with my hon. Friend; that is the only safe way to conduct elections. Without individual registration, and having no provision in legislation for the declaration of identity to be witnessed, there is no way that the authorities will be able to tell the scale of any fraud.
  England is the mother of Parliaments. The democratic institutions in this country used to set the standards for countless democracies throughout the world. The English constitution was the inspiration of Locke and Montesquieu—the philosophers who in their turn were the inspiration of the founding fathers of the American constitution. Our Parliament here at Westminster has established countless constitutions for new nations around the world, yet now, after centuries of nurturing and developing the world's benchmark for democracy, we are faced with constitutional chaos, which the Government have created in a remarkably short period.
  Earlier this month, we saw a collapse in public confidence in the voting system unprecedented in modern times. In the style of a dictatorship, the

  319
  Government declared the all-postal pilots to have been "successfully completed", and less than five months away from referendums on significant constitutional change, we are told that they may never take place. If they do, they are likely to be a farce.
  No wonder politics is becoming the despair of voters across the country. If the Government are truly interested in raising turnout at elections, they should look more closely at the way in which they conduct the government and stewardship of our constitution, rather than seeking short-term increases in participation through the use of voting gimmicks.
  2.24 pm
  The Minister for Local and Regional Government Mr. Nick Raynsford): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "welcomes progress the Government is making in implementing its proposals for elected regional assemblies set out in the White Paper, Your Region, Your Choice: Revitalising the English Regions, based on the principles of increasing prosperity, pride and democracy in the regions; applauds the opportunity afforded to people in the three northern regions of England to have their say about whether they want an elected assembly for their region; welcomes the decision to hold the referendum by all-postal ballot while noting the Government's preparedness to give a clear undertaking not to proceed with all-postal referendums as planned if the Electoral Commission produces convincing evidence leading to the conclusion that it would be unsafe to do so; welcomes the Government's decision to have one assistance and delivery point per 50,000 electors, giving the choice as to whether to return their vote by post, to deliver it by hand, or to vote at a place supervised by electoral officials; further notes the Boundary Committee's estimates of the savings from local government restructuring in regions which choose to establish an elected regional assembly; looks forward to the publication of the draft Bill which would establish elected assemblies, once the date for the referendums has been set by Parliament; commends the Government's endeavours to ensure that people voting in the referendums have information on which to base their choice; and notes that the principal confusion about regional policy appears to be on the Opposition benches."
  The Opposition claim that there is confusion in regional government policy, but after listening to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) there can be little doubt in the Chamber that it is the Opposition, and the hon. Gentleman in particular, who are confused.
  When we last debated elected regional assemblies, on 11 February, the spokesman for the Opposition was the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), and I am delighted to see him in the Chamber this afternoon. He had given, as is his wont, serious thought to the issue. In a speech in 2000, he said:
  "In its potential to restore some vigour to local democracy, and to offer a constitutional settlement, regional government deserves real consideration."
  Two years later, he added a further acute observation:
  "There is actually a case for regional devolution, and it is silly to pretend that that case does not exist. There are two arguments in favour of regional devolution. One is that there is a serious problem with representative democracy in Britain today. We have passed power out of the hands of people who are accountable … The second argument for regional devolution is that, at some stage, we have to address the problem of the government of England. I happen to be passionately opposed to the idea of an English Government."
  320
  The hon. Member for North Essex referred to the English Parliament; it was probably a slip of the tongue, so I hope that he will correct it. This is the British Parliament. I agree with the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon who is passionately opposed to the idea of an English Government.
  Mr. Jenkin: I said that England is the mother of Parliaments.
  Mr. Raynsford: When the hon. Gentleman checks Hansard tomorrow, I think he will see that his reference was to an English Parliament, but I leave him to make the subsequent correction.
  I shall continue quoting from the speech made by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon. He said:
  "I can think of nothing more destructive for the United Kingdom than a wholly imbalanced power centred in an English Government, faced with the powers of the much smaller nationalities in the United Kingdom. Devolution to regions of the United Kingdom can provide an answer to this problem."— [Official Report, 26 November 2002; Vol. 395, c. 318–19.]
  The right hon. Gentleman of course had some difficulties in reconciling his entirely sensible approach with the mindlessly negative approach that the dominant forces in his party had adopted on regional assemblies. How it must have reminded him of debates about Europe when he had comparable difficulties with the Eurosceptics. He sought to square the circle by arguing that he was not opposed in principle to regional devolution but that he could not support the Government's proposals because they did not give the regions sufficient powers.
  While that undoubtedly helped the right hon. Gentleman out of the difficulty of reconciling his views with his party's, I am not sure that there was any solid basis for claiming that the Tory party wanted more devolution to the regions. No doubt had he continued in his post, we would have seen proposals for extending the powers of elected regional assemblies and enjoyed a constructive debate about them. Sadly, he no longer speaks for his party and in his absence there have been no proposals—none—from the official Opposition to give more powers to elected regional assemblies.
  Mr. David Curry rose—
  Mr. Raynsford: Of course I give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Curry: I had a feeling that the right hon. Gentleman might give way.
  I rescind not one jot of what I said. If we look to some sort of regional devolution to balance the distribution of power within the United Kingdom as a whole, it follows that there must be an analogy between the powers devolved to places such as Scotland and, to a lesser extent, Wales and those devolved to English regions. If that were to happen, sensible people would want to see whether it could be made to work. But that is not on offer. What is being offered to the English regions is a hollow echo even of what was offered to Wales, so sensible people will not want to follow a course that merely submits to the Government's agenda of pure tokenism.
  Mr. Raynsford: As I pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman, he made a perfectly sound case for giving more powers to the regions and I put it to him that what is on offer to the English regions is broadly comparable to what was offered to the people of London who voted in favour of it and now have their city-wide authority, which fulfils most of the same functions that are proposed for the English regional assemblies. I hear what he says; if he is sincere in his objective, what representations has he made to his party to advocate greater powers for elected regional assemblies and why does he think that the current Opposition Front Benchers appear so lacking in interest in extending the powers of elected regional assembles?
  Mr. Curry: The right hon. Gentleman will have observed the London elections and noted the turnout. He will also have noted the turnout at the referendum on whether to have a London assembly and the turnouts in Scotland and Wales even with the relatively substantial powers of the Parliament and the Assembly. What does he think the turnout would be for the Yorkshire and Humber regional assembly, on the basis of the powers set out in the White Paper, at the second set of elections to that assembly? Would it be above or below 10 per cent?
  Mr. Raynsford: The turnout at the recent election in London—the first re-election of the Greater London authority—showed an increase on the turnout at the previous such election. That may or may not support my case, but it certainly does not support the right hon. Gentleman's. We have a genuine and serious issue in encouraging turnout and participation in the democratic process, not just for the GLA or the Scottish Parliament, but for English local authorities and, indeed, for the British Parliament. The 59 per cent. turnout at the last general election is not something about which any of us can feel comfortable, so we have issues to address, but the intelligent and serious debate that I looked forward to having with him when he spoke on this subject for the Conservative party is very much the way forward; the current mindless opposition to proposals for regional devolution is not.
  Mr. Edward Davey: In answer to the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), the Minister said that the powers on offer to the English regions are broadly similar to the powers given to the Greater London authority. I have to tell the Minister that that is completely incorrect. The GLA's powers over transport in relation to the roads that the Highways Agency used to maintain in the capital, buses, the London underground and the police are completely and utterly different. If he is now saying that those powers will be included in the draft powers Bill. that is a major statement, but if he is trying to say that the powers are broadly similar, he is simply incorrect.
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman served on the Committee that considered the Greater London Authority Bill and he has taken a close interest in this issue, but I remind him that the powers in relation to economic development, the oversight of the regional development agency, strategic planning, public health and supporting the overall development of culture in the
  322
  area are all broadly comparable. I entirely accept that transport is an exception because London has its own unique transport body, Transport for London. That is not replicated in the English regions, but, under our proposals, they will have rather greater powers than the GLA in relation to housing capital allocations. Yes, there are some differences, which is why I used the words "broadly comparable", but I rest my case on the fact that, in terms of broad comparability, we are talking about strategic powers to govern the whole region, not becoming involved in day-to-day service delivery, which rests with the local authorities. We have followed that model both in London and the English regions.
  I want to pose a question to the hon. Member for North Essex who, in the absence of the elusive hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), is speaking for the Conservatives now.
  Mr. Jenkin: The reason why my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) is not here is that, when she put herself forward for this debate, it was expected that the Deputy Prime Minister might come to answer for his policy. He did not have the courage to do so.
  Mr. Raynsford: That is particularly cheap. The Deputy Prime Minister has never had the slightest hesitation in speaking in the House and elsewhere in defence of his policy, but he is not always able to attend every debate. We work as a team, and I have spoken frequently on this subject and will continue to do so. I was simply observing the absence of the hon. Lady.
  Do the Conservatives want more powers to be devolved to elected regional assemblies or are they totally opposed to regional devolution? Answer comes there none. That is a classic illustration of the confusion at the heart of the Conservative party, and I fear that we will not get any clarification.
  Joyce Quin: Was my right hon. Friend struck, as I was, by the complete absence from the speech of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) of any plan by his party to regenerate or empower the regions, and by the fact that he proposed no strategy whatsoever?
  Mr. Raynsford: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: the Conservatives have nothing to offer. Indeed, they have an appalling track record in the line that they have adopted on devolution over the past seven years. They have got it wrong every single time that an important constitutional and democratic advance has been made in this country over the past seven years. They opposed devolution to Scotland. They were wrong. They eventually had to change their minds. They opposed devolution to Wales. They were wrong. They eventually had to change their minds. They opposed devolution to London. They were wrong. They eventually had to change their minds. Today, we have witnessed another U-turn, prompted by the rather sharp question from the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). They previously opposed holding referendums in the north, but they now say that they want them. With such an appalling track record for changing their tune, who would trust what they have to say about any proposal for devolution?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: May I ask the Minister about something for which he is responsible and about which he is supposed to be talking today, which is not Opposition policy? On 5 May 2004, he gave me an answer that shows that the maximum chamber budget is £2.5 million in the north-west and that the rest of the budgets are somewhat less than £2 million. Will he say something about the elected regional assemblies' budgets? Are we talking about that sort of sum? He has almost spent such a sum on the campaign, let alone all the parliamentary time and political trouble that we are having. If the budgets will be of that order, what on earth are we all doing?
  Mr. Raynsford: If the hon. Gentleman had read the White Paper and the literature that we have been publishing as part of the "Your Say" campaign, he would know that the money that will be deployed by the elected regional assemblies will be approximately £300 million for the north-east, approximately £700 million for Yorkshire and Humber and approximately £1.1 billion for the north-west. Those are the direct spending figures. In addition, there will be considerable influence over other matters. We are talking of substantial sums. He is wrong to draw a comparison with the current chambers, which are voluntary associations and supported by the Government to perform co-ordination functions in relation to regional strategic planning and to the work of the regional development agencies. Those roles are very different from that of elected regional assemblies.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am glad that the Minister gave those figures, because they are still tiny in comparison with what the Government offices for the regions control. Will he say something about the relationship between the elected regional assemblies and the Government offices? Will the assemblies have any control over those budgets, or will they still be controlled directly from Westminster?
  Mr. Raynsford: As has been explained on many occasions, some of the functions will transfer from the Government offices, but it is implicit in our proposals that service delivery should essentially remain a local function—the responsibility of local authorities—and it is right and proper that expenditure on items such as education should continue to be local. The amounts discharged by regional bodies will not be vast in relation to the overall sums spent in the regions, because much of that will be spent by local authorities. My understanding of the Conservatives' position is that they do not want powers to be taken from local authorities and handed to elected regional assemblies. We do not either. That is why we are distinguishing the strategic role of elected regional assemblies from the service delivery role of local authorities. The inevitable consequence is that large sums will continue to be spent in the regions by local authorities that are not within the remit of the regional assembly.
  Mr. Jenkin: I am glad that the Minister confirms my assertion that less than 2 per cent. of public money will be spent by regional assemblies. Will he also confirm that that money will be ring-fenced and subject to Government targets, as is stated in the White Paper—
  324
  unless he is changing that as well? Will he also bear it in mind that the alternative policy to setting up regional assemblies, which represent centralisation within the regions, is for Whitehall to give some of its powers back to local government, which is where people really feel those powers belong?
  Mr. Raynsford: Once again, the hon. Gentleman has his facts wrong. If he reads the White Paper, he will see clearly that we propose a single pot for the elected regional assemblies, not ring-fenced funds. Perhaps he would like to reflect on the fact that, once again, he has got his facts wrong. If he had bothered to do more research into what we are doing, he would recognise that we are engaged in reversing many of the centralising actions of the last Conservative Government. The new prudential borrowing regime, which has been introduced this year for local authorities, ends the pernicious regime introduced by the Conservative Government under which all local authority borrowing decisions were subject to central control. A little more humility on his part about the failures of the Conservative party in government would be appropriate.
  Alistair Burt: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Raynsford: No, I will not give way. I want to make some progress.
  A little more humility on the consistent failure of judgment that the Conservative party has shown on the regional issue would also be appropriate. The Conservatives have now been obliged to concede the case for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Greater London authority. If devolved government is appropriate for the 15 million people who live in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London, why is it not appropriate for the 2.5 million people in the north-east, the 5 million people in Yorkshire and Humber or the 6 million people in the north-west?
  The policy of the Conservatives is confused and inconsistent. They opposed regional chambers, but now they support them. The regional chambers are now populated by more than 150 Conservative councillors—indeed, Conservatives chair two of them. Of course, they opposed the introduction of regional development agencies, but now we do not know what they think. In October 2003, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), who is also sitting on the Conservative Front Bench, said:
  "we realise that business communities in many regions recognise that RDAs do a worthwhile job. I have talked to representatives of RDAs and told them that we would expect a Conservative Government to engage with them to consider how to address the issue of democratic deficit. We are not committed, as we were previously, to their outright abolition. We will engage with them."—[Official Report, 16 October 2003; Vol. 411, c. 178WH.]
  Does that mean that the Conservatives would abolish RDAs or keep them? How would they address the democratic deficit? Would they engage with RDAs centrally or regionally? We look forward to hearing how the official Opposition intend to resolve those issues, because we have received no answers to date.
  The previous Conservative Government created the Government offices for the regions in 1994 at a time when they recognised the need for a regional dimension to the machinery of government. The Conservative

  325
  party is now not sure whether to discount its own legacy, as some of its Back Benchers clearly would like it to, because the UK Independence party claims that regional policy is a European conspiracy—we heard a touch of that earlier in the debate. What a sad example of the decline of the Conservative party from a party of government to a confused rabble, marching to the drum of the anti-European fanatics who increasingly determine its policy, and sacrificing principles and consistency for shameless opportunism. By contrast, the Government have shown a clear and consistent regional policy: to take power from the most centralised system of government in the western world and give it back to the people in Scotland, Wales, London and now the English regions.
  Mr. Curry: While the right hon. Gentleman is pursuing such a noble cause as devolution, will he give us an insight into whether the balance of funding review of local government is likely to give significantly greater power back to local government and rebalance the relationship between central and local Government?
  Mr. Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman makes a good try, but he will know that our first responsibility after the completion of the balance of funding review will be to report to the House, which we will do. I cannot anticipate the results today.
  It is our responsibility to extend democracy so that decisions that ultimately affect the English regions are taken in the English regions by people elected by each of the English regions, and to create jobs, growth and a better quality of life for all our people.
  Elected regional assemblies will lead to more accountable regional government. They will take power from central Government, not local government, and give the people a new political voice. They will tackle the big strategic issues that need to be handled, and are already handled, at the regional level, such as planning for homes, land, jobs and transport consideration of the environment and the promotion of arts, sports, public health and public safety throughout the regions. Through elected assemblies, people will have control and influence over how significant proportions of central Government money are spent in their region. That represents a clear opportunity for devolution to the English regions, but it is up to people who live in regions to choose in a referendum whether they want an elected regional assembly. No region will be required to have an elected assembly if it does not want one—it is entirely a matter of choice. The Conservative party claims to support such choice until we come to proposals for regional referendums.
  Mr. Edward Davey: Will the Minister confirm here and now that there will be referendums on elected regional assemblies this coming autumn?
  Mr. Raynsford: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me for a moment, I shall deal with that specific issue and give him the detailed answer that he wants. However, I would first like to cover other points that have been raised on the powers of assemblies and the way in which they will work.
  Mr. Pickthall: The Minister might know that I am a 100 per cent. supporter of regional government.
  326
  Unfortunately, the campaign in which we are engaged shackles that to changes to local government. How would my right hon. Friend advise me to deal with the situation in my constituency, in which the proposals for changes to local government that are consequent on the regional campaign are universally despised? I can almost guarantee that 74,000 electors in my patch will vote against regional government, not because of regional government itself but because of what is happening to their local authority.
  Mr. Raynsford: We think it is right to streamline existing two-tier local government structures where there is an elected regional assembly, to avoid the proliferation of bureaucracy. As my hon. Friend knows, we are continuing to consider specific proposals from the boundary committee for England that were submitted to us about five weeks ago, so we will not be in a position to give a definitive answer for a further week. However, my hon. Friend will know that his local authority has made substantial representations about the possible impact of the boundary committee's proposals on West Lancashire, which we are examining closely. He will understand that I cannot say more at the moment because we are in the consultation period, but we will clarify the issues when we lay the appropriate orders before the House.
  We believe in giving people a choice. The Conservative party claims to support choice, but does not believe in it. It does not believe in devolution. It is devoid of creative ideas and is opposing just for the sake of it. Conservative Members claim that there is confusion about the powers to be devolved to elected regional assemblies, but they have no proposals to clarify or extend their powers—they are simply making an opportunistic attack.
  Our White Paper made it clear that elected assemblies will have powers to make a difference in key areas such as jobs, planning, housing, transport, culture and the environment in the regions. Elected regional assemblies will set the economic development agenda for their regions and work with regional development agencies to enhance regions' competitiveness and economic performance. They will also have a powerful influence on quality-of-life issues within regions. Those were always key elements of our proposals for elected regional assemblies, but as we said in our White Paper:
  "the Government is keen to further decentralise responsibility for policy and delivery where this will improve regional outcomes… There are likely to be further proposals for the decentralisation of responsibilities to assemblies as time goes on."
  Mr. Jenkin: The phrase from the White Paper that the right hon. Gentleman cites is simply code for saying, "We cannot agree in the Government what the powers of these elected regional assemblies should be, and we are still arguing about it." Our point is that there is a split in the Government on regional assemblies, and there is now a split on whether the referendums should be held at all.
  Mr. Raynsford: I regret giving way to the hon. Gentleman because he added nothing to the debate by repeating the entirely inaccurate allegations that he made in his speech.

  327
  It is important for the debate to have a proper and serious tone, so let me explain the three main new policy developments affecting assemblies' powers that have been made since the regions White Paper was published. First, the June 2003 White Paper on fire and rescue services announced that responsibility for fire and rescue services will transfer to a regional level in regions that choose to have an elected assembly. That mirrors the effective arrangements that already exist in London and will help to ensure that fire and rescue services are properly equipped to respond to the many new challenges that exist, not least those posed by international terrorism that require co-ordination beyond the level of existing fire authorities.
  Mr. Philip Hammond: The Minister repeated that regional fire authorities will be created where there are elected regional assemblies, but the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's business plan, which appeared earlier this week, says that regional fire and rescue structures would be imposed only where elected regional assemblies were created and
  "elsewhere to promote an effective regional dimension".
  Will the Minister confirm whether regional fire and rescue authorities will be imposed under any circumstances where elected regional assemblies have not been created?
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman was a member of the Committee that debated that at enormous length, so he knows perfectly well what the arrangements are.
  Mr. Hammond: That is different.
  Mr. Raynsford: No, it is not. My explanation is exactly the same as the one I gave in Committee, and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has forgotten it. The clear commitment that we have given time and again is that where people vote for an elected regional assembly, it is right that there should be a regional fire and rescue service that is democratically accountable to that assembly, as is the case in London. Otherwise, regional management boards will be brought together by the existing fire and rescue authorities to deal with matters that need to be handled at a regional level, including resilience planning, anti-terrorist arrangements, procurement and so on. The hon. Gentleman knows all that—it is exactly what we have always said, and it remains our policy.
  Mr. Hammond: Is the ODPM business plan wrong when it sets an objective of delivering
  "regional Fire and Rescue Authorities in regions voting for an Elected Regional Assembly, and elsewhere to promote an effective regional dimension"?
  Are those words wrong?
  Mr. Raynsford: The wording is designed—and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is having difficulty with this—to support the creation of regional fire and rescue authorities in areas where there is an elected regional assembly.
  Mr. Jenkin: That is not what the business plan says.
  Mr. Raynsford: Would the hon. Gentleman contain himself and listen to the reply that I am trying to give the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge?
  Elsewhere, the aim is to have appropriate structures to ensure that things that need to be discharged at a regional level are so discharged. That has been explained time and time again. I know that the hon. Member for North Essex does not want to believe it because he has a conspiracy theory about regionalisation. He is wrong and, as on so many issues, the Opposition are showing that they do not understand the policy of devolution.
  Richard Younger-Ross: I was not here for the beginning of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but people would be more convinced that the Government were in favour of regional governance if regional authorities were given the same powers in relation to regional fire authorities as the Welsh Assembly. A number of regional assemblies will cover areas bigger than Wales but will have fewer fire protection powers than the Assembly.
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman made that point in Committee. The model that we have broadly followed is the model used the London assembly, with the distinctions that I highlighted in response to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). We envisage a strategic authority in the English regions. London is to all intents and purposes an English region, and it is appropriate that other English regions should have broadly comparable arrangements.
  I was speaking about changes to the fire service. We announced in February 2004 that we would strengthen the powers of elected assemblies in respect of regional planning. The third new development concerns the involvement of stakeholders—business, trade unions, the voluntary sector, faith communities, representatives of rural areas, young people and ethnic minorities, and other interest groups—in the work of elected regional assemblies. Following consultation, we concluded that elected regional assemblies should be subject to a duty to introduce proposals for involving stakeholders in their work. How they do so will be for them to decide—that is the nature of devolution—but they cannot ignore the concerns of stakeholder groups. That is all part of the new, more inclusive approach towards arrangements for governance that we are putting in place.
  Mr. Mark Francois: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Raynsford: No, I should like to make progress as I have given way many times.
  From the outset, we made it clear that our proposals are designed to add value and minimise bureaucracy, which is why we have proposed small, streamlined bodies consisting of 25 to 35 members. At the same time, we made it clear that three tiers of Government below the national level—regional, county and district—are too many. We therefore insisted that if people voted in a referendum for an elected regional assembly in their region, that must be accompanied by unitary local government throughout the region, which follows the

  329
  pattern in Scotland, in Wales and in London. The boundary committee has now completed its review and set out options for unitary local government in Cumbria, Lancashire, Cheshire, Northumberland, Durham and North Yorkshire. The residents of those two-tier counties will have a say on their preferred option in the referendum, which is another advance in letting people express their preferences—something that the Opposition never did when they imposed wholesale reorganisation on local government in the 1990s.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: We know that there will be fewer local authority councillors in the new local government configuration proposed by the boundary committee, but can my right hon Friend estimate the number of councillors that we will lose?
  Mr. Raynsford: As my hon. Friend knows, that will depend on the proposed configuration, but as I said in response to our hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall), we are not in a position to give figures until there has been a proper consultation on the committee's proposals. However, we will do so, and my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) will know that the boundary committee's proposals involve a significant reduction of the existing 50 local authorities in the six northern counties to a total of between seven and 19.
  Mr. Francois: I thank the Minister for his courtesy in giving way. A few minutes ago, he mentioned regional planning, which is intimately connected to the issue of housing and regional housing boards. He knows that that is extremely controversial in Essex, where the Government's attempts to increase the amount of housing is a principal reason for the effective slaughter of the Labour party on 10 June. It even lost Thurrock, which it has held for decades. Why does the Minister think that the Labour party was slaughtered in Essex on that day?
  Mr. Raynsford: I regret giving way to the hon. Gentleman, because this is a debate about devolution and elected regional assemblies. To the best of my knowledge, he has not shown any interest in having such an assembly in Essex, so I should like to get back to the agenda and talk about elected regional assemblies in those parts of the country where referendums will take place.
  I should like to say a few words about the way in which the referendum is conducted. During the parliamentary passage of the Bill that enables the referendums to be held, many concerns were voiced about turnout, and we agreed that it was vital to do everything possible to encourage participation. We have, as hon. Members know, conducted an extensive programme of electoral pilots at local government elections that demonstrated very clearly the scope of all-postal ballots in achieving dramatic increases in participation, in many cases doubling the number of voters in traditional ballots. In its evaluation of the 2003 pilots, the Electoral Commission concluded that, subject to certain safeguards, all-postal elections should be adopted as the norm for future local government elections. Against that background, we concluded that it would be sensible to use all-postal balloting in the
  330
  three northern referendums. We announced our decision last autumn and it was welcomed by the Electoral Commission. That is the basis on which we have been proceeding, with the agreement of the Electoral Commission.
  Following the June 2004 elections, we held further discussions with the Electoral Commission, which once again will conduct an evaluation of the electoral pilots that must be completed by 13 September. In those discussions, the commission suggested that we delay laying the orders necessary to allow the referendums to be held until after its evaluation of the June pilots was published. We in turn pointed out that because of the specific commitments already given to Parliament about the referendum period and the provision of information to all electors, it would not be possible to hold the referendums this autumn if the orders were not agreed before the summer recess. In seeking a sensible way forward to try to meet both concerns, we gave an undertaking to the House last week, which I am happy to repeat today. To enable the autumn timetable to be met we need parliamentary approval of the orders in July, but we undertake not to proceed with the all-postal referendums as planned if the Electoral Commission's evaluation of the 2004 pilots produces convincing evidence leading to the conclusion that it would be unsafe to do so.
  Mr. Edward Davey: I thank the Minister for clarifying that safeguard, but when he and the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie), gave that explanation to the House last week, there was no suggestion, as I recall, that the laying of orders went against the initial advice of the Electoral Commission. Why did Ministers not make it clear to the House that the commission had advised against proceeding with the laying of orders?
  Mr. Raynsford: The position is exactly as I have described. I had discussions about the matter with Sam Younger, who hoped that we would delay the referendums until after the evaluation. He said so on the basis of advice from his chief executive that it would be possible to hold referendums in autumn even if the orders were not approved by the House in July. I pointed out to him, after taking advice from my officials, that that was not the case. Our figures suggested that if there were a delay and the orders were not agreed by the House before Parliament rises in July, the later timetable would mean that the election period would straddle Christmas. It is not sensible for a referendum to be held in the last two weeks of December and the first week of January, and I explained to Mr. Younger that in the circumstances the sensible way forward was the one that we announced to the House last week and which I have repeated today. The orders need to be agreed to allow us the certainty to proceed, and to satisfy the timetable that we have pledged to honour. At the same time, we will not proceed if the report that the commission will publish on about 13 September makes it clear that it would be unsafe to do so.
  That seems to me the sensible way forward that balances both concerns: the concern to avoid unnecessary delay and prolonged uncertainty, which are not good things for people in local authorities affected by reorganisation, or in the northern regions that are

  331
  keen to get a decision one way or the other on elected regional assemblies. Prolonged uncertainty would not be in their interest. We do not see an argument in favour of unnecessary delay. We do see an argument for allowing an opportunity to take stock, consider the Electoral Commission's report and then act accordingly.
  Joyce Quin: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the explanation that he has given. If, by any chance, the Electoral Commission said that it would be unsafe to proceed, would it be possible to go ahead with the autumn timetable under the ballot box system, rather than the all-postal system?
  Mr. Raynsford: My right hon. Friend raises some interesting questions, but the situation is more complex. There are a number of possibilities. The hon. Member for North Essex suggested the possibility of a requirement for the individual registration of all electors. That would require legislation and would take a long time, so it would be impossible to meet the timetable. If there were some administrative changes to give greater safeguards against the possibility of fraud, those might be introduced in a way that allowed all-postal ballots to take place according to the timetable agreed. Equally, there might a case for reverting from an all-postal to a traditional ballot, but that would require different orders, and time would be needed to take them through the House.
  All those factors indicate that the sensible course of action is not to prejudge the outcome, but to allow an opportunity to reflect on the Electoral Commission's report, as and when it comes out, and to enable us to proceed as we originally proposed and as was agreed by the commission if it does not produce convincing evidence to suggest that it would be unsafe to do so. That is the sensible way forward.
  Mr. Hammond: The Minister has twice used the phraseology that the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie), used last week, saying that there would be a delay if the Electoral Commission declared that it would be "unsafe to proceed". That is a very high test to set. The right hon. Gentleman is reported in the Yorkshire Post yesterday as having said:
  "If there were to be a suggestion that some new regulations were required then"
  a delay
  "would take place."
  A suggestion that new regulations may be required is very different from a declaration by the Electoral Commission that it would be unsafe to proceed. Can the Minister tell the House which is the test that he will apply?
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman will understand that I was referring to exactly the point that I was making in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin). The outcome will depend entirely on what
  332
  particular proposals—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked a question. I hope he will contain himself while I try to answer it.
  There are a number of possibilities. There could be suggestions that safeguards would require legislation or regulations. There could be suggestions that certain administrative arrangements might be necessary to enhance the security of the poll. I do not want to anticipate or prejudge the outcome of the Electoral Commission's report I want to be able to consider it thoughtfully when we have seen it and to reach an informed judgment as to whether or not there is convincing evidence o suggest that changes should be made—and if so, the necessary changes that ought to be made to the arrangements.
  Mr. Curry: Assuming we go ahead with a postal ballot, the right hon. Gentleman states, and it is stated in the Government amendment, that there will be one assistance and delivery point per 50,000 electors. In Leeds, Bradford or Sheffield, two or three square miles may well embrace 50,000 electors. In the whole of Craven in my constituency there are not 50,000 electors, so somebody could find themselves 40 or 50 miles away from the single ballot point. Will the right hon. Gentleman take sparsity into consideration and reconsider the proposal in the light of geography rather than population?
  Mr. Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but he will recall that the proposal was made against a background where the number of assistance and delivery points attracted criticism in the House when we debated the matter last week. In response to concerns, we have significantly increased the number of assistance and delivery points. It is never possible to provide a single point for the convenience of every community—[Interruption.] Would the hon. Member for North Essex like to intervene?
  Mr. Jenkin: Why does the Minister not provide the certainty that everybody wants by going back to polling stations, which offer a convenient location for everybody to vote in person and would provide certainty about the process and certainty that the referendums would take place? He will not do so because he knows that if he goes back to the ballot box system, which was good enough for Scotland and for Wales, the turnout will be a humiliation for him and the Government.
  Mr. Raynsford: Once again, I rather regret giving way. The hon. Gentleman has added nothing to the debate. He knows perfectly well that there is substantial evidence that all-postal voting increases turnout substantially. He may not want people to exercise their democratic rights, but we do. It is right that people should be given greater opportunities, but it is also right that people who expressed a wish for more assistance and delivery points should have their concerns met. That is why we have responded by increasing the provision of assistance and delivery points, while continuing with the recommendation that was

  333
  supported and endorsed by the Electoral Commission to hold the referendums by all-postal ballots in order to ensure the maximum level of participation.
  Mr. Barron: The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) said earlier that a postal vote should be available only to people who had applied for it. Upstairs in my office I have a letter of complaint from a constituent of mine whose mother received a two-page letter from the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) that could be only described as party political propaganda, saying that if she wanted an application form, that would be arranged for her so that she would be able to have a vote. I know that hon. Members in all parts of the House do that, although I have never done it in my 21 years as a Member of the House. It is a lot safer for somebody to have a ballot paper sent to them through the post than to be prompted in the way that my constituent's mother was prompted down in Folkestone.
  Mr. Raynsford: The point that my right hon. Friend highlights is the Conservative party's extraordinary propensity to say one thing in the House and do something quite different elsewhere. The hon. Member for North Essex might do the House a service if he placed a copy of that letter in the Library of the House, so that Members could see how the Conservative party behaves in relation to postal voting.
  Mr. Edward Davey: I am keen to get the Minister to be clear about the timing of the final decision on the date for the referendums. As I understand it, the Electoral Commission must, in law, report by 13 September on its review of the all-postal pilots last June. How soon after that do the Government intend to reply to the Electoral Commission and give their decision on whether voting in the referendums will be by all-postal ballot or at polling stations?
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman asks a good question. He will know that the September parliamentary Session is due to come to an end on, I think, 15 September, which is why it would not be possible, as the Electoral Commission had hoped, for us to take orders through in September, after it had published its report. There simply is not time for that. The orders would have to be taken through the House in October, which would lead to the consequence that I described—a polling period over Christmas, which would be thoroughly undesirable.
  We aim to reach a decision as soon as possible after seeing a copy of the Electoral Commission's report. I cannot give a precise date at this stage, but clearly that would be our aim, and it is necessary that we do so, because a few days after that would be the point in time at which the Electoral Commission would agree the registration of yes and no campaigns, and the referendum period and process would be under way. So a fairly quick decision would be needed in response to the commission's report, and we would certainly endeavour to give that response.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: Is it not very regrettable that the orders are to be taken through the House by the end of next month and we will be voting on them without the
  334
  benefit of the advice from the Electoral Commission? When that advice is published, the decision will be made not in the Chamber or by anyone in Parliament, but by the Executive. That must surely be wrong.
  Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend must not have been listening when I spoke earlier about the need to reconcile the two timetables. If he wants a long period of uncertainty in his region, what he is advocating might be the right way forward, because it would simply cause delay, but I do not think that his constituents and most people in his region and the other northern regions want a prolonged period of uncertainty. They want the referendums, which they have been expecting for a long time, to be held this autumn. That is our intention and we intend to keep to the timetable.
  Of course, different considerations apply to a referendum as against an election. The absence of candidates both eases the timetable for printing ballot papers and, in many commentators' view, greatly reduces the likelihood of fraud, as no one has a personal interest in being elected. We should not assume a straight read-across from what may or may not have happened in the June council elections to the autumn referendums. We should also bear it in mind that several of the allegations that have been made about abuse of postal ballots related to regions that did not have all-postal pilots.
  Having said that, we are absolutely committed to maintaining the integrity of the balloting process, and we want to look carefully at the Electoral Commission's conclusions in its evaluation of the June pilots before confirming that we will proceed with the all-postal referendums as planned. The commitment that I have given allows that, while at the same time avoiding what would otherwise be an inevitable delay in the referendum timetable.
  Mr. David Heath: I have been listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman, but because of the importance of ensuring the integrity of the electoral process, will he accept that it is the Department for Constitutional Affairs that deals with electoral matters, not the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, and it should be the Department for Constitutional Affairs that considers the Electoral Commission's report and responds to it, not the right hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. Raynsford: The responsibility is shared between the Department for Constitutional Affairs, which has responsibility for national elections, and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, which has responsibility for local government elections and for the referendums. However, we work closely with the Department for Constitutional Affairs. The Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie), is here and we have worked together closely.
  We believe that elected regional assemblies offer a great opportunity for the northern regions. We want to take power from Whitehall and give it to the people. We want greater prosperity, more growth, more jobs and more investment. Regional assemblies mean a new form of government—smaller, more focused, involving elected and non-elected stakeholders in decision

  335
  making; a new vision, strengthening the prosperity of the north; and greater democratic accountability. That will give the regions a greater sense of pride and a new political voice. Our principles for devolving power to elected regional assemblies are clear. A vote for regional government means more democracy, more growth and better government. That is the choice that we are offering the people of the north, but it is ultimately for the people of each region to take the decision in the referendums.
  The House should reject the Opposition motion and in doing so affirm its commitment to democracy, to devolution and to choice.
  3.12 pm
  Mr. Edward Davey: The Liberal Democrats come to the debate with a great deal of sympathy for the Government's regional devolution programme. We supported the paving Bill during its passage through the House; indeed, Liberal Democrats in the other place helped the Government with some constructive amendments that they accepted, which we believe have made the process far more acceptable.
  We also agree with the Government in their criticisms of the Conservative Opposition. In government, the Conservatives had little regional policy, and that is why many parts of our country suffered so badly under 18 years of Conservative government. We have heard today from the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman that they still have no regional policy; they are still confused. The Minister quoted their former spokesman, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who had a very different view from that of current Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen. In previous debates, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) has often spoken about the people of the north-east having an aspiration for self-government, but he has never elucidated how he would recognise and implement that. There is huge confusion on the core principle of regional policy among Conservative Members, so we must take their criticisms with a pinch of salt.
  The Government have acted on aspects of devolution and we have supported them with respect to Wales, Scotland and London. We did not agree with all the details; we thought that some aspects of devolution were far too limited and should have gone further. Nevertheless, it was a step in the right direction. Equally, the proposal to set up elected regional assemblies is weak—it is limited in the powers that are being devolved—but it is a step in the right direction, and it would be wrong not to give the people the chance to vote for that. If we got in the way of that, we would put back the potential for regional devolution many years.
  The Government are right to act on devolution, and we saw that today with the publication—
  Andy Burnham: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Liberal Democrats in the north-west will fully engage with the yes campaign for a north-west regional assembly?
  Mr. Davey: We believe in devolution within our own party. [Interruption.] It is interesting that Conservative Members laugh. They just do not understand that devolution is about pushing power down. The national Liberal Democrat party will not tell the regional Liberal Democrat parties what to say. The regional Liberal Democrat party in Yorkshire and Humber has had a conference and voted to support the yes campaign; the regional Liberal Democrat party in the north-east has had a conference and voted to support the yes campaign; and the regional Liberal Democrat party in the north-west is about to have its conference. I do not know what it will vote. I will not tell it which way to vote because it is its decision. That is what devolution is about. It is interesting that the Conservatives have not understood that. That goes to the heart of the debate.
  Mr. Beith: If the Conservative party had acted on the basis that there should be no devolution in political parties, its Members of the Scottish Parliament would have spent the first few years of that Parliament campaigning for its immediate abolition, which they did not do.
  Mr. Davey: As usual, my right hon. Friend puts his finger right on the button. The Conservative party is confused even now between its English party and its Scottish party.
  Alistair Burt Alistair Burt rose—
  Mr. Davey: I am keen to take the hon. Gentleman's intervention, because I am sure that he is confused too.
  Alistair Burt: Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman advances an interesting proposition about the devolution of party policy and the way it is put together. Is he honestly telling the House that his party has no national policy on whether it supports regional assemblies? If so, will he explain some other areas of devolution in party policy, because that might explain why leaflets in Liberal areas in different parts of the country give completely different stories in relation to a variety of policies?
  Mr. Davey: On the last point, the hon. Gentleman is talking absolute nonsense. Across the country, we campaign strongly on issues such as post offices, pharmacies, council tax, Iraq and many others. The hon. Gentleman is clearly absolutely confused. I simply say to him that it is quite in order for a national party to believe in elected regional assemblies, but to give the decision on whether to support that to the regional party. That is completely logical and it is called devolution.
  Mr. Parmjit Dhanda: The south-west is an interesting case in point. If Liberal Democrats in Cornwall argued for a Cornish assembly, would the hon. Gentleman support that?
  Mr. Davey: We have made it clear on many occasions that we believe that there should be a review of regional boundaries. We do not believe that the administrative boundaries of the Government office for the south-west constitute sensible boundaries for the south-west.

  337
  During the passage of the paving Bill we argued for a review of regional boundaries to cover the sort of point that has just been made.
  The Government were right to move on devolution and today we saw a report from the university of Sheffield explaining how the division between the north and the south has got significantly worse, despite efforts by this Labour Government to redress that. It has not been getting worse simply during the last few years, but for decades. When one stands back and tries to analyse why the trend has occurred, and whether it has something to do with industrial change or other economic forces, one sees that the fundamental reason why the problem has occurred in Britain but not in other western democracies is political centralisation. We are the most centralised country in the western world and because of that we have financial and economic centralisation, and all the forces of power in the country go into that central political power. Until we break that up, until we have regional devolution and have centres of political power across the UK, we will not see the reversal of that trend, which has been going on for decades. Such a change must be made if we are to tackle problems in the north. There can be other types of regional policy—indeed, we have seen them in the past. There have been economic incentives and grants, and the garden city initiative launched by Lord Heseltine in Liverpool, which did not work. Those types of regional policy did not work because they were not underpinned by political devolution. That is why the Government are right to take the direction they are taking, and why the Tories are utterly misguided yet again in opposing it.
  Mr. Heath: May I ask my hon Friend not to add credence to the concept of a single north-south divide? The divide is actually between London and the home counties, and the rest of the country. The west country is just as disadvantaged as the north and needs just as much the opportunities for regional government.
  Mr. Davey: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The north-south divide is a simplification. There are people in Kingston and Surbiton who would say that the constituency is homogenously prosperous, but it is not. Parts of the royal borough of Kingston, which is usually considered a prosperous area, are very poor. Of course, these debates are based on generalisations and simplifications, but there is still a general truth in the idea that there has been a north-south divide, with demographic and economic shifts, and that we need to reverse the trend through political action.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davey: I am afraid I want to make progress.
  Although the Government are right to go down the path of regional devolution, there has been some confusion in aspects of the way in which they have handled the matter. I wish to deal with three of them in turn: first, the current debate about all-postal voting; secondly, the powers that the draft powers Bill may or may not contain; and, thirdly, the future course of devolution after the three referendums.
  338
  The Liberal Democrats support the general proposition that the referendums should be conducted with all-postal ballots, primarily because the problems that arise with such ballots in local elections will not arise in an event such as a regional referendum. The incentive for individual candidates to defraud the system and their ability to try to harvest votes—an issue mentioned by the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin)—are much reduced because of the scale of the vote. Furthermore, the logistics of an all-postal ballot over a whole region are much simpler. Many of the arguments against all-postal ballots in local elections do not apply to regional referendums.
  Mr. Jenkin: I accept some of the hon. Gentleman's arguments, but there is a real problem in respect of vote harvesting. Turnout in the referendums is likely to be low, and there will be many multiple occupancy homes or blocks of flats where the mail is left on the doorstep. Large numbers of ballot papers may simply be left in that way, and it would be easy for any organisation to collect and use them. If such fraud occurs, its scale will be almost impossible to detect. What is to prevent an unscrupulous organisation or indeed an unscrupulous party—and there are one or two—from destroying the process by organising the use of unused ballot papers? There is a very serious danger that there will be enough such activity seriously to distort the result.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not want to stifle debate, but interventions must not be too long. We are rapidly running out of time. I am not being unfair to the hon. Gentleman, but the Front Benchers have taken an awfully long time so far.
  Mr. Davey: I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Essex, because he made a serious point. Of course there remains the possibility of vote harvesting, but it is less likely to arise than in a local election ballot. That is my major point, but I am concerned that the Government, in the orders that they have laid before the House, are moving from including the declaration of identity on the all-postal ballot form. I know that the declaration was unpopular with some Labour Back Benchers, but we felt that it was one device for ensuring scrutiny and defending the integrity of the all-postal ballot system. The Government's proposals on alternative security arrangements seem flawed.
  Mr. Raynsford: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the Electoral Commission recommended that the separate confirmation and scrutiny of identity was not a particularly sensible way forward? Will he consult the Electoral Commission on the issue and assess its view?
  Mr. Davey: The Electoral Commission was keen on a voter registration system as the better way of proceeding. We are keen on such a system in the longer term, when it can be set up. In the meantime, before it is set up, as we and the Electoral Commission want, we think that the declaration of identity is the best interim proposal for guaranteeing the integrity of the postal ballot.
  The reason we are in this position and why we have to wait for the Electoral Commission's review of the June elections is that the Deputy Prime Minister did not listen

  339
  to the commission in the first place. All the problems that we saw on 10 June and in the run-up to the elections could have been avoided if he had listened to Sam Younger and his colleague on the Electoral Commission, and also listened to this House. This House and the other place were strong in setting out arguments to the Government and trying to get them to think again. The Government failed, and they caused the problems by doing so. As those problems have had to be reviewed and scrutinised, we now have to wait for a decision on the all-postal ballots and whether the referendums will occur. The delay is the Deputy Prime Minister's fault, and he should apologise.
  Andy Burnham: As we had three pilots—it was the nature of the exercise that they should be pilots—in the three northern regions, is there not a much better chance that the referendum process will run smoothly?
  Mr. Davey: There were four pilots, and they were very different beasts from what is proposed for this October.
  I am afraid that the problem is even greater than I have suggested so far. A lot of public confidence has been undermined by the shenanigans that we saw in the run-up to 10 June. Some members of the public feel that the all-postal ballot system is not secure, and they have less confidence in it as a result. That is a great shame, and it is something that the Electoral Commission and this House will have to consider. Such people may be wrong, and the Minister may say that the press have created a misperception, but it is still a fact that people feel that way. As we go ahead in trying to use all-postal ballots in events such as the referendums, we will have to walk carefully. There is some confusion in the way in which the Government have gone about conducting the process, and I very much regret that they were not more open with Parliament last week about the fact that the Electoral Commission had given advice on the matter.
  The other area of confusion is the powers that the elected regional assemblies will have. That is an important point in relation to whether the referendums occur. As the hon. Member for North Essex said, there is a suspicion—I am sure that the Minister will deny that this is the case—that the Electoral Commission report that will be published in September will be convenient for the Government, as it will give them a chance to think about whether they want the referendums in the first place, whether they can win them and whether their own party is happy to proceed with them. The reason they have got to that position is that they know that what is on offer in terms of regional devolution is weak. Even the devolutionists in their party are concerned about that. The Government must reflect carefully on that point before they publish the draft powers Bill. If they were to devolve many more powers, they would change the tone of the debate both within their own party and within the three northern regions. That would galvanise the referendum campaigns and allow the Government to proceed with the referendums with greater certainty and confidence after they receive the Electoral Commission report in October or November.
  Mr. Hammond: Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that a new delay in the publication of the draft powers Bill is
  340
  slipped away in the last few lines of the Government amendment, which states that the draft powers Bill will be published
  "once the date for the referendums has been set by Parliament"?
  The draft powers Bill will be published only after Parliament approves an order that has not been laid yet, and only three weeks of this Session remain.
  Mr. Davey: That will not be a problem because the orders setting the dates for the referendums will be published within the next week or two, and the draft powers Bill will be published before the recess. Will the Minister confirm that time scale?
  Mr. Raynsford: I am happy to confirm that, as we have always stated, we intend to publish the Bill before the summer recess. The orders must be agreed first, because the referendums cannot occur without them, in which case there would be no need to publish a Bill for people to scrutinise. We have indicated our intentions and the sequence of events. I remind hon. Members that this is the first time that a Bill will be published to allow people to receive information about proposals before a referendum. That did not happen in Scotland, Wales or London, and the Government, who seek to give the public more information, have taken a major step forward.
  Mr. Davey: I am glad that the Minister has confirmed the timetable, and I hope that he will abide by his intention to publish the draft powers Bill before the recess. We discussed that issue in private, on the Floor of this House and in an exchange of correspondence when we considered amendments to ensure that the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill went through both Houses. The publication of the draft powers Bill should launch enthusiasm for the referendums, and if the Bill contains more powers, it will change the tone of the debate.
  Today, the Minister discussed powers concerning stakeholders, fire services and planning. If those are the only extra powers over and above those mentioned in the White Paper "Your Region, Your Choice" enthusiasm for the referendums will not be fired. Stronger powers, such as powers over the Highways Agency and other aspects of transport policy, should be devolved and included in the draft powers Bill. Powers relating to the Learning and Skills Council should be devolved, because they form a vital part of the economic development agenda in the regions. Powers over the many quangos that currently make up regional government should also be devolved.
  One argument for regional devolution is that it will make regional government accountable to the people. We currently have many quangos, particularly in the sphere of environmental policy. They already operate on a regional basis, and surely they are candidates to be accountable to elected regional assemblies. I hope that the Government will clear up the confusion on future powers for the regional assemblies when they publish the Bill in the next few weeks.
  Finally, boundaries are a key issue to which people keep returning, and the Minister may not be able to deal with it in his winding-up speech—I touched on it earlier. Outside the three northern regions, the boundaries of

  341
  which were not contested except perhaps in the case of Cumbria, huge contention exists about whether the boundaries set by the previous Conservative Government for administrative purposes make sense for political purposes. It is in the Government's interest to make it clear as soon as possible that those boundaries will be reviewed. If they want to roll out regional devolution across England—we believe that they should—they must do it with the wax and wane of the political culture in the different regions, but the administrative boundaries bequeathed by the Conservative Government will not allow that to happen. We know from debates in this House that the Government understand that point, and the sooner they clear it up, the better.
  Richard Younger-Ross: Does my hon. Friend accept that a review of those boundaries is needed urgently? At the moment, fire authorities in those regions are establishing one control room for each region. We could end up in a situation in which the regional fire boundaries restrict the review of administrative boundaries.
  Mr. Davey: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. That goes to show why the Government should have listened to us when we debated the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill. If that review had taken place earlier, the Government would not have got into such a mess not only on fire services, but on other aspects of public policy.
  We will not support the Conservatives in the Lobby tonight, because parts of the motion are defective; that is why we tabled our own amendment. Furthermore, it is a bit rich for the Conservatives to criticise the Government about confusion on regional policy when they do not even have a policy and are internally divided. However, the Government cannot take my party's support for granted. We will argue, through the orders, the passage of the draft powers Bill and the referendums for more powers for regional government. If the Government do not listen, they will regret it.
  3.35 pm
  Joyce Quin: I am grateful to be given the opportunity to speak in the debate and to follow the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), whose commitment to regional government I very much welcome, although there were parts of his speech, particularly on postal ballots, that I shall attempt to refute.
  The hon. Gentleman is right to be as surprised as I was when I heard that the Opposition had chosen as their theme the confusion in Government ranks over regional policy. That is a classic case of motes and beams, as the Opposition have themselves been very confused over their regional policy. I will not repeat the arguments that my right hon. Friend the Minister advanced to demonstrate that. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) mentioned another aspect of the Conservatives' confusion—their view on whether referendums should be held.
  I, too, have noticed an element of confusion. At business questions last week the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) accused the Government of
  342
  rushing the regional government process, whereas the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) has conceded that it was part of the Government's manifesto way back in 1997, and again in 2001. In fact, for many of us it has seemed a rather leisurely process—we are grateful that we have reached this point and hope that there will be no slippage in the timetable that the Government envisage.
  Mr. Hammond: Since we are all aware that the right hon. Lady does not intend to stand for re-election to this House, can she confirm whether she intends to stand for election to a north-east regional assembly should one be voted for in a referendum this autumn?
  Joyce Quin: I am not tempted to pre-empt the judgment of the people of the north-east in the referendum, but I have certainly said that given my long-standing commitment to regional government I would very much like to be involved in it. I hope the hon. Gentleman is not implying that I speak out of some kind of self-interest, because if he looks at my maiden speech to the House in 1987, he will see that I called for a regional government for the north-east at that time. He cannot accuse me of inconsistency, even if he does not agree with my views.
  I do not believe that the Government are confused on this issue, because they made their commitment to regional devolution clear from the outset. The White Paper was a good beginning, and they were right then to embark on a series of consultations in the regions, which, certainly in the north-east, were well attended and gave the Government further food for thought as to how the process might develop. Indeed, page 12 of the White Paper clearly stated that regional government is a process and that further powers would be likely to be devolved in due course. That is welcome.
  I hope that in their draft powers Bill the Government will strengthen the powers that are envisaged for regional assemblies. However, we must be honest and admit that these issues are discussed within Government. When I was a Minister, different views were expressed in different Departments about how many powers should be devolved in the general devolution process. I am sure that animated discussions are continuing, but I urge the Government, in view of their undoubted commitment to devolution, to press as far as they possibly can for additional powers, because the more powers the bodies are seen to have, the more obviously credible and relevant they will seem in the minds of voters when they come to cast their votes.
  However, I stress that what is on offer is a useful beginning and that creating a public, democratically accountable voice is important. When talking to colleagues from Scotland and Wales about the advantages of devolution, I have been struck by the fact that they do not initially speak of it in terms of the specific powers of their respective Parliament and assembly, but of the public debate that it has wrought in those territories about the needs, problems and opportunities there. That can be true for the regions of England.
  Devolution will help people in the regions to have better access to decision makers. When I was the Minister responsible for prisons and probation, I spent

  343
  a couple of days with the Scottish prison and probation services. I was struck by the way in which the scale of the operation in Scotland meant that one could get all the relevant people around the table and devise a common strategy. It is much more difficult to do that in England, with its huge population and large area.
  The devolved assemblies have shown especially to the business community but also to others that devolution can make decision making accessible to those who are affected by the decisions. That has also happened in London, especially in economic development and the involvement of the business community in the London assembly's decisions. They are useful examples on which we can reflect.
  The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton rightly referred to the work of academics in Sheffield on the continuing regional disparities in our countries. It is important to tackle that. Setting up a regional tier allows a focus on the distinct economic needs of our regions that has not previously existed. My region of the north-east has a higher proportion of manufacturing industry than other regions. Regrettably, it has a lower staying-on rate post-16 at school. It has a higher dependency on the European Union market than any other UK region—approximately 76 per cent. of our exports go to the rest of the EU. Wales comes next, with 71 per cent.
  Our regional economy has distinct regional features, which the one-size-fits-all economic policy from central Government to which we have become accustomed does not tackle. It is important to focus on the challenges and the ways in which regional government, with its single pot that will allow it to order spending priorities to some extent, can deal with them. Regional governments will consider many important issues.
  The Sheffield study shows the brain drain in the UK economy. It is staggering to examine the figures for the number of graduates who are trained in universities in Yorkshire and Humber and the north-east but travel out of those regions to look for work. A brain drain is statistically evident from the Sheffield information and we should be perturbed about it and consider methods of tackling it. Although the Government's proposals are modest, they are at least an important step forward.
  Let me briefly consider the electoral system for the regional referendums. I urge the Government to continue to support all-postal ballots for those elections. I strongly disagree with the Liberal Democrats about that. The tactics that Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members of both Houses adopted were tantamount to sabotaging the all-postal pilots. I am dismayed that so little account was taken of the experience of some of us in our local areas. In Gateshead, some wards had experienced three consecutive years of all-postal ballots, with no requirement for a witness declaration and no evidence of fraud. It was also exasperating to read some of the press accounts of the process, because so much of the press seems to have assumed that this was the first experiment in all-postal ballots. It simply was not. Again, the press failed to look at the beneficial experiences of areas such as mine.
  344
  This time round, the experiment was less successful, because of the uncertainties that remained almost right up to the election date as a result of the way in which proceedings in both Houses had taken place, and because of the disincentive effect of the witness statement requirement. It was not that voters were dishonest; it was simply that some voters living on their own found the witness statement rather intrusive, given the fact that they had not had to cope with such a requirement in the previous three years. They also had to deal with two envelopes instead of one, and there was extra paperwork involved. We came across examples of people being unable to find their second envelope, so they could not cast that vote. This was not a helpful way forward. I agree with what the Minister said when he referred to the Electoral Commission's view of the process.
  This week I received a letter from a constituent saying that it was the first time he had not voted in an election, and that that was because of the witness requirement, which he found perplexing and intrusive. He has instructed me to raise with the Prime Minister directly the need to abandon that particular feature. Also, when I took a taxi from my home to Newcastle central station on Monday, the driver asked me why we had had to have a witness declaration in the recent elections when we had never had one before. He pointed out that the system had worked perfectly well before. It is frustrating that so little account was taken in the House and in the press of the experience gained from the very successful trials in my area.
  Mr. Edward Davey: Can the right hon. Lady confirm that, in areas that did not have all-postal ballots, there has always been a requirement for a witness statement? In the rest of the country, they are not a new thing.
  Joyce Quin: I can confirm that what the hon. Gentleman says is right. When people have applied for postal votes, they have gone through that procedure. However, the sudden introduction of the requirement caused a great deal of confusion in an area that had successfully piloted all-postal ballots for three years without witness declarations. It also caused irritation, because some people felt that perhaps they were not now trusted with a postal ballot, although they had voted in that way without any difficulty in all the previous all-postal experiments.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Can the right hon. Lady confirm that there were indeed problems in her area? Her area has been all-postal for some considerable time, yet the turnout this time was 7 per cent. lower than at the previous local election. Can she also confirm that 18 public libraries had to be opened to take postal ballot papers because the ballot papers had been delivered late despite the fact that her area has been an all-postal pilot area for several elections?
  Joyce Quin: Indeed; I believe that the drop in turnout was related to the witness requirement, which had not operated in the past, and to changes that were imposed on the local authority at the last minute and which it tried heroically to deal with. On the hon. Gentleman's point about ballot boxes, the council has actually provided ballot boxes in libraries and other locations at

  345
  every all-postal election, so that—contrary to what the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman said about people being forced to vote by post—people would have the option of going to their town hall or elsewhere to vote in person if they so wished. That is a very satisfactory way of doing things, because it allows people who want to vote in person the chance to do so. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that.
  I would have liked to make many other points, but my time has run out. I shall conclude by saying that, while previous Governments have attempted with varying degrees of success to devise effective regional policies at national level, what the present Government are doing is perhaps unique. That is because they are endeavouring to combine an active national regional policy with an active policy of devolution of power, empowering the regions to make more decisions themselves in the light of their own needs, problems and opportunities. It is my strong belief that, in adopting such an approach, the Government deserve our full support.
  3.49 pm
  Alistair Burt: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington. West (Joyce Quin), whose speeches are consistent and who has represented her area extremely well. She made a speech that indicates why the House will miss her when she eventually moves on and stands down. She gave a cogent explanation.
  Having listened to the right hon. Lady, to the Minister for Local and Regional Government, and to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), however, I am not persuaded. I recognise that there is a regional element to the United Kingdom and to its governance, but I am not persuaded that this is the best way to deal with the expression of regional opinion. I represent North-East Bedfordshire. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), I represent an area that has taken a decision not to have a referendum and not to be subjected to a regional assembly. I resent the petulant way in which the Minister dismissed my hon. Friend, who sought to intervene on the basis that we were not having a referendum for a regional assembly. We are either ahead of the curve in deciding not to do so, or behind it. It is our country, too, however, and our views on regional government are just as valid as anyone else's. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the way in which he dealt with my hon. Friend.
  I go back to first principles. What government is all about is providing the clearest connection between the voter and those who are elected. One of the problems that has emerged in our society is that people feel, for all sorts of reasons, that that relationship has become stretched and strained. They therefore become resentful of it. I am not convinced that adding this tier of representation will do anything to deal with that particular problem.
  My experience has been varied. As many Members of the House know, most of my life has been spent in the north of England, where for a number of years I represented Bury, North—a metropolitan area, where
  346
  all the services were provided through one form of unitary authority. For a period, I was also sponsor Minister for Manchester, Salford and other areas in the north-west, so I had an understanding of the work of the regional office and the regional programme, which the previous Conservative Government put in place. I would say to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, who has probably not spent too much time outside his area, that the improvements made in Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool and Newcastle—the extraordinary growth and development in the late 1980s and 1990s, through a variety of programmes—have helped to make those cities the modern cities that they are today.
  Having come to Bedfordshire, I now have experience of parish, town, district, borough and county. I am not convinced that extra tiers of government necessarily make governance any better. I am not convinced that an extra tier of regional government will clarify for people what they expect from their regional assemblies and local authorities.
  I have not heard any real clarification from the Minister today. We do not know precisely what will be done by the assemblies. For instance, we did not get an answer as to whether learning and skills councils will be taken under the control of the regional assembly, as the Deputy Prime Minister apparently wants, or not, which appears to be the preference of the Department for Education and Skills. Which is it to be? Until those things get answered, constituents in the areas affected are entitled to understand—
  Mr. Dhanda: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Alistair Burt: Only once, because a lot of Members want to speak.
  Mr. Dhanda: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman giving way. He makes the point about the various tiers of government, and says that adding one would only make things worse. He also describes some of the real developments in the north-west, where there have been unitary authorities. Does he not agree that by taking out the district and county authorities, as this structure will do, and having a single unitary authority, we are reducing the number of tiers of government by having a regional assembly?
  Alistair Burt: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but it is not mine. My point was that the activity of a Government who were really interested in those cities, combined with the local authorities that were there, made sure that the investment took place and that changes were made that produced the modern cities that we see today. Regional government was not necessary to achieve that.
  What evidence is there that larger, more regional tiers of authority deliver better services, and that, were they not there, things would be worse? In my experience, we had the creation and then abolition of the Greater Manchester council, which the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) will remember well. When the abolition of that council, which covered a wide area, was proposed, there were complaints from politicians that services would deteriorate and that

  347
  nothing would ever be the same again. From the population, however, there was not a peep. As far as I am aware, when the council was abolished there were no proposals to bring it back. If those who represent the unitary metropolitan authorities in the area wish to do so, the House would like to hear from them. In any case, I do not think it can be proved that better services are delivered when a tier of authority covers a wider area.
  When the European constituencies changed from single-Member to regional, was there any evidence that constituents identified more closely with those who represented them? No. Most of us have just been through the horrific experience of the European elections—going around with candidates in areas where they were barely known, and where there was no relationship between them and the electors. The percentage of people voting in those elections has continued to fall. I see no evidence that the regional relationship has improved the relationship between voters and those for whom they vote. A Labour MEP in the eastern region, Eryl McInally, resigned her seat before the elections, citing as one of her reasons the lack of connection between the region and her electors. I think that the same problem is likely to occur in regional assemblies and governments.
  It is tempting to believe that a Government known for their centralising and rather authoritarian tendency have found a new way of casting some of their problems on to the proposed assemblies. Most of us would agree that one of the most difficult things with which our local areas deal—by and large we do not deal with it, for which we are grateful—is planning. We know of the problems that planning generates. The Government have asked Bedfordshire to take 51,000 extra houses by 2021. The local authorities have been bypassed; this is a Government decision. At least that means that the Government will ultimately be responsible, and that electors can express their opinion at the ballot box. Regional assemblies, however, will prove convenient to the Government, who will be able to slip proposals over to them. The real accountability for decisions will move, and the Government will not take the hit that they deserve to take.
  It is a convenient dodge to move the planning function from those who are most responsible for it at local level, and who know most about it. If the Minister suggests in his winding-up speech that there will be no such dodge, I shall be very interested; but most people think otherwise. We cannot imagine that a Government who have been as centralising and authoritarian as this really want to hand anything down. They talk of powers moving from the centre to local government. Chapter 4 of the White Paper suggests that regional assemblies will have responsibility
  "for issues such as investment and regeneration, improving housing and public transport and developing tourism."
  It claims that
  "functions are generally not being taken from local government, which will continue to focus on local service delivery and community leadership".
  Most of those functions are handled at local level, but most local councillors want to make decisions rather than being responsible only for delivery, which is what they have become over the years.
  348
  What will happen surely, is that the regional bodies will make the decisions and expect the delivery to be handled by local councillors. What, then, is the point of local councillors? And if all regional assemblies are to do is have influence with others, what is the point of being on a regional assembly? The assemblies will have power, but if they take power from anywhere it will come not from here but up from local level.
  I could be completely wrong about regional government, of course. I might have been carried away by my own party's policy and my experiences over the years. I could be alone in my view. I took the precaution of asking the Deputy Prime Minister, through a written parliamentary question, how many letters he had received from individuals supporting an elected east of England regional assembly. I wanted to test my opinion. Had I got it terribly wrong? Did thousands of people think differently?
  The eastern region—consisting of Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire, Hertfordshire, Essex and the jewel in the crown, Bedfordshire—has a population of 5.4 million. Can the House imagine how many of those 5.4 million people rallied to the side of the Deputy Prime Minister by writing to him in support of his proposal for a regional assembly? One. One individual, out of 5.4 million, thought that what the Government were coming up with was a good idea. In all fairness to the Deputy Prime Minister, in the light of that response the ODPM decided not to propose a referendum on an elected assembly in the eastern region.
  That is marvellous, but the hunt is on. Who was that one person in the six counties? I am announcing today a search to find that one individual in the six-county area who stood shoulder to shoulder with the Deputy Prime Minister. Is it a relative? Is it a friend? Who it is we do not know, but there are a lot of Labour MPs in that area, and they obviously did not write in. Whoever it was, we need to find them.
  The serious question is this: at the end of the day, will regional assemblies and regional government provide what the people are asking for? Will there be one more policeman on the beat because of a regional assembly, one more nurse in a ward, one more bus on the road or one more train on the track? We all know the answer. There will be more politicians, more money and no answers to the problems that people want solved. That is why regional assemblies are a bad idea, whether in Bedfordshire, which has already said no, or in other places, which I hope will say no very soon.
  4.1 pm
  Mr. Graham Stringer: May I first say how much I have enjoyed the consultation meetings that the Government have carried out in the north-west, where their objective is to give information? I enjoyed debating with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local and Regional Government in front of the St. Helen's chamber of commerce. As ever, he was courteous and knowledgeable, and we had a good debate. We argued and disagreed, and my right hon. Friend put his points forcefully, as he regularly does. but that was not an information-giving session. Similarly, it was not an information session when the Deputy Prime Minister

  349
  came to Manchester and used the opportunity to show his knowledge of expletives in response to my view. The Deputy Prime Minister was being passionate, as he always is, and that was clearly not a cool, information-giving session.
  I have listened carefully to the debate. I recall a great deal about the 1980s, when I suppose my party went a little mad and the electorate noticed and did not vote for us very much. When I listen to this debate, I think that the party has gone a little mad again, but that no one has really noticed. When I sit down and coolly analyse what we are offering the people of the north-west, the north-east and Yorkshire and Humber, I realise that we are telling them, "Yes, you can pay more council tax. You will get no more money—no more resources will be reallocated from the centre, but you will have the costs of running a new regional assembly and the costs of a local government reorganisation. You might even, if you are foolish enough to vote for a regional assembly, have a body that the Government will not cap if it decides to impose unlimited council tax." The White Paper says explicitly that the Government are considering removing their own right to cap regional assemblies.
  That is a particularly unattractive proposal to put to the people, and it is certainly not regional government. My right hon. Friend the Minister made a mistake when he talked about regional government. What is on offer is regional assemblies. The Government offices for the north-west and the other Government offices will carry on delivering their business, and the regional assemblies will have no control over them. There will not be regional policy. Virtually every penny that will be spent by the elected regional assemblies will have come, via some path such as a quango or a more direct route, from local government.
  I never thought that I would sit here with Conservative Members, some of whom were part of the Government who took those resources and powers from local government to put them elsewhere, and listen to my own Government saying that they will not give those powers and resources back to local government but will give them to a regional assembly.
  Deep in the heart of this debate there is a lack of a real concept of what local democracy and local government are about. Regional assemblies certainly do not constitute an improvement in democracy. People elected to such assemblies in the north-west will represent a third of a million people—in some cases, nearly 7 million people—and replace elected councillors.
  What would a real regional policy look like? A real regional policy requires active discrimination and intervention in favour of those regions that have suffered from economic and social disparities. I do not have time to go through the figures on income, death and morbidity, which are far worse in the regions than in London and the south-east, but to deal with such issues we need to intervene and to transfer resources. Yet nothing in this package transfers resources to the north-west or elsewhere. In fact—Opposition Members will not agree with this—our national policy is really a regional policy for the south-east. On looking at the real causes of regional disparities, one finds that huge quantities of money are being spent in the south-east disproportionately on transport and cultural issues.
  350
  In the north-east, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) talked about, 6p is spent per capita on cultural services such as museums and art galleries, yet the figure for London is £10 per head. Is that fair? Could it possibly be one reason why we have the economic and social disparities that these proposals will do nothing to address?
  We need to put civil servants and resources into the regions. I welcome the BBC's decision, announced today, to put some of its resources into Manchester and the regions, but why has it taken so long? The BBC has introduced two new television channels and three new radio stations, but now, because it is under pressure as a result of a number of mistakes, and because it wants to review the licence fee, it is saying, "Yes, we remember the regions and we will look to provide some support."
  Andy Burnham: I agree with my hon. Friend's analysis of regional disparities, but surely a no vote in a referendum in the north-west would send the message that we are happy with the status quo and with London domination of our public life and resource allocation. Even if the proposal is not everything, as the Liberal Democrats are suggesting, surely it is better to accept it and build on it.
  Mr. Stringer: People would conclude from a no vote that we had rejected a proposal that offers no improvement on what is currently on offer; in fact, it offers something worse. The pressure that Members can bring to bear on various issues would in fact be diminished if we had a regional assembly. The case for more money would not be made any better. The Government would say, "We've not given you any more money and we've given you very few powers, but you can get on with things now." The arguments that we have been advancing will be dismissed and we will be told, "Go to your regional assembly and deal with such matters there." That is my worry.
  The other argument, following the line of thought of my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), is that a regional assembly will provide one powerful voice that the Government will listen to. I do not accept that either, for one simple reason. My right hon. Friend the Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Prime Minister and other Front Benchers know the various facts and figures, but there is nothing new here. For whatever reason, the spatial distribution of expenditure as determined by the Government is staying as it is. They would learn nothing new as a result of having a regional assembly. As has been suggested, it is much more likely that there will be a greater disarray of voices, rather than one voice.
  Let us consider what will happen if the regional assembly's policy disagrees with that of Liverpool, Blackburn or Manchester. Is the leader of Liverpool city council—currently a Liberal Democrat—going to say, "We think that your planning policies for Liverpool are right"? Of course not. They will go to the Government with a completely different story, and I do not blame them. The same is true for Manchester. An extra voice is created and local government resources are centralised. It makes it easier for the Government to say

  351
  that the regional assembly says one thing, Chester says another, somewhere else yet another—so the Government will carry on doing what they want. I do not accept the arguments in favour, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh understands.
  I shall conclude, because I know that other hon. Members want to contribute. When the figures on how much money goes into London and how much into the regions are discussed, it is sometimes said that London is subsidising the rest of the country. I find that offensive. It would be good for London if less were spent on things that could be done elsewhere in the country. Every time we look for a new amelioration—affordable housing, London weighting and so forth—we are subsidising congestion. It makes life in London more difficult and life in the country more difficult. What we need is a fairer balance that would enable London to do what it is best at—it is a great world city, a financial capital of Europe and has an enormous amount going for it—but that would even out the money to help the regions. That would be better both for London and the regions. I do not believe that what is on offer deals with the fundamental problems of the regions.
  Joyce Quin: I do not disagree with my hon. Friend when he makes the case for central Government to take regional issues seriously and take regional needs into account in the allocation of spending, but it is not an either/or issue. Surely it is possible to have an elected regional assembly while also having an active national regional policy adopted by the central Government.
  Mr. Stringer: That brings me back to my earlier point about whether having a regional assembly amounts to a step forward. I know that many Government Members genuinely believe that it is a step forward, but I believe that it is more likely to prove a step backwards by cementing into place unjust spending patterns. That is why I have come to the conclusions that I have outlined.
  I often see my hon. Friends asking for extra support, but it is difficult to get the Government to respond to regional issues. Let us consider the Government response to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning and Local Government Committee report on regional disparities. Every time a suggestion was made, the Government basically said that they had national priorities rather than regional ones.
  I often raise airspace policies with the Government. We know that the skies over London are congested and that there is capacity in regional airports, so we could open up the skies and more aeroplanes could use those airports. That does not happen because of vested interests in the south-east, which is where civil servants and the headquarters of BAA are based. At the present time, Pakistan International Airlines could run services from Pakistan via Manchester to New York, but it is prevented from operating that flight by the vested interests of the south-east.
  Andy Burnham: Can I put this further point to my hon. Friend? I understand his argument about why it may be harder to secure resources in the regions, with the Government perhaps saying, "There is your regional assembly; now get on with it." However, the experience
  352
  of London clearly shows the opposite. Since the Greater London authority was set up, we have seen, for example, the Olympic bid and congestion charging. London's issues have become national issues—housing shortages for key workers is another example—and under the GLA we have probably seen resources brought into London rather than taken away.
  Mr. Stringer: I know quite a lot about the decision to make an Olympic bid. It was a decision taken by the GLA and the Government, which Ken Livingstone supported only afterwards. It was wrong that everyone else was excluded. London has been doing well because the central Government are putting more money into London than Ken Livingstone can spend, as he told the Select Committee at a recent hearing on the congestion charge.
  I do not support the Government's proposals, because it will be bad for the Labour party when they are rejected. I hope that the Government will not hold the referendums but if they do, I am sure that the people of the north-west will reject them.
  4.14 pm
  Mr. David Curry: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Manchester Blackley (Mr. Stringer) who ran one of the great metropolitan cities of the United Kingdom and knows a great deal about what he was telling us.
  This morning, I picked up The Daily Telegraph, which is not something I do lightly, and saw a curious map in which greater Grimsby appeared as a London suburb. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) may be perturbed by that revelation. I was relieved to find that I was just outside the band of London influence, but the map served to concentrate the mind on some of the real regional development issues that we should consider. We should be testing the regional assembly proposals against such an assembly's capability to address some of the issues that we all acknowledge.
  I do not want to spend a great deal of time talking about the assemblies. That is familiar territory. The Government's proposals for new political structures are irrelevant to most of the development needs of the English regions and I cannot think of a single criterion for regional development that would be met by the existence of an assembly, or of anything that could be delivered that could not be delivered without one.
  I recently attended a debate in the Baltic Exchange—unfortunately, the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) has left the Chamber—and looked down at the river. When I worked in Newcastle, there was dereliction on both sides of the river. There has been an amazing regeneration in that area, and it has been delivered without a regional assembly. Indeed, with a regional assembly, it would probably have cost twice as much, gone heavily over budget and taken three times as long to deliver.
  What is the key marketing purpose of the regional assemblies? The weaknesses of the proposals have been well rehearsed. Even with whatever last-minute enhancements the Government are likely to come up with, there will be a new tier of government for most of the people in the three regions where single-tier,

  353
  metropolitan authorities exist already. Members of the assemblies will lack any mandate of the sort understood by Members of this Chamber.
  The assemblies will not replace existing bodies. As the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley has just said, the Government offices for the regions will not disappear and will not be subservient to regional assemblies. Indeed, regional assemblies will have to refer to the Government offices for the regions for authorisation to do most of what they want to do—even to make nominations to regional development agencies. They will be unable to nominate anyone without reference to the Government, so the tutelage of the Government offices for the regions will remain.
  Furthermore, despite the three additional points to which the Minister for Local and Regional Government referred, the amount of public expenditure that will come directly within the purview of the assemblies will be less than 3 per cent. of public expenditure in the regions. That is small beer by anybody's standards. If those bodies are so vital and will open the doors to so many opportunities, it seems almost criminal of the Government not to extend that remarkable opportunity to people in the south-west, for example, who would no doubt jump at the chance to write their own destiny—to use the enthusiastic words of the Deputy Prime Minister.
  As the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley said, the key point is that the Government propose no rebalancing of expenditure. Let us compare public expenditure per capita in the north-east with that for Scotland, and then consider income, or wealth, per head in those two regions. They are in inverse proportion, because of the famous Barnett formula. If I were in the north-east and felt that my regional assembly would enable me to address that imbalance and that I would gain some of Scotland's advantages, I might be tempted. However, I am not tempted, because no one has mentioned that. Occasionally, over cups of tea around the country, the Deputy Prime Minister has mumbled about what a terrible thing the Barnett formula is, but I am not aware that any political party is seriously committed to redressing its injustice, which seems to be increasing.
  The Government are confused about their wider regional agenda. There are proposals for regional assemblies in some areas and for unitary councils. The Government made a mistake when they said that there could be regional government only with unitary councils. Large parts of Europe have much more local government than us. Local councils are much, much closer to the people—for example, in France about 2 per cent. of the entire population are elected in some shape or form—so we should be cautious about galloping towards the idea that size always means efficiency. Sometimes, for democracy, we might have to pay a little price in efficiency just to be closer to the people. Sometimes, the Government's proposals might appear terribly logical, but they are counter-intuitive in relation to the democratic process.
  The Minister is tempted by the idea of unitary authorities, although I have no doubt that he will reaffirm his commitment that, if the vote is no, the unitary proposals die. The Government have proposals for city mayors and prescribe various mechanisms for
  354
  the management of our local authorities, but they are bound by the enormous gendarmerie of inspection and control that the Government have erected.
  To return to a question that I asked the Minister, it is interesting that the balance of funding review is due virtually this month, before Parliament rises for the summer. If the Government are serious about decentralisation, no doubt there will be bold proposals to return business rates to local councils. I believe in doing that: it does not involve the danger or spectre that the business community believes it would. There is a lot to be said for buying the business community into the democratic fabric of local communities. I do not imagine that that will be included in those proposals. I suspect that we will see a bit about business paying more because its percentage has been decreasing. We will probably see a bit about regional banding. We will probably hear one or two remarks suggesting what could happen sometime in the future and that perhaps we ought to keep in sight local income tax, but I would be amazed if anything fundamental happened in that review.
  What would be my personal formula? I think that executive mayors are a good idea. I would like to see the great cities of the north run by executive mayors and demanding more powers. A personality is very important to give direction and to project a city externally. Whether or not we like the present Mayor of London or approve of his policies, we cannot deny that he has projected a personality about London in his period as mayor of that city.
  We need to consider the regional development agencies. I am sympathetic to the idea that skills at any rate ought to be combined with the discharge of major economic development functions. Perhaps those in the RDAs are the people to do that, but they have tended recently to become too diverse in their activities. They need focusing on the core economic development issues, so that they do not spread themselves too widely. I would like them to be called back to order in that regard.
  In my region and, indeed, in the north-west, the universities are a colossal asset. There are some world-class universities, and they are co-operating closely to create almost a trans-Pennine university campus that will attract investment and research facilities. That is the region's greatest asset. If we address the skills issue, which is obviously at a lower level, we will have the education infrastructural framework that we need. I should like the trans-Pennine links to be developed. I am not convinced by the Government's proposal to stretch an arm up towards the north-east, right through the Vale of York. I do not see the logic in that; I would much rather remain with the trans-Pennine core, as an effective development area.
  We need improved transport links, but not just in the region; what really matters are the transport links to London. There is no point in pretending that London does not exist or in regretting the dominance of London in our national life. People want to get to and from it quickly. The more easily they can get to London, the more likely they are to establish their business out of London.
  Not least, we need to assert the cultural identities of cities. Sport and cultural activities have been demonstrated to be powerful regenerators of our cities.

  355
  People identify a city by its cultural and sporting activities, as well as by its business climate and culture. Those roles are best performed by cities. Our culture has grown out of an urban culture. Our civilisation itself has tended to grow out of our cities. Cities are the motors for regional development and they are not readily compatible with the sort of regional assemblies that the Government are talking about. The assemblies are an irrelevant distraction. They enable nothing, they facilitate nothing, they invigorate nothing, and quite frankly, it would be better if they were nothing.
  4.24 pm
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: I see I have been left with one minute in which to speak, despite the fact that I had a long and interesting speech to make—too bad. Let me make one point in the 60 seconds available to me. The whole issue has become over-personalised because people associate the regional agenda with the Deputy Prime Minister. Leaflets circulated by the Conservatives in my area do not condemn Labour's regional assemblies, new Labour's regional assemblies, or even Blair's regional assemblies, but read, "Say no to Prescott's regional assemblies".
  If my party is serious about winning the referendums, I wish the Prime Minister would make his position clear. His current position is rather opaque and I do not think he is convinced by the idea at all. The Deputy Prime Minister has set the agenda, but that has alienated the opinion not only of a lot of Opposition Members, but of some Labour Members. The Deputy Prime Minister will be speaking to my colleagues from the three northern regions in about 35 minutes.
  The regional assemblies are a complete diversion, and I agree with the thoughtful speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer). I fear that having been given a good kicking by the electorate on 10 June, we will get another good kicking in October. Before I entered the Chamber for the debate, a colleague from the House of Lords said to me, "Gordon, we are inventing new elections to lose." That is our problem.
  4.26 pm
  Mr. Philip Hammond: I am delighted that the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) managed to speak, albeit briefly.
  Conservative Members support the principle of decentralisation—moving decision making to the lowest appropriate level based on coherent accountable units close to the people affected by decisions. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) pointed out earlier, the Government's proposed elected regional assemblies will not represent a genuinely decentralising measure. In the words of Lord Rooker, there will be "no new money" and "no new powers" will flow to them. They will suck powers up from local authorities instead of down from central Government. We are already seeing that happening with housing, planning and fire and rescue services.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) said, we are being offered expensive and largely toothless talking shops with more politicians, more
  356
  bureaucrats and more red tape. Decisions will be made further away from people, rather than closer to them. The assemblies will have no new powers other than those sucked up from local authorities. They will represent more big government that will spend more precious taxpayers' money without delivering a single extra doctor, policeman, teacher or social worker, and without offering real solutions to the genuine issues arising from the massive structural economic change that has occurred throughout the three northern regions over the past two and a half decades.
  Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman says that regional assemblies will lead to more politicians. With the abolition of county councils, can he be absolutely sure that that will happen? Surely the proposal would lead to fewer elected politicians.
  Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman knows that the north-east, for example, is already overwhelmingly made up of single-tier local authorities, so an assembly would impose an additional tier of government.
  It is little wonder that outside the narrow confines of the political class, the Deputy Prime Minister's obsession has signally failed to grip the imagination of the people who are supposed to be enthused by it. It is little wonder that the evidence points to a growing sentiment in all three northern regions, especially Yorkshire and Humber and the north-west, that the proposed extra tier of government is simply not the answer to the regions' problems and that the Government's proposal reflects Labour's tired philosophy that more government equals better government, and that constant change equals progress.
  As is so often the case, Labour is hedging its bets. Ministers talk about the importance of allowing the electorate to decide whether to have regional government in referendums, but they have already embarked on an agenda of reallocating responsibilities and functions from local government to regional forms of government, irrespective of whether elected regional assemblies come into being. The Government's amendment congratulates them on their endeavours to ensure that the electorate are well informed about regional assemblies. In truth, however, it is the Government, in the name of spreading clarity, either deliberately or through incompetence, who have created confusion and uncertainty about the extent of the powers, responsibilities and costs of elected regional assemblies.
  The Minister's typical response to any criticism is to wrap himself in the mantle of democracy and proclaim that he merely wishes to allow the people in his selected regions to have a choice. It is clear that that commitment to choice is subordinate to Downing street's fear of another debacle on the scale of 10 June and the parliamentary Labour party's blind panic in the face of looming defeat and the damage that the Deputy Prime Minister's agenda could do to its chances at the general election. The champions of democracy proclaim that the people must decide, but it is apparent that they will only be allowed to do so if it is to Labour's electoral advantage.
  Our debate has demonstrated that if the people are to decide, they must have clear and accurate information about the question that is put to them; they must be

  357
  allowed to express their decision through a fair and effective voting system and they must know the costs of the proposals that they are asked to judge. They are entitled to honest and impartial information, not Government propaganda. The Government appear to be distancing themselves from the holding of referendums before a general election, but if they go ahead it is clear on the available evidence that the last thing they are seeking is an objective test of the mood of the population in those three regions. They are instead attempting to manipulate the process with all the powers at their disposal to achieve the outcome that they desire.
  I fully recognise the Minister's problem—with just four months to go, in the analysis of the British Chambers of Commerce, there is a
  "lack of interest in and awareness of the prospect of elected regional assemblies."
  The more people know about elected regional assemblies, the less they like the idea. It will be difficult for the Minister to rise to the Deputy Prime Minister's challenge of delivering a yes vote in the regions and achieve a turnout that gives some credibility to the whole process. He is torn between those two objectives, and his efforts to increase turnout are likely to pull against his objective of securing a yes vote. Sadly, in his pursuit of a resolution to the dilemma, the principal victims are clarity and transparency. Genuinely open and informed debate has been sacrificed to his overriding need to achieve a yes vote on a half-reasonable turnout. That is the opposite of the genuinely democratic process advanced in ministerial propaganda and the self-congratulatory Government amendment.
  The soundings exercise was intended to determine whether there was any genuine interest in the holding of a referendum. It was not objective, and was conducted at the discretion of the Deputy Prime Minister, who managed to determine on the basis of 833 positive responses from a population of 5 million in Yorkshire and Humber that there was a desire to hold a referendum in the region. The electoral system itself gives rise to problems. The Minister conceded early on that the Government would not impose elected regional assemblies on people if turnout was "derisory", although he has resisted all attempts to pin down what constitutes such a turnout. The Government therefore concocted the idea of all-postal referendum ballots in the hope that that would achieve a turnout that was not derisory. They are therefore in the absurd position of seeking to lay orders for an all-postal ballot before the post-mortem on the 10 June fiasco is complete. They have had to build in a reverse gear to enable them to cancel or postpone the ballots if the Electoral Commission report is damning or if it suits them to interpret it in that way.
  There is a perfectly good solution at hand—it was identified by the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) in an early intervention—that will allow certainty about the date of the referendums, will prevent the result of the ballot being tinged by doubts about the integrity of all-postal voting, and has the benefit of being familiar to the electorate at large. It is the traditional system of ballot box voting, but the Government will not adopt it because they want to keep open the option of backing out of their commitment to the referendums if they decide later in the year that it is electorally advantageous to them to do so.
  358
  Having fudged the consultation on the level of interest and rigged the balloting system, the third prong of the Deputy Prime Minister's approach has been a propaganda campaign at the taxpayers' expense under the guise of information dissemination—a total waste of money, pushing a dud idea to an indifferent audience without even, as the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) described to the House, paying lip service to making an attempt at a dispassionate presentation of the arguments. The Deputy Prime Minister has been running around the country sowing confusion and obfuscation in all directions and, every time he is challenged, retreating behind the mantra that the powers will be as per the White Paper, only to sally forth the next day flying more kites and creating more confusion and doubt.
  The truth, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex pointed out, is that there is a battle royal going on within the Government. Despite the big talk earlier of interdepartmental battles to be waged by big John, it seems that it was little Jeff who was right all along—at the end of the day, there will be no new powers and no new money.
  Will the Minister confirm to the House, as many hon. Members have asked him to do in his winding-up speech, that the draft Bill will be published before the end of the Session, and that it will contain precise powers and not be structured simply as an enabling Bill, so that when the electorate go to the polls in October they are clear as to the powers and the costs of the regional assemblies if they vote for them? Will the Minister further confirm that the Bill will published at a time and in a manner that enables a debate to take place in Government time in this House and the other place, ideally before the recess, but if not in the September session, so that the important issues that will be raised by the detail of the draft Bill can be fully debated and reported in the regional press? Only in that way will the democratic process be properly conducted to the benefit of the country and the whole of its electorate.
  4.37 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Phil Hope): The debate should be renamed. It has not shown confusion in the Government's regional policy, but it has shown a great deal of confusion in the Opposition's regional policy. They voted against Scottish devolution, and then had to accept it; they voted against Welsh devolution, and then had to accept it; and they voted against the Mayor and the Assembly in London, and then had to accept it.
  The Opposition opposed regional chambers, in which there are now 150 Conservative councillors sitting in active support. The Opposition opposed regional development agencies but now want to engage with them, although I am not sure what that means. We discovered in the debate today that although the Opposition opposed the referendums in the first place, they now insist that they take place—a damascene U-turn if ever I saw one. They do not seem to want more politicians but they oppose unitary structures. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry)

  359
  seemed to suggest that up to 2 per cent. of people in this country should become councillors. That would be about 1 million councillors—rather too many, I think.
  Mr. Curry: I was merely pointing out that the United Kingdom is relatively light on elected representatives, compared with almost every other country in the European Union, so we should not be frightened by the idea that we have people to represent the citizen, rather than always assuming that the only way to go is towards fewer councils covering larger areas.
  Phil Hope: Opposition Front Benchers complained throughout the debate that they do not want more politicians at regional level. The Opposition cannot have it both ways.
  The Opposition's attitude to regional policy is as confused as the membership of their Front-Bench team. It is one of our favourite pastimes on the Government Front Bench to try to guess which of the eight members of the Opposition Front-Bench team will bother to turn up at various debates on regional government. I led a debate on the Northern way in the Regional Affairs Committee, at which the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) represented the Conservatives—in fact, he was the only Conservative present.
  The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), who is one of the sponsors of the motion, cannot be present. We understand that she is in Birmingham campaigning in the by-election. I hope she reminds people there of her commitment to reintroduce the poll tax, and the shadow Chancellor's proposals to cut £57 million from Birmingham city council's budget if the Conservatives were ever to return to power.
  The Liberal Democrats have their own internal confusions, which we have heard about today, so there is no change there. More worrying is the proposal of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) that we should have a boundary review. Nothing would delay elected regional assemblies more than having a boundary review. The consultation would result in inordinate delay.
  As the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) and the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton said, this debate, as highlighted by the Sheffield university report, is all about bringing economic development, democracy and accountability for public spending to the regions. It is about developing regional policy.
  The first generation of regional policy was essentially the ambulance work of getting Government help to the regions in the early 1930s. The second generation, in the 1960s and 1970s, was all about large capital and tax incentives, about which we heard something this afternoon, to get people to locate in the regions. Both those approaches were inflexible and top-down. Neither did enough to close the gap between areas of high unemployment and areas of low unemployment—regional disparities, as the Sheffield university report shows, continue to grow.
  360
  We are now in the third and new generation of regional economic policy measures that seek to strengthen the indigenous sources of growth in the regions.
  Mr. George Howarth: My hon. Friend is now on some interesting territory. He, like me, supports the Greater London authority, which is, in effect, a city region. If a city region model is appropriate for London, why should it not be appropriate for conurbations such as Merseyside and Greater Manchester?
  Phil Hope: The report shows the value that the core cities give to economic regeneration in the regions, but the point about the Greater London assembly, which was made in today's debate, is that it provides the model for the regional assemblies for the north-west, north-east and Yorkshire and Humber. It has been particularly successful in standing up for London, and we want similar assemblies to stand up for the northern regions, to attract investment, to create democratic accountability and to sponsor the regional economic growth that is so important.
  We are committed to a far-reaching and radical programme of constitutional change and devolution. We have been transforming this country from what it was in 1997—one of the most centralised in the western world.
  A number of different points have been made about powers. I cannot go through all the details, but it was interesting how in today's debate even Front-Bench spokesmen, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton and others on both sides of the argument were all saying that what we want is stronger devolution; we want more powers and more spending to be devolved to the regions. This is the start of that exact process. This is the opportunity for those regions to grab back central Government's power, to stand up for themselves, and to start this process, going forward into this third generation of regional economic development, which both sides of the House appear to support—even my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer), who seemed to be arguing for more discrimination for the north. This is not about discrimination; it is about handing power back so that people in the north can have the resources and the powers that they require.
  Time is running out, but I assure the House that we will be introducing a Bill, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local and Regional Government said in his opening remarks. We are on course to publish it in July once the dates for the referendums have been set, and we will ensure that those votes will be held in a postal referendum because the people deserve the opportunity to have their say, and postal voting, as we have seen from the experience in June, increases turnout. We have made the commitment not to proceed with all-postal referendums, as planned, if the Electoral Commission produces convincing evidence leading to the conclusion that it would be unsafe to do so. That is the proper reaction of a Government who are committed to encouraging participation in the democratic process, but who are equally committed to protecting the integrity of the balloting process as well.

  361
  Opposition Members made a number of points about the information campaign, and we even had a quote from a QC on which the Tories waited a lot of money. Sir Andrew Turnbull, the Cabinet Secretary, has replied to the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, saying:
  "I am entirely satisfied that the Your Say campaign does not break any of the principles set out in either the legislation or the guidance."
  The Government have made a clear commitment and the regional development agencies have already achieved much in boosting the regional economies. It is time to go further. We believe that elected regional assemblies can further improve regional economies, offering democratic joined-up government and a new perspective, vision and opportunity to the regions. The Opposition's motion is incoherent and backward looking. It reflects the confusion of a party that has got it wrong in every devolution debate in the past decade and that would deny the people of the northern regions a choice.
  It will be for the people of the regions to choose in a referendum whether they wish to have a regional assembly. Our policy for elected regional assemblies is about choice—a choice for the people, and a choice to provide a better future for the north.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 119, Noes 320.

  Division No. 209]

  [4:45 pm

  AYES

  Amess, David

  Forth, rh Eric

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Francois, Mark

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Gale, Roper (N Thanet)

  Baldry, Tony

  Garnier, Edward

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Bellingham, Henry

  Goodman, Paul

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Grayling, Chris

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Gummer, rh John

  Brady, Graham

  Hague, rh William

  Brazier, Julian

  Hammond Philip

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hawkins, Nick

  Burns, Simon

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Burnside, David

  Hermon, Lady

  Burt, Alistair

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Butterfill, Sir John

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Cameron, David

  Howard, rh Michael

  Cash, William

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Jack, rh Michael

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Chope, Christopher

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Clappison, James

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Conway, Derek

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Leigh, Edward

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Curry, rh David

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Lidington, David

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Loughton Tim

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  McIntosh Miss Anne

  Duncan Smith, rh Iain

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Fallon, Michael

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Flight, Howard

  Maples, John

  362

  Maude, rh Francis

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Spring, Richard

  Steen, Anthony

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Swayne, Desmond

  Norman, Archie

  Syms, Robert

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Page Richard

  Tredinnick, David

  Paice, James

  Trend, Michael

  Paterson, Owen

  Trimble, rh David

  Pickles, Eric

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Viggers, Peter

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Randall, John

  Watkinson, Angela

  Redwood, rh John

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Robathan, Andrew

  Wilshire, David

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Roe, Dame Marion

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas

  Ruffley, David

  (Macclesfield)

  Shepherd, Richard

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Simmonds, Mark

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Hugh Robertson and

  Soames, Nicholas

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

  NOES

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE Fife)

  Ainger, Nick

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Allan, Richard

  Caplin, Ivor

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Casale, Roger

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Caton, Martin

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Chidgey, David

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Austin, John

  Bailey, Adrian

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Baird, Vera

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Baker, Norman

  Barnes, Harry

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Clelland, David

  Beard, Nigel

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Coaker, Vernon

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Connarty, Michael

  Bennett, Andrew

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Best Harold

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Betts, Clive

  Corston, Jean

  Blackman, Liz

  Cotter, Brian

  Blizzard, Bob

  Cousins, Jim

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Cranston, Ross

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Crausby, David

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Cruddas, Jon

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Breed, Colin

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

  Brennan, Kevin

  (Copeland)

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Browne, Desmond

  Davidson, Ian

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bryant, Chris

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Burgon, Colin

  Denham, rh John

  Burnham, Andy

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Burstow, Paul

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Cairns, David

  Doran, Frank

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  363

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Edwards, Huw

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Lammy, David

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Etherington, Bill

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Lepper, David

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Leslie, Christopher

  Flint, Caroline

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Foulkes, rh George

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Linton, Martin

  Gardiner, Barry

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Gerrard, Neil

  Love, Andrew

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Luke, lain (Dundee E)

  Gilroy, Linda

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Goggins, Paul

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McDonnell, John

  Grogan, John

  MacDougall, John

  Hain, rh Peter

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Hancock, Mike

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hanson, David

  McWalter, Tony

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  McWilliam, John

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Harvey, Nick

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

  Healey, John

  Heath, David

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Martlew, Eric

  Hendrick, Mark

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Michael, rh Alun

  Hesford, Stephen

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  Miliband, David

  Heyes, David

  Miller, Andrew

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Moffatt, Laura

  Holmes, Paul

  Mole, Chris

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Moore, Michael

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Moran, Margaret

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Morgan, Julie

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Morley, Elliot

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Mountford, Kali

  Mudie, George

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Mullin, Chris

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Illsley, Eric

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Ingram, rh Adam

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jamieson, David

  Olner, Bill

  Jenkins, Brian

  Organ, Diana

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Owen, Albert

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Picking, Anne

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Plaskitt, James

  Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald

  Pollard, Kerry

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Pound, Stephen

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Prescott, rh John

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Kidney, David

  364

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Purchase, Ken

  Straw, rh Jack

  Purnell, James

  Stringer, Graham

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Stunell, Andrew

  Rammell, Bill

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Rendel, David

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Rooney, Terry

  Timms, Stephen

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Touhig, Don (IsIwyn)

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Trickett, Jon

  Ruane, Chris

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Salter, Martin

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Ward, Claire

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Watts, David

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Sheerman, Barry

  White, Brian

  Sheridan, Jim

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Short, rh Clare

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Singh, Marsha

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Willis, Phil

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Wilson, Brian

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  Winnick, David

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Worthington, Tony

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Soley, Clive

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Southworth, Helen

  Wyatt, Derek

  Spellar, rh John

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Squire, Rachel

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Gillian Merron and

  Stevenson, George

  Charlotte Atkins

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes progress the Government is making in implementing its proposals for elected regional assemblies set out in the White Paper Your Region, Your Choice: Revitalising the English Regions, based on the principles of increasing prosperity, pride and democracy in the regions; applauds the opportunity afforded to people in the three northern regions of England to have their say about whether they want an elected assembly for their region; welcomes the decision to hold the referendum by all-postal ballot while noting the Government's preparedness to give a clear undertaking not to proceed with all-postal referendums as planned if the Electoral Commission produces convincing evidence leading to the conclusion that it would be unsafe to do so, welcomes the Government's decision to have one assistance and delivery point per 50,000 electors, giving the choice as to whether to return their vote by post, to deliver it by hand, or to vote at a place supervised by electoral officials; further notes the Boundary Committee's estimates of the savings from local government restructuring in regions which choose to establish an elected regional assembly; looks forward to the publication of the draft Bill which would establish elected

  365
  assemblies, once the date for the referendums has been set by Parliament; commends the Government's endeavours to ensure that people voting in the referendums have information on which to base their choice; and notes that the principal confusion about regional policy appears to be on the Opposition benches.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you know, Solicitor-General's Question Time takes place tomorrow at 12.20 pm. I was in the Lobby earlier and have just received a letter from the Solicitor-General's secretariat to say that my question has been transferred. I appreciate that the transfer is not your responsibility, but such short notice is surely a discourtesy not only to me but to the work of the House of the Commons. Furthermore, the Solicitor-General is responsible for prosecutions, with which the question deals, yet she has transferred it. Will you advise me on that?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, that is not a matter for the Chair. However, he has registered his concern, which will now be on the record.

Business Deregulation
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
5.1 pm
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: I beg to move,
That this House regrets the decision of the Government to replace 'deregulation' with 'better regulation' and condemns its failure to deliver deregulation for British business; is alarmed that the Government is unable to quantify the number of new regulations generated since 1997; deplores the fact that the total cost of major regulations to business approved since 1998 now exceeds £30 billion, and notes with concern the negative consequences this is having and will have on small businesses in particular; further condemns the Government's decision to agree to a European Constitutional Treaty that will extend the legislative competences of the European Commission; calls on the Government to take urgent measures to reduce the burden of domestic and European regulation on British business; and further condemns Labour MEPs for voting in the European Parliament in favour of the Agency Workers Directive and the extension of the Working Time Directive in the UK.
I draw to hon. Members' attention my declaration in the Register of Members' Interests. I have given the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry notice that I cannot be present for the winding-up speeches, and I am therefore disappointed that she has chosen not to turn up and focus on such an important subject. It is yet another example of her refusal to come to the House for a debate in Opposition time. She was not present when we held an Opposition day debate on post offices. As ever, the Government pretend that they need put up a Secretary of State only when a member of the shadow Cabinet is present. That is nothing to do with them. I am the Secretary of State's shadow and she should be here because business deregulation is a major issue for the future competitiveness of this country. There is a lack of will on the Government's part to take that seriously.
I welcome the debate, on Conservative initiative and in Opposition time, on the vital topic of business deregulation. If previous Conservative Administrations had not clearly understood and acted on the importance of setting business free, Britain would remain the sick man of Europe rather than being one of its eminent models of flexibility, at least until recently.
However, it is already clear that the 21st century global economy will be unrecognisable from that of the latter half of the 20th century. Liberalisation of markets through the World Trade Organisation, the enlargement of the European Union, the birth of the tiger economies, the prodigious rise of China and India, which compete not only on the basis of low wages but on high skills—each has 750,000 graduates every year—are all factors that drive up competitive pressures as never before.
Against such a background, it is time to audit the Government's actions—or, more accurately, inaction—on deregulating business since 1997 and to examine the implications of their policies for our productivity growth and competitiveness. I shall highlight the Conservatives' political will and practical, deliverable programme in government to identify and reverse the drivers of over-regulation of British business, which has suffered under the Labour Government.

367
In the 2001 manifesto, the Labour party made the following commitment:
"We will cut the time small firms spend on dealing with regulation".
That followed the Prime Minister's pledge in 1998:
"Where regulations or alternative measures are introduced, this should be done in a light touch way".
In the light of the Prime Minister's enthusiasm for a political debate based on reality rather than myth, I hope that the Minister—I had hoped it would be the Secretary of State—will acknowledge that the evidence suggests that, far from decreasing the amount of time that UK businesses, large and small, spend dealing with red tape, the Labour Government have increased it by an average of six hours a week per employer.
A CBI survey from the end of 2003 showed that 95 per cent. of UK businesses—an incontestable statistic in any survey—confirmed that they were having to spend more time dealing with red tape than they were five years ago. The most recent KPMG survey of small and medium-sized enterprises found that
"complying with regulations and red tape"
was the single issue of greatest concern, eclipsing other worries such as skills shortages, the rise in insurance premiums, and pension scheme deficits. In fact, the burden of regulation, which particularly and disproportionately affects small businesses, is now getting so out of control that a Select Committee report from the other place, published earlier this year, on the accountability—or rather, the lack of it—of regulators includes the following evidence from a group of financial advisers:
"The FSA handbook is vast and almost incomprehensible—the only way to look at it is via the search engine on the FSA website as apparently if printed out it would stand nine feet high".
It is dispiriting—if not surprising, against such crushing regulatory odds—that a fortnight ago, HSBC cut 3,500 jobs from its British work force, taking the total of UK job losses to 7,500 over the past 12 months. HSBC blamed the £200 million extra cost of new financial regulations.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: In the light of the important points that my hon. Friend has just made, would he agree that one of the things that particularly irritates businesses—especially small businesses, including many in my own area—is that when they try to ask the relevant Government Department legitimate questions about regulations, they are often told that they have to look at the Department's website? Many small businesses do not have the time or the facilities to spend hours looking at Government websites. The Government have an obsession with this. Does my hon. Friend agree that the point that he has just made particularly concerns small businesses?
Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend is entirely right. His understanding of the position is accurate. Naturally, I am glad that there is a website for people to visit; in many ways, that is progress in itself. At the same time, however, this shows the Government's lack of experience and achievement in customer service, given
368
that the taxpayers money—businesses' money—is being used to provide a service to the very businesses that feel let down by the Labour Government on the ground that the information is not being produced in a customer-friendly way. A recent survey showed that only 17 per cent. of businesses recognised the schemes that were available to them from the Department of Trade and Industry. Furthermore, the Secretary of State herself has said that many of the schemes are not a useful use of taxpayers' money.
I was a former FTSE 100 manufacturing industrialist and small business operator before I entered Parliament five years ago, so I understand that a certain level of regulation will always be necessary. I also know from my experience of actively doing business in more than 10 countries on the continent that some EU legislation, particularly in relation to the internal market, has been positive in working against protectionist practices on the continent.
However, speaking from the perspective of someone who has had to comply with, rather than produce, business regulations, I see two things very clearly. First, it comes as no surprise to me—although it may to Ministers, who have no direct experience at the sharp end of business—that, as the Government have increased the time businesses have to spend dealing with red tape by more than 200 per cent. since 1997, as the last week's Peninsula survey confirms, there has been a corresponding reduction in productivity growth. That growth rate is currently barely more than half of what it was between 1993 and 1997.
Secondly, if an extra £30 billion has been placed on UK businesses since 1998—as the latest British Chambers of Commerce burdens barometer has calculated—it was inevitable that UK competitiveness has plummeted from fourth place in 1997 to 15th place today, as the World Economic Forum rankings testify.
Mr. John Redwood: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I have declared my interests in the Register.
Is it not the case that 600,000 manufacturing jobs have already been destroyed under this Government, many of them by excessive regulation and taxation? They have been destroyed by the very Government who came to power saying that they were going to be good for manufacturing. Is that not a disgrace?
Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. No one is more assiduous than he in standing up for the interests of the wealth-creating and risk-taking part of our economy.
I mentioned the example of HSBC. Things have been tough for manufacturing for some time, however, particularly given the globalisation of manufacturing. Many have gone out of business that need not have done. The Government, through their control and command, have placed on those businesses regulations that have been both burdensome and unnecessary, to seek to achieve changes of behaviour that winning businesses would in any event have adopted for themselves. That is not a position that the UK can afford to be in.

369
David Frost, the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, is absolutely correct when he says:
"Business is being held back by administrative costs and burdens. The great strength of the UK economy is its flexibility and if we are to successfully compete globally we must maintain this flexibility."
Precisely for that reason, I have recently written twice to the Secretary of State, asking her to censure, and distance herself from, Labour MEPs who have voted on more than one occasion to scrap the UK opt-out from the 48-hour working week component of the working time directive, worth at least £9 billion a year to employers. Likewise, they have voted in favour of the temporary agency workers directive, which the CBI says would cost up to 160,000 jobs if implemented in the UK.
I regret to say that the Secretary of State has not answered either of my letters—and even worse, she has not bothered to turn up today. Until she is prepared to admit that the behaviour of her MEPs is unacceptable, she and her team will have to accept the charge that she and they are dangerously relaxed about the loss of UK plc's hard-won flexibility, against which she fought tooth and nail in opposition and on which the Liberals would only ever have an opportunity to chunter, as they would not understand the position—[Interruption.]
As we are no doubt about to be reminded—as the Liberals seek to say things from a sedentary position, which is where they are best left—the Government have taken superficial action to reduce the burden of regulation against UK business. On the surface, it is difficult to reconcile the various taskforces and eye-catching initiatives launched since 1997 with the fact that the Financial Times recently carried an editorial in which it asserted that this Government are so ideologically enamoured of regulation that it has become "the new Clause Four". Businesses effectively regard increased regulations as taxes by another name.
This Government's failure to take substantive action to deregulate, and their stubborn commitment to over-regulation, is explained by three factors. First, there is the natural inclination of a Labour Government to big government state interventionism. That has shown no sign of abating under nannying new Labour. According to the House of Commons Library, in the six full calendar years of Labour Government, the number of regulations passed total 23,322. On average, that is 3,887 per annum or 14.95 regulations every working day. That is up 53 per cent. on the number under the last Conservative Government.
Secondly, there is the burgeoning bureaucracy that naturally accompanies a big state. That bureaucracy is now so unaccountable that the Better Regulation Task Force recently admitted that it does not even know how many regulators there are—not "regulations", as it is misprinted in the Order Paper, although it does not know how many of those there are either. That is precisely the problem: it does not know what the cost of regulation is as a proportion of GDP.
Thirdly, on top of those domestic factors, there lies the superstructure of a centralising European Commission, whose legitimacy is not derived from a direct democratic mandate but a technocratic imperative to legislate and to regulate.
370
The combination of those three—an interventionist Labour Government, an out-of-control bureaucracy and a power-hungry European Commission—amounts to a hurricane-force storm of over-regulation, which the UK may not have the means to weather in the new, ferociously competitive global economy. That nexus of circumstances has created a serious structural presumption by this Government in favour of regulating in response to any given problem. In a context like that, the Government's initiatives to promote so-called better regulation are tokenistic and ineffectual.
Take regulatory impact assessments, for example. When they sign off an RIA, Ministers are required to assert that the benefits justify the costs. That, however, is a very different proposition from saying that the benefits must outweigh the costs. Justifying regulation is a considerably more subjective and ideological exercise than an objective measurement of estimated financial costs and benefits, which, incidentally, reveals that in 2002–03, the recurrent costs of regulation recorded in RIAs were almost 10 times the recurrent benefits.
Regulatory impact assessments are potentially useful instruments, but they are used neither effectively nor efficiently by this Government. That is demonstrated by a recent parliamentary answer that I received from the Minister for Small Business and Enterprise, who is in his place, on the subject of the costs to business of regulation:
"Information in relation to the estimated benefits and costs to business is provided in the regulatory impact assessment and is best read in the context of each individual RIA."—[Official Report, 22 June 2004; Vol. 422, c. 1319W.]
Reading the estimated impact on business of regulation on a case-by-case basis is the worst strategy that could be adopted. If the problem of over-regulation is ever to be confronted successfully, it will be essential to replace that short-sighted approach to so-called better regulation with the more dynamic approach to deregulation pursued by an incoming future Conservative Government. That would represent a significant culture change, as it would involve assessing regulations by reference to their cumulative impact on business—in other words, in their totality, a favourite Labour word, rather than in isolation, and having regard to the actual drivers of regulation as well as the existing stock of statutory instruments.
I have given my full support to an excellent ten-minute Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), who is present. It would require the independent post-auditing of regulatory impact assessments and their independent assessment in the first place. That would help to ensure that the collective costs of regulatory impact assessments did not outweigh the benefits.
Earlier this year I launched a business deregulation panel to advise me on practicable policy recommendations from a business perspective, on the basis of an analysis of what we have identified as the five principal drivers of over-regulation. They are the EU—of course—gold-plating, Government policy, administrative creep, and compensation culture. That analysis has been published in a pamphlet by the Conservative Research Department policy unit, and is available on www.conservatives.com/policies. I have a copy here.

371
The business deregulation panel consists of representatives from the Institute of Directors, the Federation of Small Businesses and the British Chambers of Commerce, as well as the economist Ruth Lea and senior figures from the business world including Martin Barrow, Malcolm McAlpine, Lord MacLaurin and Sir Paul Judge. I shall announce the Opposition's policies on deregulation in more detail following its recommendations, between now and the general election.
Let us look at the Government's record on business deregulation. The so-called flagship initiative overseen by the Cabinet Office is the regulatory reform action plan. It consists of 650 so-called deregulatory measures. I say "so-called" because, for instance, one was the creation of the new super-regulator Ofcom. There is, by the way, no implementation timetable: consequently almost two thirds of the measures remain unimplemented.
In his pre-Budget report statement in December 2003, the Chancellor announced 147 regulations for reform or removal that would be incorporated in the regulatory reform action plan. It subsequently emerged that only 25 per cent. of those 147 deregulatory measures—according to Ernst and Young—related to tax and red-tape issues affecting business. In fact, I recently received a parliamentary answer on the subject from the Financial Secretary, who conceded that
"Among the measures to reform there were several measures with direct benefits for business".—[Official Report, 17 June 2003; Vol. 422, c. 1045W.]
So from 147 business deregulation measures, we are down to "several". In any case, given that the Government introduce an average of 15 regulations every working day, it has taken only about 10 days to replace the repealed regulations, even if they all related to business—which they clearly did not.
Another regulatory reform action plan of which the Chancellor speaks smugly was produced by the European Commission in 2002. The Commission's plans formed the basis of the joint initiative on regulatory reform announced earlier this year by the Chancellor and Finance Ministers of Holland, Luxembourg and Ireland. Here is the problem: at the heart of Government, the Treasury insists
"The scope of this programme includes reform or removal of existing legislation which is in force".—[Official Report, 27 May 2004; Vol. 421, c. 1727W.]
However, the Commission's text is 100 per cent. clear:
"Our aim is not to deregulate or to interfere with the executive's or the legislator's prerogatives, and certainly not to restrict the Community's freedom of action".
Perhaps it was the Chancellor's pique at being thwarted by the Commission that prompted him to tell the European Scrutiny Committee in April:
"it is unacceptable that 50 per cent. or more of regulations come from the European Union".
Let me repeat that, for it is an astonishing admission. The Chancellor of the Exchequer believes it is "unacceptable" that 50 per cent. of regulations come from Europe. Where has he been for the last six years? He is not an innocent victim, but the Chancellor of a Government who, since 1997, have implemented more
372
EU directives than had been implemented in the whole of the last quarter of a century. In that case, why on earth does he want to sign up to the new EU constitution, when it has emerged that the Government's own legal advisers admit that it will give European judges powers to erode the flexibility of the UK's labour laws via the charter of fundamental rights?
It is truly a bizarre spectacle. The Chancellor says that the level of regulation from the EU, which has cost British businesses £25 billion since 1998, is unacceptable, although he will happily sign up to a constitution that will extend the EU's legislative competences. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister says that "no one will support" an attempt to renegotiate the treaties that have transferred precisely those competences to the EU. In the Blair myth-making world, supinely and irresponsibly reflected in the Government's amendment to our motion today, which tries to claim that the debate is about being in or out of the EU, does that mean that the Chancellor wants to be out of the EU, or just out of his present job and into his next-door neighbour's?
The Chancellor's blundering admission also puts the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—and her representatives today, as she is not present—in an uncomfortable position. It is the Secretary of State's habit to label as an extremist anyone who highlights the negative economic impact of Brussels legislation on British business and calls for a corresponding reduction of such legislation and legislative powers. They are no such thing. I hope that British business has taken note of the outrageous insult it is to all those risk-taking, wealth-creating business men and women that the right hon. Lady sees her job as getting in their way, rather than getting out of their way. It would be helpful if the Government and their Whips had not sought to peddle complete untruths in their amendment, which seeks to suggest that the Conservatives stand for withdrawal from Europe. That is the precise opposite of what is on the record, and of our policy.
Signing the EU constitution would be the final nail in the coffin of the Government's failed attempt to deregulate British business, given the already inordinate and disproportionate costs to UK business from EU-derived regulation. Recent research by the Conservatives in the House of Commons Library found that more than 60 per cent. of legislation is now European in origin. More than 80 per cent. of regulatory costs to British business since 1998 have resulted from Acts of Parliament that implement EU directives. That finding is astounding, but equally so is the fact that no one in the Government has ever bothered to establish for themselves that four fifths, or £25 billion, of the £30 billion cost of regulation to British business comes from Brussels.
Of course, some of the cost of overregulation is a result of the overzealous implementation of European directives into UK law—the phenomenon known as gold-plating. That appears to be another area of profound confusion for the Government. The Foreign Secretary recently told the CBI that
"we must ensure that we do not impose extra burdens on British business by 'gold-plating' EU legislation when we transpose it into our national law."

373
Meanwhile, the Minister for the Cabinet Office recently informed me in a parliamentary answer that the Government explicitly reserve the right to gold-plate, when he stated that "Cabinet Office guidelines" include
"options that could go beyond the minimum necessary to comply with a European directive … particularly where the original directive is unclear"—[Official Report, 30 April 2004; Vol. 420, c. 1319W.]
If directives are unclear, surely that requires earlier action to amend or forestall them. We should stop them in their tracks, not, as the Government prefer, gold-plate them just in case.
The problem of gold-plating is compounded by the Government's failure properly to scrutinise directives in the first place. An independent report on gold-plating recently commissioned by the Foreign Office states:
"During negotiations on a Commission proposal for a Directive, the UK is often represented by a junior officer with no legal training or experience, who attends meetings in Brussels without support, in particular full-time legal support".
That situation is clearly unacceptable, and a future Conservative Government would take urgent measures to ensure that the British representative was appropriately senior and authoritative, and had the appropriate legal backup, to ensure that the UK representation at that vital early stage in the regulatory process was more effective—not least, that it could head regulation off.
The substantial facts about Labour's failure to deregulate business are glaring. Deregulation is for Labour Members a word like "constitution"—they whisper it, or fear to use it. We will shortly hear much rhetoric about better regulation and regulatory simplification, but those are smoke and mirrors: mechanisms, processes and structures that seem to do everything but reduce the amount of regulation coming out of the conveyor belt of Westminster, Whitehall and Brussels. A case in point are the regulatory reform orders, which one of the Secretary of State's predecessors described as
"a powerful and flexible tool to strike down or change unnecessary or over-complex regulation"
when they were created in 2001. Between 2001 and 2003, the Government passed 12,450 new regulations. How many regulatory reform orders did the Department of Trade and Industry introduce in that time? One. That would be comic, were the issue not so serious.
When Labour Members speak, they will tell us that previous Conservative Governments regulated. Of course they did, but they did so half as much as this Government, averaged out on an annual basis. In case there is any remaining doubt that the Conservatives are the only party to take business deregulation seriously, let me say that the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), has already made it clear that a future Conservative Government would include sunset clauses wherever possible in new regulations originating in the UK, would seek the return to our national control of the matters covered by the social chapter and would seek a genuine application of the principle of subsidiarity by returning powers from Brussels in much the same was as, for example, the current Dutch Government suggested earlier this month that they would like to do. Indeed, the contrast between
374
the Dutch Government, who recently submitted to Brussels a list of 2,500 EU regulations for removal, and this Government, who sent the European Commission only a vague letter mentioning just 13 directives as "priorities for simplification"—as we know, that does not mean deregulation—was extremely telling. That shows how seriously the Dutch, and how weakly the British Government, treat the subject of over-regulation of business.
Mr. Michael Fallon: Is my hon. Friend aware that when we in the Treasury Sub-Committee visited the Netherlands, we met at the Dutch Finance Ministry a director of legislative burden who had a staff of 17, and who was charged with reducing the administrative and regulatory burden by 25 per cent. over four years? They were getting on with it; why cannot our Government?
Mr. O'Brien: I am delighted to hear of that experience. Of course, to change the culture of politicians and those who work in Whitehall, we need to incentivise them to be deregulators and to recognise that it is only the wealth-creating side of the economy— business—that gives our democracy the choices that we rightly demand and need. So it is absolutely critical that we make sure that the Government put in place the proper incentives to achieve such a change in culture and management. It is clear that such incentives are woefully lacking, because of the lack of political will on the part of this Government.
David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman not give at least some credit to the Government for their successes in the field of deregulation? I am thinking in particular of the statutory audit of companies. In 2000, the turnover limit was lifted to £1 million a year, thereby exempting some 150,000 companies from the requirement to have a statutory audit. This year, the limit was raised to some £5.6 million, thereby exempting a further 70,000 companies. Surely measures such as statutory audits are much more cumbersome and onerous than many of the regulations to which the hon. Gentleman is referring.
Mr. O'Brien: I have some respect for the hon. Gentleman's views and experience, and I am very glad that this Government have sought to follow the trajectory adopted by the previous Conservative Government. Of course, value thresholds must be revised in order to keep pace with events. In a prosperous economy such thresholds will not last for long, which is what we would wish for such businesses.
More importantly, we should set against such considerations the various measures introduced in recent employment relations legislation and through the implementation of the information and consultation directive. As a result, exemptions do not apply all the way down the chain of companies. Such measures have to be taken into account in determining the real costs to business. We need to consider the resulting effect on management time, distraction of attention and confusion, along with a lack of access to appropriate information and to quality, affordable professional expertise.

375
Such issues need to be set against the point that the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) rightly makes, and we need to consider them as we examine our approach to deregulation, rather than picking out a single element. A Government who are neither familiar nor comfortable with the idea of the risk-taking, wealth-creating side of the economy will inevitably try to regulate it to fit in with their own culture. That is in contrast with the Conservative party, which understands that a democracy is best underpinned by—and is most likely to deliver quality of life, confidence, security and prosperity for its citizens through—a well-supported but ultimately undistracted business community.
My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) introduced a ten-minute Bill to allow individuals or businesses adversely affected by proven gold-plating to force the Government to delete unnecessary provisions, or to revalidate them through primary legislation. Like the Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells, this Bill is a powerful potential weapon against the over-regulation that has been completely ignored by the Government, despite the fact that we have sought to be constructive by introducing such measures.
Mr. Redwood: I thank my hon. Friend for his generosity in giving way. I am delighted that he is against gold-plating, which is a very serious problem. But has he noticed that through the draft constitution, the EU will have a much more wide-ranging power to legislate directly, through both primary and secondary legislation? In some cases, commissioners will be able to put through secondary legislation with no reference back to elected politicians. Does that not mean that under the constitution—if it is accepted, and if the British people are foolish enough to vote for it—we will have gold-plating with knobs on from Brussels across the board?
Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who will have heard the points that I made in precisely those terms earlier in my speech. I fully support his analysis.
The real issue, of course, is very much part of what happens in Europe today. I have had considerable experience of businesses trading across Europe and I know that businesses recognise a difference of approach. We know that one of the merits of our Anglo-Saxon culture—seen in America, Australia, Canada and here—is that common law helps to provide greater opportunities for flexibility and competitiveness. That stands in stark contrast to the more natural committee-based, codified continental system, which is incremental. Once one starts something, one tends to have to come to some result; one cannot simply draw a line in the sand and say that something is not proper or relevant for legislators and regulators to be involved with. We should enable businesses to be set free so that they do not have to worry about that. The EU constitution is precisely the worst example of that type of trajectory, which will over time cause businesses grave difficulty and a reduction in their competitiveness.
376
Equally, we will focus on the spring—if I can coin that word—or underlying culture of regulation. Rather than opposing the tide of statutory instruments on an individual basis—clearly we do that from time to time in the Committee Corridor, but it would be an exercise worthy of King Canute against the incoming tide of regulation under Labour—we believe that a far more strategic approach is to tackle the drivers giving rise to the statutory instruments in the first place. Hence, as I mentioned earlier, the business experts whom we have appointed to our deregulation panel are, as we speak this evening, examining ways of reversing precisely those drivers of regulation.
Finally, I want the Department of Trade and Industry to act as a champion for business, not be the arch-regulator-in-chief against British business. What on earth was the Department doing when productivity growth was sliding away and the UK's competitiveness was falling from fourth to 15th place in the global rankings? It is not as if the Department were starved of resources: its budget actually went up from £3 billion to £8 billion over the same period, not least to promote and service all its burgeoning regulations on business.
The truth is that the Department simply used its bloated resources to intervene on markets, draft regulations and create new quangos. In that sense, overregulation is an inevitable consequence of big government, which is one of the reasons why the Conservative party has always believed that the state should be small, the people should be big, and businesses of all sizes should be set free to prosper and grow. Over-regulation is the single biggest long-term threat to our future competitiveness in the global economy.
Dr. Doug Naysmith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, particularly so late in his speech. He has made several references to financial services regulation and to an earlier Conservative Government. I am sure he recognises the importance of financial services regulation, so does he not feel ashamed at the lack of regulation that led to a number of very unrewarding outcomes for people who should be have been better protected by that Conservative Government?
Mr. O'Brien: In financial services, there will always be a degree of regulation, as there has been under previous Administrations of all colours. It is difficult for the hon. Gentleman to draw that rather partisan comparison when he supports a Government who have presided over the complete debacle over Equitable Life, which has affected so many of our constituents across the country. He should be careful to reflect on what motivates good behaviour and true management judgment. The last thing that underpins such behaviour and judgment are regulations which, although necessary to some degree in the financial services industry, are so extensive and tight that they remove the motivation to do the right things. We end up with stripped liability. It is not worth it. Everyone lives under threat, rather than benefiting from opportunities, though protections for consumers should be in place.
It is not as if I am alone in saying all this. Anatole Kaletsky recently noted in The Times:
"The consequences of over-regulation will be played out over decades, rather than months or years."

377
In other words, the fact that the economy has not yet fallen apart at the seams is an abject argument for the Government to make, even if it is their habitual response, because we are still trading off the relative competitive advantage created by the labour market reforms of previous Conservative Governments. That is one of the principal reasons why we have been fortunate enough to enjoy a sustained cycle of growth for the last 12 years.
I am pleased that, as a result of that 12-year cycle of growth, the number of new business registering for VAT was 175,800 in 2002—the last year for which figures are available—though I note that that is 6 per cent. down from 1997 when Labour came to power. No doubt the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will repeat her spurious claim that
"in the 1990s, you needed 28 separate licences, certificates and registrations to create some businesses. Now the figure is one form for many sole traders; and five forms for private companies".
Of course, businesses such as those that clean asbestos needed those 28 steps and under current procedures they still do; licences and regulation are necessary when dealing with possible hazards. However, when I started companies in the 1980s and up to 1997, they were started by filling out—yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, you've guessed it—five forms. Where is the progress? Yet another bit of Labour spin squashed.
The Labour spin doctors may also want to clarify the discrepancy between the claim made by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in a Labour party press release earlier this month that it
"now takes an average of one day to start a business … in the UK"
and the Chancellor's more sanguine claim—amazingly—made earlier this week, that
"it takes 24 days to set up a business in the rest of Europe but … seven days in Britain".
Who should we believe—the Chancellor or the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? Sadly, probably neither: perhaps the Government are missing Alastair Campbell after all.
The crucial test for the Government is whether British business will be prospering, innovating and expanding in a decade or more. Over-regulation is a poison that takes time to feed through the economic system—we need only look at Germany for an example of that—and there is only one antidote: a party committed to small government and big people, and a Government who get out of business's way—the next Conservative Government.
5.36 pm
The Minister for Industry and the Regions Jacqui Smith): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
"welcomes the Government's commitment to better regulation and enterprise, which has contributed to the UK becoming one of the best locations in the world in which to start and run a business; welcomes the recent independent endorsements of the UK's light touch regulatory environment; applauds the deregulatory initiatives brought forward since 1997 which have contributed to a significant decline in the total number of regulations imposing a cost on British business; rejects outright the allegations claiming that the regulatory burden on business now exceeds £30 billion; supports measures taken to improve the regulatory environment
378
for smaller businesses such as the removal of statutory audit requirements for small and medium-sized enterprises and the introduction of two specific commencement dates for employment regulations; congratulates the Government on signing up to the new European Constitution which promotes competitiveness and flexibility and which will ensure that national governments have new powers to scrutinise EU regulatory proposals; notes with concern proposals put forward by the Opposition which would damage Britain's relationship with Europe to the detriment of British business by withdrawing the UK from the world's largest common market; recognises the Government's constructive stance on the Agency Workers and Working Time Directives where it has maintained a position that promotes both fairness and flexibility; and calls on the Opposition to examine its own European policies which are consistently flouted by its own MEPs and Party members."
I am pleased that the Opposition have given me this opportunity to report on the Government's achievements in providing the best regulatory and economic framework for businesses to develop and thrive in this country.
Listening to the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) and other Opposition Members, anybody would think that UK business was doing badly. Is it not about time that the Opposition began talking up our business success and the economic climate that has helped to create it? In that climate, we have the lowest inflation for 30 years, historically low levels of interest rates and the highest employment rate in the G7—higher than any other major EU economy. The UK is the only country in the G7 to have continued positive growth in gross domestic product since 1997. In fact, the first quarter of 2004 saw such growth in the UK for a record 47th consecutive quarter.
Mr. Redwood: Can the Minister tell us why in her view more than 600,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost in Britain since Labour came to power?
Jacqui Smith: As the hon. Member for Eddisbury said, manufacturing has faced a difficult and challenging time over the past few years, not least due to the international situation, but I find that question hard to take from somebody who was a member of the Government during a time when boom and bust and record interest rates led to the decimation of our manufacturing jobs and many other jobs besides.
David Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend, like me, enchanted by the picture painted in that deep blue crystal ball that reveals Elysian fields where small and medium enterprises graze and run free of business regulation? Has she set against that the record in the black book, as evidenced by an outgoing Conservative Minister in 1997 who acknowledged that the Conservatives were rather adept at regulation? He said then that they interfered with almost every aspect of business and social life. He is the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo).
Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I shall return, briefly, to the Conservative record.
Mr. Redwood: Will the Minister give way?
Jacqui Smith: No, I want to make some progress.
The economic climate is the reason why 115,000 new businesses opened for trading in England and Wales in the final quarter of 2003, 9 per cent. higher than the

379
figure for the same quarter in 2002. It is why employment is at a new record level and why in February this year the International Monetary Fund upgraded the 2004 growth forecast for the UK to 3.1 per cent. from 2.4 per cent. What a contrast to the boom-and-bust years of the 1980s and early 1990s. It is not only Ministers who are saying that—it is confirmed by research on the global picture.
The hon. Member for Eddisbury should realise that we can quote KPMG surveys as well, particularly given that, in February this year, a KPMG survey showed that the UK has the lowest business cost structure among seven European countries. Globally, the UK came third, after Canada and Australia, among the 11 industrialised countries studied. It is the Conservatives who are determined to talk down our economy and our country.
Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to the Minister for graciously giving way. Will she please explain to the House why 600,000-plus manufacturing jobs have gone under this Government? We all know that the Conservative Government made a bad mistake in 1990 and paid a very dear price for it. This Government have now made a whole series of dreadful mistakes for manufacturing. Will she explain why, and what is she going to do about it?
Jacqui Smith: I began to explain. Those in a Government who presided over 673,000 manufacturing job losses in just one year in the 1980s are in a difficult position from which to lecture us, but we have recognised the challenges faced by manufacturing. That is why we produced the first ever manufacturing strategy two years ago, and it is why were are investing—for example, through the manufacturing advisory service—in services that have provided getting on for £50 million-worth of value added to our manufacturing companies. We recognise the challenges that manufacturing faces, but unlike the Conservatives we will not sit on our hands and watch our manufacturing jobs being destroyed.
I do not underestimate the concerns of business about bad regulation and the cumulative effect of regulation—I shall say more about how we are responding to them later—but we need a more sophisticated analysis than we received from the hon. Member for Eddisbury. Dare I say that we need more honesty about the role of regulation? The Government do not apologise for taking action to ensure decent pay and conditions for our people. Did the national minimum wage cause the job losses that Conservative Members claimed it would? No, it ensured that bad employers could not undercut good ones, provided an incentive to work and protected millions of people—the majority of them women—from poverty pay.
Regulation has a key role to play in stimulating competition, creating a level playing field, improving our environment and establishing minimum standards to prevent rogue practices. Regulations such as those that tackle bribery and corruption and those that combat late payment in commercial transactions support and protect good businesses.
380
I was extremely pleased to read an acknowledgement of our commitment on better regulation in the Better Regulation Task Force's annual report, which was published last week and stated that the DTI
"has put a great deal of effort into its work on better regulation."
Of course, the Conservative party, which now cloaks itself in the flag of deregulation, was not always so unkeen to regulate. That is why it introduced 3,334 statutory instruments in the House in 1994. Were they all bad? Were they all unnecessary? Of course, the Conservatives did not do a very good job of deregulating when they had the chance. Those are not my words, but the view of the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). In 1999, when speaking about deregulation, he said:
"We kept trying, we never really succeeded."
We are trying, and we are succeeding.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: The Minister is obviously right to say that the last Conservative Government did not make enough progress—we have accepted that—and she quoted part of the Better Regulation Task Force report that came out the other day, but did she look at the summary at the start of the report, where David Arculus said that he wants to see more use of alternatives, which is not yet the Government's first instinct? He also wants culture changes to be made a reality and more delivery on deregulation. If the Minister goes through the report in more detail, she will see that there is still a long way to go.
Jacqui Smith: Of course, David Arculus pointed out the especially good reputation and actions of the Department of Trade and Industry, but I do not disagree with his analysis. I shall talk later about the action that we are taking to find alternatives to regulation.
Regulatory impact assessments undertaken over the past six years have shown that the burden on business is decreasing. More than 90 per cent. of regulations impose no cost on business whatsoever, and although Conservative Members happily try to juxtapose a whole variety of different statistics about the Government as a whole and the DTI specifically, that is the important figure that we need to remember. We need to highlight the action that has been taken.
Conservative Members talk about employment regulation, but this Government introduced regulations to streamline the employment tribunal system and established dispute resolution as an alternative to employment tribunals. We eliminated most of the administrative costs of the working time regulations, and regulations on the national minimum wage and parental leave have a light touch.
Brian Cotter: Would it be useful to supplement impact assessments with an annual report from the Government on the cumulative effect of regulations introduced over the previous year? That would be a useful way of assessing the annual impact of regulations on businesses.
Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting suggestion. My hon. Friend the Minister for

381
Employment Relations, Competition and Consumers tells me that there will be an annual statement on employment rights. However, I am wary of the suggestion proposed in the ten-minute Bill to which the hon. Member for Eddisbury referred that we should introduce a few more assessments of our assessments. We would reach a situation in which we undertook regulatory impact assessments on regulatory impact assessments, but that would neither deregulate, nor cut bureaucracy.
The DTI is helping businesses to adapt to changes to employment law in practice. We have limited the introduction of all new domestic employment regulations to two commencement dates per year: 6 April, the start of the tax year, and 1 October, when the minimum wage is revised. We are consulting on whether to extend that approach and the areas in which it could be done.
Since January 2000, under the vigorous leadership of my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business and Enterprise, the Government have undertaken several measures to reduce the burden of regulations on small businesses. Employers with four or fewer employees are now exempt from requirements to provide access to stakeholder pensions and to deduct pension contributions. We have increased the company law thresholds for small and medium-sized enterprises to the maximum possible under EU law, thus doubling the amount of investment eligible for first year capital allowances. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) referred to this year's increase in the audit exemption threshold, but to respond to a point made by the hon. Member for Eddisbury, I hardly think that an increase in the threshold from £1 million to £5.6 million represents a standard form of annual uprating—it is a major increase. Of course, the increase in threshold benefits a further 69,000 companies over and above the 820,000 that are already exempt, and that measure alone is expected to save companies £94 million a year.
We have modernised and simplified value added tax and cut corporation tax. Such actions explain why an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development review of EU countries in January 2004 showed that the UK had almost the lowest administrative costs and the fewest regulations for entrepreneurs in the EU. That picture is confirmed by business leaders. Earlier this year, Charles Dunstone, the founder of Carphone Warehouse, stated:
"I have to say as we run businesses in 11 European countries, there is no doubt in my mind that the UK is the easiest place to run a business as far as regulation and red tape is concerned".
However, as the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) pointed out, we need to find alternative solutions to regulation, which is why, in our approach to corporate governance, we regulated where necessary to bring transparency to directors' pay, but we took take a non-statutory approach, on the whole, to the problems caused by the Enron and WorldCom scandals. The DTI initiated Derek Higgs's work on the role of non-executive directors and the Financial Reporting Council commissioned Robert Smith's report on the role of audit committees. Their recommendations were included in a combined code produced by the FRC that has already made a significant difference to the effectiveness of audit committees and non-executive directors.
382
The Enterprise Act 2002 includes many key instruments for deregulation, including codes of practice, which were approved from the Office of Fair Trading. They provide a non-statutory but nevertheless effective means of offering more consumer protection, particularly in used car sales; car repair and servicing; credit, including debt management and credit repair; funerals; travel; estate agents' services; and direct marketing. Regulatory reform is therefore a priority. International surveys show that the United Kingdom is at the forefront of such reform. The World Bank's "Doing business in 2004" included the UK in the 10 countries—out of a total of 130—with the least regulation.
We are not complacent. Regulatory reform is a priority and the regulatory reform action plan published in December 2003, to which the hon. Member for Eddisbury referred, includes over 650 deregulatory measures that apply across Whitehall. We have already delivered on 300, including simplification of the capital gains tax regime; reduced tax and regulatory burdens for small businesses when starting up; a VAT simplification package; and amendments to maternity pay, benefiting an estimated 10,000 employers. The Government have laid more than 24 regulatory reform orders before Parliament, 17 of which are already on the statute book.
The DTI has led the way on better regulation, including the setting up of the vehicles industry policy and European regulation group—snappily titled VIPER—which brings together a range of businesses involved in the automotive industry and allows an earlier and more robust consideration of policy options. In an independent survey, VIPER stakeholders gave the group a ringing endorsement. That approach to consultation is now being extended to the chemical, construction and retail sectors. We will, however, go further, which is why, in the Budget in March, the Chancellor announced a review of inspection and enforcement by Philip Hampton to identify what the Government can do to ease the burdens faced by businesses, and why we have announced new measures for strengthening the scrutiny of major regulatory proposals, including a panel chaired by the Prime Minister whose members include David Arculus, chairman of the Better Regulation Task Force, and William Sargent, chairman of the Small Business Council.
The motion refers to the disadvantages of Europe and European regulation—a matter that the hon. Member for Eddisbury raised, as Conservatives are wont to do. I wish to highlight the importance of raising the European game on better regulation, but first it is worth responding to the Conservative myths about the constitution. In our negotiations on the constitution we got what we wanted on the economy. We rejected tax harmonisation, protected our energy interests and achieved the right legal status for the charter, which is to be based on principles, rather than rights that could undermine our own national practice. The EU constitution will not result in more regulation, as it gives more power to national Parliaments. It is about enlargement and reform and will increase the opportunity for our businesses to operate in a bigger trading area than the US and Japan combined, as EU trade accounts for some 3 million UK jobs. It provides

383
a strong base to pursue our agenda. The UK is a strong voice in Europe for competitiveness and competition and for better regulation. We are leading the campaign for regulatory reform in Europe. We are making that commitment a reality, working with the Irish, Luxembourg and Dutch presidencies, which all share our aims.
We are leading the work on better regulatory impact assessments, including assessment of the impact of new proposals on Europe's competitiveness. We are calling for more engagement with stakeholders and for further simplification, taking our regulatory reform programme into Brussels and working with the Commission and European partners. That is on the agenda for the European Council now. We did not need to wait for the new constitution to do that.
We have shown what we can do through active engagement, particularly with regard to the REACH—registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals—proposals on the chemical industry. By engaging actively and focusing on the need for light-touch but effective regulation in a crucial area, we have already reduced the cost to industry by more than €10.5 billion, working with business in the UK and across Europe to challenge the Commission's proposals. We are still on the case, looking for streamlining and simplification, and working with business to improve the environment for us all.
The Government are committed to ensuring that we have light-touch regulation, that administrative burdens are kept to a minimum and that existing regulation is kept under review. Regulatory reform remains a priority. Today we have had the chance to outline some of the progress that we have made. The debate has also given us the chance to challenge the view that regulation is never necessary. There are times when we will take action to protect the vulnerable, defend the environment and promote fairness at work. By so doing, we will support and protect good businesses, build a competitive framework for enterprise and continue the economic success that we have delivered in the past seven years.
5.57 pm
Malcolm Bruce: I listened carefully to the 35-mintue speech from the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), which was delivered at considerable speed. I assumed that it would contain some radical, innovative proposals, but it amounted to a rant, devoid of any serious practical proposals.
Perhaps we should all acknowledge that regulation and deregulation is a difficult area. Often, when businesses complain about regulations and are asked to spell out how we should deal with them, they are unable to be specific or they cite regulations that we would not want to get rid of. For example, the chambers of commerce include in their deregulation proposals the asbestos regulations, but we know we must deal with those. We should all recognise that we need better regulation and, yes, less regulation.
The Minister mentioned the Better Regulation Task Force, and she is entitled to take comfort from its proposals that are supportive of the Government.
384
However, there are other proposals from the taskforce to which she did not refer, but which contain a mechanism that is valid—that we should apply a principle of new for old. In other words, new regulations should lead to the termination of old regulations, there should be an attempt to limit the number of regulations, and wherever possible, regulations should have sunset clauses so that they expire. If they have to be renewed, they have to be rejustified and the debate is reopened.
We welcome the fact that the Prime Minister has said that it will be a priority for the UK presidency of the European Union to promote deregulation. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches will watch with interest to see how the Government take that forward, and we would be willing to feed constructive suggestions into that process, given that European regulations account for 40 to 50 per cent of all regulations in the UK, as the Better Regulation Task Force identified.
The Government's track record has not been fantastically successful on some of the more important EU regulations. The Government have tended to come in late and try to resist the regulations, rather than being an organic part of the shaping of them. I cited in our amendment the directive on fridges, end-of-life vehicles and electrical and electronic goods.
On that point, Madam Deputy Speaker—it may be a matter for the administration of the House—the Table Office would not allow me simply to say that we were concerned about the fridges regulation, but required me to refer to:
"the chaos of the UK application of European Council Regulation No. 2037/2000 requiring the removal of ozone-depleting substances from refrigeration equipment".
The Table Office required two lines in place of the word "fridges", which may be indicative of an attitude of mind that pervades t he House and is perhaps shown by some civil servants. We need to accept simpler expressions.
Mr. Redwood: In the Liberal Democrats' interesting proposal to abolish the Department of Trade and Industry, which Department, if any, would then become responsible for deregulation, and which Department, if any, would go to Brussels to try to prevent some of these measures going through?
Malcolm Bruce: If the right hon. Gentleman will have a little patience, I will deal with that. I assure him that it is a significant part of what I want to say.
While I am on the subject of regulations, it is interesting to note that when EU regulations are being translated into British regulations, usually through the House and statutory instruments or other mechanisms, an analysis has shown that the UK has on average 334 per cent. more words than the second most wordy member state in the EU. In other words, all our regulations turn out to be infinitely longer than those that apply in any other member state. It does not follow from that that we are necessarily more regulatory; it may be that we are more explanatory. But it suggests that there is evidence of our adding detail to regulations, which our competitors in other member states do not do, and that needs to be considered carefully to ensure that we are not loading burdens on ourselves that the EU does not require us to. Ministers should be pretty

385
watchful of civil servants who see some of these regulations as an opportunity to piggyback some of their favourite schemes that they were never able to get past Ministers when they were free-standing proposals for domestic legislation. That is a serious issue, and one reason why we need to deal positively and proactively with regulations.
Conservative Members' difficulty is that they have a general opposition to regulations and a general complaint that they add costs, but they are much less able to specify which regulations should be got rid of. That is not a cheap gibe. All of us would genuinely like to find ways to simplify regulations or to get rid of those that do not work. It behoves Conservative Members to come forward with specific proposals.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: In addition to the points that I made about the culture that needs changing in order to resist the cumulative effect of regulations, which is what businesses really resist—naturally enough, examples do not flood in because people cannot be seen to be offside with what are generally regarded as health and safety measures, and so on, a reputation that they would not want—surely scrapping the horse passport regulations would be a good start for all those involved in the horse business, which employs many in my constituency for a start.
Malcolm Bruce rose—
Mr. Bellingham: It will penalise my sister's two ponies.
Malcolm Bruce: The hon. Gentleman obviously has a personal connection. We may be able to do something about horse passports, although I do not know enough about that, but I do not think that that will transform the British economy overnight. We need practical proposals, and we need a mechanism for ensuring that they are properly evaluated. All of us have an interest in that. The question we need to ask ourselves is, given that a certain amount of regulation is required domestically for health and safety matters and even legitimate social matters, and for other reasons, and there are EU regulations that have to be incorporated into domestic law, how do we do that more simply and cheaply than we are? We all have an interest in bringing that about and we all need to ensure that the mechanisms are improved.
Looking back on the Conservative Government's record, I can find just as many quotes from the latter part of the 1990s complaining about Government regulations and the difficulties faced by businesses struggling with all those regulations—
Brian Cotter: My hon. Friend has been talking about the Conservatives' record. Does he agree that their current record is also worth mentioning? For example, their appearances at the Select Committee on Regulatory Reform was limited in the 2002–03 Session. The party has three Members serving on the Committee, but two of them have not attended it at all in 16 sittings. The Committee has had the opportunity to question Ministers, Departments and civil servants on nine occasions, but two Conservative Members have failed to turn up, while the other one has attended on less than 50
386
per cent. of occasions. That is an example of how the Conservatives are not doing in practice what they say they are going to do.
Malcolm Bruce: That is very interesting. I know that my hon. Friend is an assiduous attendee of the Committee. If Opposition Members have good ideas or believe that what the Government are doing is fundamentally wrong, the very least they can do is turn up, explain why and put their views on the record. If they do so, they may even have some chance of influencing what happens. [Interruption.] The trouble is that the Conservatives have never got used to the idea of opposition—perhaps the Liberal Democrats have more experience of it—but they will have to do so, as they will be in opposition for a long time.
As Home Secretary, the Leader of the Opposition introduced the immigrant workers requirement, which put an obligation on employees to be responsible for finding out whether anybody whom they employed was an illegal immigrant. The onus was on them to prove otherwise. That was a pretty mischievous measure in every sense, and it was very burdensome. I remember that employers complained bitterly about it, but the Minister who was responsible for the policy is now the Leader of the Opposition who says that he does not think that businesses should be overburdened with unfair and unreasonable regulations.
The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) asked me about our proposals for abolishing the Department of Trade and Industry. Of course, they are controversial, but we genuinely believe that there is a strong case to be made. Historically, the Department existed partly because we had a major manufacturing base and partly because there was a very large publicly owned sector. We have now privatised most of those businesses, and while there are regulatory responsibilities, there are no longer direct investment or management responsibilities and the manufacturing industry has declined.
In passing, I should say that I share the concerns about manufacturing, as I believe that an economy of the size of that of the UK needs a manufacturing component in order to be balanced and effective. Two issues need to be recognised. The first relates to the great days of Mrs. Thatcher, who I think is on record as saying that she did not care whether it was goods or services, as long as they added value. Secondly, we have to be realistic about the world in which we are operating and look at what is happening in China, India and the new Europe. It is very difficult to maintain a competitive manufacturing industry unless it is at the cutting edge, but it is not all bad news. Although we may be losing jobs, we are not losing business in all cases, as we are maintaining some core leading-edge businesses. Some of the jobs may not be great, but the added value is still significant.
Without the sort of direct Government input to which I have referred, do we need a Department that has a budget in excess of £6 billion and a staff of more than 10,000? Our conclusion is that not only do we not need the Department, but it is instinctively regulatory and is cumbersome and bureaucratic. There is an infinite variety of taskforces and working parties. I am not suggesting that nothing that comes out of them is of any value, but I have talked to many businesses that have

387
concluded that many of the activities in which they are engaged are a substantial waste of their executives' time. One major company—I shall not name it—told me recently that it has now said that it will not send executives to such discussion groups at the Department, because it does not feel that doing so serves any useful purpose. The company said that it used to send people to the meetings partly because it hoped that something constructive might be achieved, but more out of a fear that if they did not go, its competitors would gain an edge.
That is one of the problems with many of the business assistance schemes, although it is interesting to see how the debate is developing. I saw a rather ironic article in yesterday's Financial Times suggesting that Digby Jones was about to launch a campaign of business men for bureaucracy, which would be battling to save the bureaucrats of the DTI on behalf of the business community, whereas it said that the Liberal Democrats were keen to get rid of them. That was a slightly ironic juxtaposition.
Many businesses say, "The process of applying for regional selective assistance or any other form of grant is long drawn out, cumbersome and time consuming. We may have to employ private consultants to make the case effectively, and we may not get the money in the end." Many other businesses complain that the money goes to their foreign competitors, which set up in this country and compete with British businesses that do not have access to the same grants. We conclude that it would be better if none of those schemes existed. in which case people would not have to waste time bidding and could get on with running their businesses in a competitive environment.
If such activity has a role, it is in the regions, where the business community, councils and regional development agencies have local knowledge and understanding and, given more flexibility and less central control, might deliver a better result. That is our case, which is worthy of serious consideration. We accept that it will be criticised, but we do not make it lightly, because we have thought it through and discussed it widely.
The debate is very short, so I shall quickly respond to the right hon. Member for Wokingham. A deregulation Minister should be appointed, with specific responsibility to examine all regulations and ask, "How can we do without them, simplify them, get rid of them, apply a sunset clause or exchange them for new regulations?" Such an appointment would not get rid of all regulation, but it would have a dynamic, because lower, lighter and better regulation would become an active, rather than reactive, process.
I shall address the part of the Conservative motion that relates to European regulations. The hon. Member for Eddisbury acknowledged that many of the single market regulations benefit business. If there were no single market, single market regulations would not exist, and we would need to develop products to meet the requirements of every member state, so every product would need 25 specifications to satisfy all the markets within the European Union. The single market regulations fit all countries, which must be beneficial.
388
That does not mean that the regulations could not be simpler, better or farer, but they must exist if the single market applies.
We have taken evidence from Norwegian and Swiss businesses, which say, "The reality is that we must accept those regulations willy-nilly if we want to trade with the European Union," which they do, "but we have no say in shaping them and arguing our case, other than by bilateral discussion with the European Union." Switzerland has major food companies, pharmaceutical companies and industrial companies that trade across the European Union. The honest truth—this is an interesting point that Conservative Members should engage with and, if they are genuinely in the debate, will engage with—is that many in the business establishment in Switzerland are seriously concerned about Switzerland's detachment from the European Union. Their personal nightmare is Turkey becoming a member of the European Union while Switzerland is not, which would not be in the Swiss national interest.
Mr. Redwood: Surely all one needs for an effective single market is the Cassis de Dijon judgment, which states that if a product is of merchandisable quality in one country, it should be deemed to be of merchandisable quality in another. One does not need to set out how to make a tyre, steering wheel or windscreen in regulation.
Malcolm Bruce: That is a nice, neat hope and belief, but the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that all negotiations on the single market are designed to ensure a fair and level playing field. This is not the time or place to debate whether Britain should be in or out of the single market and what effect that might have. All I am saying is that as long as regulations in the single market affect businesses in the United Kingdom, an early, proactive intervention to help shape regulations and to argue the British case is far better than leaving an empty chair. The Conservative Government were not present to argue the case, and the UK had to accept the outcome at the end of the day. That policy did not serve the national interest then, and it will not serve it in the future.
It would perhaps be better if all hon. Members acknowledged that regulation and deregulation are complex issues, and that none of us has the complete right answer. It is unreasonable to pretend that we can sweep away a load of regulations with no downside effects.
At the same time, we should never be complacent. We need to find mechanisms to get rid of unnecessary regulations, to make regulations that are justified and renewed through sunset clauses, and to play a proactive role in reducing and simplifying regulations as much as possible. I maintain that a smaller Department for deregulation instead of a large Department for dreaming up new regulations would be in the better interests of British business.
6.15 pm
Mr. Archie Norman: I draw the House's attention to my declaration in the Register of Members' Interests.

389
In the 25 years of my business career and my 18 years serving on the boards of major British companies, I do not think that there has been a single year in which the burden of regulation has lessened. Throughout that period, business has complained about the growing problem of regulation. Lucy Neville-Rolfe of Tesco has said that the burden of regulation has increased every year since Gladstone, and I suspect that she is right. It is equally true that business men and the enterprise community will always complain about Government and regulation—that is as natural as farmers complaining about the weather. I agree with the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) that this is a complex subject that is not easily resolved by simple banalities or through a deregulation committee or even a better regulation taskforce, but what is new about today's situation is the volume of regulation, the way in which it is enforced and the context in which business operates.
First, there can be little doubt that there has been an acceleration in business-affecting and employment-affecting regulation over the past seven years. That is not merely a political debating point: it is a fact. It is a matter of counting regulations and assessing the Government's own regulatory impact assessments, which I shall discuss later. It is also a function of Europe and, in this country, of the development of a claims culture and changes in the legal system. Consequently, regulation that is designed to be light-touch and to have a benign effect often has a much more pernicious effect on the workings of business.
Secondly, there has been a major change in the competitive environment in which British business operates. We now operate in a far more global market in which the regulatory effects and burdens on businesses in Korea, Singapore and Thailand have a significant effect on the profitability and investment prospects of British business. We need to face the fact that nice-to-have legislation may result in fewer jobs and a lower quality of life for our own people.
Thirdly, the business culture of this country has changed. The days when people went to work just to earn a daily crust, when it was the priority to protect employees from poor employers, and when there were widespread problems of bad employment have largely been eroded, although not entirely. Of course, to be competitive in today's British business world, management and employers have to provide a better-quality working life for their employees, because that is part of the way in which companies compete. The whole nature of business regulation therefore needs to adapt to reflect that context by rewarding and encouraging the successful, not trying to hold the best companies back in the interests of mitigating the downside effects of a few poorly managed ones.
Regulation is a chronic problem that is in the political system, and unless solutions are designed to be systemic they will not succeed. The regulation of business is driven by the popular tide—it is the popular thing to do. Ministers are unlikely to be promoted for doing nothing. They are unlikely to be promoted for introducing deregulatory orders, but are likely to be promoted for getting new legislation on to the statute book. Legislation is tangible, but costs are diffuse; nevertheless, they are borne by British business over time. It is hard to withstand the pressures of the popular
390
media for new legislation, even though the long-term effect on the economy, and therefore on business, can be detrimental. It does not matter whether the legislation deals with maternity rights, minimum pay or pensions. All such legislation is understandable, and often benign, but the cumulative impact is death by a thousand cuts.
The House is not divided by the recognition that regulation has been and is a problem. Indeed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been forceful in identifying the burden from which British business suffers in inspection and the overlap of enforcement regimes. He is committed to a sector-by-sector review. The House is divided on understanding that the problem cannot be solved by rhetoric or good intentions but lies deep in the political system; resolving it is fundamental to the competitiveness of the British economy.
The problem is becoming acute. Of course, some of the cost of regulation is unquantifiable, but the Government measure most of it. The Minister for Small Business and Enterprise claimed that the British Chambers of Commerce calculation of £30 billion of cumulative extra cost was invalid. He may want to deal with that in more detail when he replies, because he knows that the BCC calculation is none other than the simple addition of Ministers' assessments of those costs through regulatory impact assessments.
It is fair to say that the cost is cumulative and not annual, but it is equally fair to point out that it is a gross cost, which does not take benefits into account. It does not do that because, in 75 per cent. of cases, Ministers could not be bothered to quantify them. It is therefore hard to do that, but costs of —30 billion add up to a substantial reduction in the profitability of British business and in investment. That also means a substantial reduction in profit and therefore in corporation tax revenue for the Government—probably some £8 billion that could be spent on employing new health and safety inspectors or, even better, on schools, hospitals and public services. The effect on profitability, business and the public sector is tangible.
Mr. Redwood: Does my hon. Friend agree that if, with good intentions, Britain and/or the EU imposes much higher environmental standards on our business, we could end up with the opposite of the desired effect when the business closes in Britain because the costs are too high and transfers to somewhere with practically no environmental standards? We thus lose the jobs and get more environmental degradation.
Mr. Norman: My right hon. Friend makes a profound point. We operate in a global market and there is no point in exporting quality jobs that become low-quality jobs elsewhere in the world.
It should not be a matter of debate between us whether regulations have increased under the Government. There have been 23,322 new regulations. A substantial proportion of them have come from Europe, but the figure represents an increase of 53 per cent. on the number of regulations that the previous Government introduced. That constitutes acceleration and a chronic problem, which needs to be tackled. The Minister for Industry and the Regions prayed in aid the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. However, the same report that she cited stated that flexibility in the UK had been steadily eroded by ever-increasing regulation.

391
We are worried not only about the additional costs that regulations entail but about their long-term impact on the effectiveness of British business and our competitiveness in world markets. The Minister for Small Business and Enterprise has some weeks of experience of the business community and he knows that regulation also reinforces the power of big business. The small shopkeeper cannot afford the cost of regulation.
When I was chief executive of one of the largest supermarket chains in UK, we could employ a department of bureaucrats to handle any new regulation—whether it was new labelling or new food safety standards, we could handle it—but the individual shopkeeper could not compete. Regulation reinforces the power of the large enterprise at the expense of the small; it creates a barrier to entry.
The lobbying culture and the need for businesses to protect themselves against Brussels and the Government also reinforce the power of the large enterprise. British Telecom can afford to employ a regulatory department of more than 100 people to work with Ofcom, which in turn employs 800 expensive people to try to administer sector regulation. That opportunity is simply not available to the small technology company endeavouring to compete.
Secondly, the effect of regulation is to reduce our effectiveness in the growth of new industries. Although we are seeing a better performance in the British economy today than in some of our European competitors, we are not seeing comparative success against the far east or the United States in the new industries such as information technology and biotechnology. The test of whether we are developing a future capability is in our competitiveness in those industries.
Malcolm Bruce: The hon. Gentleman is making an important point about big business versus small business. Does he agree that a way of dealing with this issue would be for very small businesses to use more of the exemptions available to them, and to target those benefits and tax exemptions at micro-businesses, because the unit costs of dealing with regulations are much higher for those businesses?
Mr. Norman: There is a role for exemptions for small businesses, and we have seen some, in the form of the audit exemptions, for example. I believe that they can be taken much further, both in the framing of the regulation and in the way in which it is enforced. At the same time, however, we need to recognise that competitiveness is not just about small businesses, and that creating peculiar regulatory thresholds of size cannot be anything more than part of the answer.
The third impact of regulation that I want to draw to the Minister's attention is the way in which it affects business on the inside. All regulation reinforces the position of the internal bureaucrats in British companies. I do not mean that in a disparaging sense; I mean that regulation results in the burgeoning of internal compliance mechanisms in human resource and health and safety departments, for example. This
392
involves people spending their career trying to prevent others from taking risks or working too hard, or to prevent enterprises from taking on new employees without thinking very hard about it. Those people are reinforced by regulation, and that has a determining effect on the nature of the enterprise culture.
A final point about regulation that is often missed by Ministers is that it erodes the productivity of the public sector, which is the fastest growing employment sector in Britain today. It is also the sector with the lowest productivity growth. A lot of the regulation being introduced has a greater effect on the public sector than on the enterprise sector. A good example of that is the Employment Relations Bill. I heard the Secretary of State refer in a speech on that Bill to provisions on consultation being provisions that would help to protect trade union member in the private sector. She omitted to mention the fact that more than half the trade union members in this country work in the public sector. What the Government are really doing is passing regulations to cover their own management failures. One thing that they could do to address the problems of poor employment practice, demotivated employees, high trade union membership and sclerotic workplaces would be to create a better management system for the public sector, which is where poor management practice in Britain is largely concentrated. Sir Peter Gershon, the Government's own adviser, has said that regulation now
"threatens the government's most cherished goal—improved public services".
The problem of regulation is serious and it is deepening, but the Government's response to it has been ambivalent. Of course, we have heard about the regulatory reform proposals. The hon. Member for Gordon may be aware that I sit on the Select Committee on Regulatory Reform. I was there yesterday, I obviously did not make much impact, but never mind. We welcome the regulatory reform proposals that have been made. It is encouraging to know, for example, that there are to be reforms on sugar beet research. Reforms relating to the museum of London also came through recently, and they are entirely welcome. However, we should not kid ourselves that this is an adequate solution. It is like standing in the path of an avalanche armed with a toothpick, and it simply will not address the problem. It is the system that is creating burdensome regulation, and it is the system that requires radical surgery.
I am referring not only to new regulation but to the archaeology of old regulation. We still have on the statute book an Act from, I think, 1928 that limits the quantities in which shops can sell flaked breakfast cereals. We are still restricting the weights in which bakers can bake loaves of bread. We still require shopkeepers to get a licence to sell game if they want to sell a shot pheasant. That is all completely antiquated. We are creating layer on layer of overlapping regulation, and there is no process in the system for unpicking the history and removing legislation that is often completely out of date and no longer relevant to today's business environment.
In addition, we are world beaters in enforcement in this country—we have thousands of enforcers. I challenge the Minister to name a single inspection or enforcement department that has diminished in

393
employment numbers under this Government. Whether in the Health and Safety Executive or the Food Standards Agency, there have been additional enforcers, whose full-time occupation it is to go around harassing business. That sometimes brings about beneficial change. The fact that the numbers have increased on every count, however, indicates what business is spending its time doing and what it must face.
I wanted to come to the question of solutions. The Liberal Democrat spokesman talked about sunset clauses, and I want to raise some other issues. First, I ask the Minister to address more seriously the question of regulatory impact assessments. At the recent British Chambers of Commerce seminar, which he was sadly unable to attend, it was declared that RIAs, for the purpose of deregulation, were the only show in town. I have some sympathy for that view. Currently, it is one of the things that can be done early on to bring transparency to the effect of regulation on business. The Prime Minister said that a
"regulatory impact assessment is not an add-on to the policy process. It is an integral part of the advice that goes to Ministers".
The Government have made that claim, and it is up to them now to deliver.
Yet today, RIAs are totally inadequate, and, as the Social Market Foundation has said, they are
"crafted with as little information as possible".
A high proportion of them, as I have already said, do not even attempt to quantify the benefits, and there are numerous examples of the costs being completely miscalculated. For instance, the RIA for the Employment Relations Bill estimated a £43 million annual cost on business as a result of the Bill. It then failed utterly to quantify the benefits, but said that it could amount to hundreds of millions of pounds over 10 years. Hundreds of millions of pounds over 10 years could well be substantially less than the cost. There was no attempt to calculate the cost, and it was treated in a manner that can only be described as frivolous. Incidentally, that is not just a problem for Ministers; it is a problem for the House. When the House assesses regulations, it is entitled to have an objective assessment of the costs and benefits of that regulation. It is an insult not to provide it.
Equally, the extension of the working time directive to junior doctors was assessed as having a cost of —26 million. The pilot studies in NHS trusts alone have cost more than £50 million. It was simply an absurd and laughable under-estimate, and again illustrates that the Government are failing to take RIAs seriously. There are many other examples.
The Government's recent response was to say that they have set up a ministerial panel of regulatory accountability—a Cabinet Sub-Committee chaired by the Prime Minister. That is entirely welcome. Mysteriously, however, we are not entitled to know whether it has ever met, whether the Prime Minister has ever turned up, and what issues it is likely to consider. It is therefore entirely understandable if people conclude that it is just a piece of candy floss or protection, to hide the fact that the Government have no intention of taking RIAs seriously. The solution is to have them externally audited, either by a Government department independent of the legislators, or by the private sector. That could be done in cases of substance, or where there
394
is a significant hurdle. It would solve the problem and would restore an immense amount of legitimacy to and confidence in business regulation.
I agree with the Liberal Democrat spokesman that sunset clauses have a role to play—but they are not a panacea. We need to be careful if we bring legislation back to the House every few years, as there is always the opportunity for Ministers to add to it and make it even more regulatory. There should be a systematic mechanism for removing legislation from the statute book. Perhaps some form of House of Lords regulatory reform Committee would be able to do that, and, as part of its role as a revising Chamber, make proposals for deregulation.
We need a much better mechanism for scrutiny of European legislation. That should not be a partisan matter, but one that can be agreed throughout the House. There should be a higher threshold for all the petty claims and tribunals with which companies have to deal. Benign legislation introduced for good reasons and designed to protect employees is now being used in a vexatious manner. We also need a mechanism enabling small businesses to appeal against disproportionate enforcement of legislation, which is threatening their livelihood and goes far beyond the original purpose of the legislation. Such constructive proposals will begin to address a systemic problem. We continually churn out too much regulation, which is disproportionately enforced.
The Department of Trade and Industry says:
"The UK remains a middle ranking enterprise economy. It does not possess an entrepreneurial culture to the same degree as the USA."
I agree heartily with that, and I think that regulation has a great deal to do with it. We must recognise that the problem is not superficial. It is not a question of establishing a reform committee or a better regulation task force; it is a question of finding a systemic solution to a chronic problem. Only in that way can we create a truly enterprising society.
6.36 pm
Brian Cotter: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) that this is a serious issue, and not one that is easy to address. Indeed, it involves many different issues. I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) talk about small shops, given his background.
Regulation has a disproportionate impact on small businesses, in comparison with larger firms. Small business people still often say that the Government do not understand their needs. As I have said before, I think that Ministers should consider a scheme whereby they and civil servants could be seconded to small firms—as has already happened with large organisations. Even a week working in a small shop or garage would educate them enormously about the problems experienced by small firms.
Small businesses feel that there is not enough consultation, and organisations such as the Federation of Small Businesses and the Forum of Private Business feel the same. They feel that they are sometimes not involved early enough in consultation about regulation, especially when it comes to regulatory impact

395
assessments. As others have said today, it is important to ensure that such assessments are accurate, but we should also ensure that they are carried out at an early stage and published before primary and secondary legislation is presented to Parliament. Liberal Democrats feel that it would be better for them to be conducted independently than to be conducted by Government or civil servants, so that independent views could be obtained.
Any way in which the Government could reduce the burdens on small business and on business in general would be welcome, but let me echo the point made about inspection of small and other firms. Some 350 inspectors have the right of access to business premises. When the Liberal Democrats suggested that there should be a single inspector, we were asked how a single inspector could possibly understand all the different regulations and all the different aspects of regulation. That in itself is a damning indictment, suggesting that there are so many regulations that no single person could understand them. We still think that it would be better to have a single gateway inspectorate rather than 350 inspectors, all of whom must trundle through business premises.
In the short time that I have left, I express concern to the Ministers that the Small Business Service, which my party welcomed when it was introduced and which has done some useful things, has got slightly off track. In our understanding, it was to be an independent organisation—very much the grit in the oyster—to raise matters with Ministers from the outside. The Government have made the mistake, which we would put right, of making the Small Business Service part of the Government, rather than allowing it to be detached and able to say to them, "Hold on—we're representing business, and as the champion of small business we don't think that this regulation should go forward. We don't think that the Government are addressing the situation properly."
My party has many tangible proposals to put forward, including on the Department of Trade and Industry. We welcome debates of this nature as opportunities to put forward those points and to try to influence the Government and get changes made that will benefit business.
6.40 pm
Mr. Henry Bellingham: I declare my interests, which are in the Register of Members' Interests.
We have had an excellent debate, and a lot of ground has been covered in a short time. We have heard from several Members who are highly qualified on the subject. Does excessive regulation matter, does it destroy wealth and what are its consequences? My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) came up with one very important point on the UK's declining competitive position, when he referred to the World Economic Forum ratings in which the UK has fallen from fourth place in 1998—when we were behind just Singapore, Hong Kong and the USA—to 15th place now, behind many European countries including Holland, Germany, Norway, Switzerland, Denmark and Sweden. That was one of the most revealing points made this afternoon.
396
We should examine declining UK productivity. Average productivity growth in the UK fell from 2.5 per cent. in the period between 1994 and 1997 to 1.6 per cent. in the period between 1998 and 2002. Average productivity growth in this country continues to trail that in the United States by a significant margin. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury was right to address that situation and make his serious points.
On the other hand, the Minister for Industry and the Regions, although she had some good points, was rather complacent. It is a great pity that she denied the figures from the recent report of the British Chambers of Commerce. That report, "The Burdens Barometer", calculated the combined cost of new regulations since 1997 and concluded that that figure had reached £30 billion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) pointed out, those calculations derive from the Government's regulatory impact assessments, so for the Government to question those figures in their amendment is quite extraordinary.
The Minister was rather self-congratulatory on the wider economy and the overall unemployment situation. She can afford to be in some ways, for example when considering the 600,000-plus new jobs created in the public sector since 1997. However, as various hon. Members have pointed out, that is exactly the same figure as the number of jobs lost in manufacturing. Surely the growth in public sector jobs at that rate is simply not sustainable.
The Minister should be asking how much better the small and medium-sized enterprise sector would be were it not for the growth in regulation. The BCC report found that 85 per cent. of the 3,500 members surveyed stated their belief that their businesses would be more profitable were it not for increases in red tape. How much more corporation tax would have been raised if those businesses had indeed been more profitable?
The Government surely should be asking what will happen if the economy starts to slow, house prices slip back, equity release dries up, the jobs bonanza in the public sector becomes a distant memory and fuel prices go up. In those circumstances, the one remaining bright spot in the economy should indeed be the small firms sector—but not if it remains very heavily overregulated.
As I said, we have heard some excellent speeches, and the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) was right to refer to gold-plating. In fact, we had a rare experience this afternoon. Two Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesmen on trade and industry contributed to this short debate, but we are none the wiser as to what they would do with the Department of Trade and Industry. What they had to say was fascinating but flawed. Which Department would really stand up in government for wealth creation, enterprise and small businesses? To be honest, their ideas just do not stack up.
We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells, who has huge experience in business and is always listened to with great respect. I was particularly interested to hear him make a simple but often overlooked point—that regulation, red tape and burdens always have a disproportionate effect on small and micro-businesses. He drew on his experience of

397
running very large FTSE companies to point out that they have rafts of employees and managers who spend all their time looking at regulations, red tape and burdens, and who can deal with the associated pressures in a way that small and micro-businesses and sole traders simply cannot.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells was right to point out that we should look not at how well we are doing compared with some of our European competitors, but at our wider global competitors. He was also right to point out that we need to look at the archaeology of some of the older regulations on the statute book—and to look very seriously at sunset clauses.
What should the Government do, and what would we do if we were in office? Well, we would stop legislating in many of these areas. For a start, we would have no more employment Bills and we would reduce the size of government. In 1997, the DTI budget was £3.06 billion; in 2003 it was just under £8 billion. In 1997, there were 9,302 staff in the DTI; by 2004 there were 11,474. Huge chunks of industry have been moved to the private sector. The DTI should be doing much, much less, but doing it far more effectively and much better. We feel very strongly that large government equals bureaucrats, which equals more interference, which in turn equals more regulation.
What else should the Government be doing that they are not? They certainly ought to ensure that their regulatory impact assessment regime is working properly. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells pointed out, there is a cultural problem. Good rules count for very little if Ministers and officials trim evidence to fit policy conclusions that they have already reached. I urge the Minister and the Under-Secretary to look carefully at what David Arculus said in his executive summary. He does praise the DTI for some of its work, but as I pointed out in an intervention, he makes it equally clear that there is a long way to go:
"Good practice needs to become common practice",
and there is a need to
"make culture change a reality."
The Government need to "deliver on deregulation" and to
"pay attention to paperwork burdens."
That report needs to be read in full.
What else should the Government do? They need to make some serious progress on Europe. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths) is one of the best DTI Ministers we have had for a long time. He is indefatigable, and he has undiminished enthusiasm and a lot of energy. He goes round the country championing the cause of small businesses, but he does so with one arm tied behind his back because of this Government's obsession with Europe.
Only a Government obsessed with Europe would have given up and thrown away our hard-fought opt-out from the social chapter. That is why my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition was 100 per cent. right when he said recently:
"Reinstating the opt out from the Social Chapter will be a key priority for an incoming Conservative Government."
398
Without that, whoever is the Minister with responsibility for small firms, he will have one hand tied behind his back.
My conclusion is simple—we need to change what is happening in Europe, to change the culture in Whitehall, to deliver smaller and better government that gets off the back of business and enterprise, and to reverse the compensation culture. That is impossible under Labour. Labour Ministers, however well intentioned, will not succeed, because what is required is a change of Government.
6.50 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): This has been a good debate, with a number of thoughtful contributions. However, my hon. Friends have noticed a disturbing trend among Opposition day debates. The Opposition called a debate recently on third-world aid and fair trade, demanding that we do more and spend more. They halved overseas aid and now demand the opposite. They wanted a debate on schools, demanding that we do more and spend more, but they axed 48,000 teachers during their Administration and now demand the opposite. They condemn us for our successes and offer no contrition for their failures.
Today, the Opposition have excelled themselves. They picked a subject on which their record could not be more embarrassing. In fairness, I cannot in all honesty claim that they are not the world experts on this subject—not with 51,699 regulations passed by the last Conservative Administrations. Indeed, it was in 1992 that John Major gave the verdict on all the 35,496 regulations passed by Tory Governments since Baroness Thatcher became Prime Minister. That year, as Prime Minister, he told his party conference:
"It takes 28 regulations, licences or certificates just to start some businesses."
He promised a bonfire of regulations and his deputy, now the noble Lord Heseltine, promised to take an axe to the red tape—keeping up his Tarzan image, no doubt. For five years, they toiled and toiled. What was the verdict on the 16,203 new regulations produced in that golden twilight of their reign? It was:
"We passed volumes of new rules and laws interfering with almost every aspect of business and social life."
So said the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) in 1997.
What is the position in Britain today when starting a company? The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) asked me to clarify that. I can tell him that there is no more need for 28 licences and certificates. Someone can set up as a sole trader in the UK in a day and for less than £25. We have moved from having one of the poorest records, in 1992, to having one of the best in Europe now.
The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) mentioned the raft of lawyers, a point with which I have considerable sympathy. He said that he had been associated with businesses that employed many lawyers who could process regulations, but that small businesses could not afford lawyers. I say to him and the House that I do not want anyone to have to employ lawyers. I want the large corporations to be able

399
to devote their resources to marketing, product design and the sales success that is making British business great.
It is important to acknowledge that, last year, 465,000 people started a business—the highest number in the history of the Barclay survey and up 19 per cent. on 2002. That is 465,000 new businesses. A decade ago, 422,000 jobs were wiped out in manufacturing in a single year of Tory misrule—our record of success, their record of failure.
Now, of course, the Conservatives have a new formula: the Howard nostrum and the quack cure for regulations, freshly imported from Florida—sunset clauses from the sunshine state. How many sunset clauses did they introduce? None. Sunset clauses were rejected by Baroness Thatcher as unworkable.
The Conservatives rail against gold-plating regulations. We heard a few examples during the debate, but the best is from the former leader of the Tories in Europe, Lord Plumb, who said:
"The way the meat directives were implemented destroyed respect for the regulatory system as a whole."
They forced the closure of small abattoirs and cost thousands of jobs. That was in 1996. The culprits were his Government and their over-zealous interpretation of Brussels law.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) mentioned the tendency for Britain to use more words, reflecting a recent study from the British Chambers of Commerce. However, the BCC should listen to its sister organisation, the German chamber of commerce, which produced a report in January blaming the German Government for their lack of clarity in transposing EU directives; fewer words left companies with vague legislation and no guidance. The very copping-out of directives that was advocated by the hon. Gentleman—although no longer, I hope—was rejected by Baroness Thatcher and every Prime Minister before or after her.
Our charge is clear. The Conservatives did not learn from their mistakes, but we did. We were as horrified as industry about the burdens that the new chemical directive placed on business, so we amassed the evidence and presented it to the Commission. The Prime Minister enlisted the support of the Presidents of France and Italy. We told the EU Competitiveness Council that the directive was not on. The result was that parts of the draft directive that would have cost industry £6 billion a year were dropped.
I reject the figure of £30 billion given by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells. The real cost of administering the regulations is only a fraction of that. We make no apology for our legislation for decent wages, paid holidays and reasonable time off for family matters.
It is only fair to look at the situation before 1997 and contrast it with what is happening now. There was no Small Business Service to fight for business; we created and funded it. There was no Small Business Europe taking the fight on regulation to Brussels; we created and funded it. We created the Better Regulation Task Force to tackle gold-plating. We created the small firms impact test and "Think Small First", and we require lawyers to focus on the impact on small businesses before drafting regulations.
400
We set a target of 12 weeks' minimum consultation for all regulations and 12 weeks for implementation. We created a panel of 1,000 small businesses to advise Government officials drafting regulations. We took the lead in the EU's better regulation action plan. We forced the Commission to bring in impact assessments of proposed legislation. We created the regulatory reform action plan. We require regulatory impact assessments and the Prime Minister has created a Cabinet Committee on RIAs, which he chairs. Now, we have common commencement dates for key regulations, and that is welcomed by all representative bodies for industry.
The regulations that we have introduced, such as those on late payment, have helped to cut the time for settling accounts from 49 days in 1997 to 41 days, while the European average remains 50 days. Everyone accepts that the vast majority of the Government's so-called regulations have almost no impact on business red tape. Nearly four in 10 statutory instruments are on temporary road closures and similar measures.
I end by offering the House a straight choice. Do we want the business climate of 2004 with the lowest inflation for 30 years, the lowest interest rates for 40 years, the lowest mortgage rates for nearly 50 years, the lowest level of corporation tax in history, the longest period of sustained growth for more than a century, the largest number of people in work in our history and record numbers of people starting in business? We have avoided the recessions that hit the United States, Germany, Japan, France, Italy and most other industrial economies during the world downturn.
Or, do we want the climate of a decade ago—
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to
Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided. Ayes 114, Noes 320.

Division No. 210]

[6.59 pm

AYES

Amess, David

Clappison, James

Arbuthnot, rh James

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Collins, Tim

Baron, John (Billericay)

Conway, Derek

Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Bellingham, Henry

Cran, James (Beverley)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Curry, rh David

Blunt, Crispin

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

Djanogly, Jonathan

Brady, Graham

Dorrell, rh Stephen

Brazier, Julian

Fallon, Michael

Browning, Mrs Angela

Flight, Howard

Burns, Simon

Forth, rh Eric

Burnside, David

Francois, Mark

Burt, Alistair

Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

Butterfill, Sir John

Garnier, Edward

Cash, William

Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Goodman, Paul

Chope, Christopher

Gray, James (N Wilts)

401

Grayling, Chris

Paterson, Owen

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Pickles, Eric

Greenway, John

Portillo, rh Michael

Grieve, Dominic

Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

Gummer, rh John

Redwood, rh John

Hague, rh William

Robathan, Andrew

Hammond, Philip

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

Hawkins, Nick

Hayes, John (S Holland)

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Hendry, Charles

Roe, Dame Marion

Hermon, Lady

Shepherd, Richard

Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

Simmonds, Mark

Hogg, rh Douglas

Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

Jack, rh Michael

Soames Nicholas

Jenkin, Bernard

Spicer, Sir Michael

Johnson, Boris (Henley)

Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Spring, Richard

Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

Steen, Anthony

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Swayne, Desmond

Leigh, Edward

Syms, Robert

Letwin, rh Oliver

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Lidington, David

Tredinnick, David

Lilley, rh Peter

Trend, Michael

Loughton, Tim

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

Viggers, Peter

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Waterson, Nigel

Mackay, rh Andrew

Watkinson, Angela

McLoughlin, Patrick

Whittingdale, John

Maude, rh Francis

Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Wilshire David

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

Winterton, Sir Nicholas

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

(Macclesfield)

Norman, Archie

Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Ottaway, Richard

Tellers for the Ayes:

Page, Richard

Mr. John Randall and

Paice, James

Mr. David Ruffley

NOES

Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

Breed, Colin

Ainger, Nick

Brennan Kevin

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

Alexander, Douglas

Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

Allan, Richard

Allen, Graham

Brown. Russell (Dumfries)

Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

Browne, Desmond

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

Bruce, Malcolm

Bryant, Chris

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Buck, Ms Karen

Atherton, Ms Candy

Burgon, Colin

Atkins, Charlotte

Burnham, Andy

Austin, John

Burstow, Paul

Bailey, Adrian

Byers, rh Stephen

Baird, Vera

Cable, Dr. Vincent

Baker, Norman

Caborn, rh Richard

Barnes, Harry

Cairns. David

Barron, rh Kevin

Campbell, Alan (Tynermouth)

Beard, Nigel

Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE Fife)

Beckett, rh Margaret

Begg, Miss Anne

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Benn, rh Hilary

Caplin, Ivor

Bennett, Andrew

Casale, Roger

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Caton, Martin

Best, Harold

Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

Betts, Clive

Chidgey, David

Blackman, Liz

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Blears, Ms Hazel

Blizzard, Bob

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Blunkett, rh David

Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Bradshaw, Ben

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

Clelland, David

402

Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

Coaker, Vernon

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Connarty, Michael

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

Hutton, rh John

Cooper, Yvette

Illsley, Eric

Cotter, Brian

Ingram, rh Adam

Crausby, David

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Cruddas, Jon

Jamieson, David

Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

Jenkins, Brian

Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

(Copeland)

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Davidson, Ian

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Dean, Mrs Janet

Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald

Denham, rh John

Keeble, Ms Sally

Dhanda, Parmjit

Keen, Alan (Feltham)

Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

Keen, Ann (Brentford)

Dobson, rh Frank

Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

Donohoe, Brian H.

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Doran, Frank

Khabra, Piara S.

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

Kidney, David

Drown, Ms Julia

Kilfoyle, Peter

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Edwards, Huw

Lammy, David

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Laws, David (Yeovil)

Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

Lepper, David

Etherington, Bill

Leslie, Christopher

Ewing, Annabelle

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Foulkes, rh George

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Llwyd, Elfyn

George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

Love, Andrew

Gerrard, Neil

Luke, lain (Dundee E)

Gibson, Dr. Ian

McAvoy, Thomas

Gidley, Sandra

McDonagh, Siobhain

Gilroy, Linda

MacDonald, Calum

Goggins, Paul

McDonnell, John

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

MacDougall, John

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Grogan, John

Mclsaac, Shona

Hain, rh Peter

McKenna, Rosemary

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

McNamara, Kevin

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

McNulty, Tony

Hancock, Mike

MacShane, Denis

Hanson, David

Mactaggart, Fiona

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

McWalter, Tony

Harvey, Nick

McWilliam, John

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

Healey, John

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Heath, David

Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

Hendrick, Mark

Hepburn, Stephen

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Hesford, Stephen

Martlew, Eric

Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

Meacher, rh Michael

Heyes, David

Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

Hinchliffe, David

Merron, Gillian

Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

Michael, rh Alun

Holmes, Paul

Milburn, rh Alan

Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

Miller, Andrew

Hoon, rh Geoffrey

Moffatt, Laura

Hope, Phil (Corby)

Mole, Chris

Hopkins, Kelvin

Moonie, Dr. Lewis

Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

Moore, Michael

Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

Morley, Julie

Morley, Elliot

Mountford, Kali

403

Mudie, George

Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

Mullin, Chris

Munn, Ms Meg

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Soley, Clive

Olner, Bill

Southworth, Helen

Organ, Diana

Spellar, rh John

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

Squire, Rachel

Owen, Albert

Stevenson, George

Pearson, Ian

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Picking, Anne

Stoate, Dr. Howard

Pickthall, Colin

Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Straw, rh Jack

Plaskitt, James

Stringer, Graham

Pollard, Kerry

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

Stunell, Andrew

Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Pound, Stephen

Tami, Mark (Alyn)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Taylor, David (NW Leis)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Primarolo, rh Dawn

Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

Prosser, Gwyn

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Pugh, Dr. John

Thurso, John

Purchase, Ken

Timms, Stephen

Purnell, James

Touhig, Don (IsIwyn)

Quin, rh Joyce

Trickett, Jon

Quinn, Lawrie

Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

Rammell, Bill

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Raynsford, rh Nick

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Rendel, David

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

Robertson, Angus (Moray)

Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

Rooney, Terry

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Ward, Claire

Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

Watts, David

Ruane, Chris

Webb, Steve (Northavon)

Ruddock, Joan

White, Brian

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

Wicks, Malcolm

Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Salmond, Alex

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Salter, Martin

Willis, Phil

Sanders, Adrian

Winnick, David

Sarwar, Mohammad

Wishart, Pete

Sedgemore, Brian

Wood, Mike (Batley)

Shaw, Jonathan

Woodward, Shaun

Sheerman, Barry

Worthington, Tony

Sheridan, Jim

Wright, David (Telford)

Short, rh Clare

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Wyatt, Derek

Singh, Marsha

Younger-Ross, Richard

Skinner, Dennis

Tellers for the Noes:

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Margaret Moran and

Jim Fitzpatrick

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
The House divided: Ayes 261, Noes 153.

Division No. 211]

[7:16 pm

AYES

Ainger, Nick

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Alexander, Douglas

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Allen, Graham

Atherton, Ms Candy

Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

Atkins, Charlotte

404

Austin, John

Gerrard, Neil

Bailey, Adrian

Gibson, Dr. Ian

Baird, Vera

Gilroy, Linda

Barnes, Harry

Goggins, Paul

Barron, rh Kevin

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Beard, Nigel

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Beckett, rh Margaret

Grogan, John

Begg, Miss Anne

Hain, rh Peter

Benn, rh Hilary

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Best, Harold

Hanson, David

Betts, Clive

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Blackman, Liz

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

Blears, Ms Hazel

Blizzard, Bob

Healey, John

Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

Hendrick, Mark

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Hepburn, Stephen

Bradshaw, Ben

Hesford, Stephen

Brennan, Kevin

Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

Heyes, David

Hinchliffe, David

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

Browne, Desmond

Hoon, rh Geoffrey

Bryant, Chris

Hope, Phil (Corby)

Burgon, Colin

Hopkins, Kelvin

Burnham, Andy

Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

Byers, rh Stephen

Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

Cable, Dr. Vincent

Cairns, David

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Illsley, Eric

Caplin, Ivor

Ingram, rh Adam

Casale, Roger

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Caton, Martin

Jamieson, David

Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

Jenkins, Brian

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & chryston)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Clelland, David

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald

Coaker, Vernon

Keeble, Ms Sally

Coffey, Ms Ann

Keen, Alan (Feltham)

Connarty, Michael

Keen, Ann (Brentford)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

Khabra, Piara S.

Cooper, Yvette

Kidney, David

Cousins, Jim

Kilfoyle, Peter

Crausby, David

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

Cruddas, Jon

Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

Lammy, David

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Lepper, David

Davidson, Ian

Leslie, Christopher

Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Dean, Mrs Janet

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Denham, rh John

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Dhanda, Parmjit

Love, Andrew

Dobson, rh Frank

Luke, lain (Dundee E)

Donohoe, Brian H.

McAvoy, Thomas

Doran, Frank

McDonagh, Siobhain

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

MacDonald, Calum

Drown, Ms Julia

McDonnell, John

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

MacDougall, John

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Edwards, Huw

Mclsaac, Shona

Ellman, Mrs Louise

McKenna, Rosemary

Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

McNamara, Kevin

Etherington, Bill

McNulty, Tony

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Mactaggart, Fiona

Flint, Caroline

McWalter, Tony

Foulkes, rh George

McWilliam, John

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Mahon, Mrs Alice

George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

405

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Sedgemore, Brian

Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleton)

Shaw, Jonathan

Sheerman, Barry

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Sheridan, Jim

Martlew, Eric

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Meacher, rh Michael

Singh, Marsha

Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

Skinner Dennis

Merron, Gillian

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Michael, rh Alun

Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

Miller, Andrew

Moffatt, Laura

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Mole, Chris

Moonie, Dr. Lewis

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Morgan, Julie

Smith. John (Glamorgan)

Morley, Elliot

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Mountford, Kali

Soley, Clive

Mudie, George

Southworth, Helen

Mullin, Chris

Spellar, rh John

Munn, Ms Meg

Squire, Rachel

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Stewart Ian (Eccles)

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Stoate, Dr. Howard

Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Straw, rh Jack

Olner, Bill

Stuart. Ms Gisela

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Owen, Albert

Tami, Mark (Alyn)

Pearson, Ian

Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

Picking, Anne

Taylor, David (NW Leis)

Pickthall, Colin

Thomas Gareth (Clwyd W)

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Thomas Gareth (Harrow W)

Plaskitt, James

Timms, Stephen

Pollard, Kerry

Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

Trickett, Jon

Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

Pound, Stephen

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Primarolo, rh Dawn

Tynan. Bill (Hamilton S)

Prosser, Gwyn

Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

Purchase, Ken

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Purnell, James

Ward, Claire

Quin, rh Joyce

Watts, David

Quinn, Lawrie

White, Brian

Rammell, Bill

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Wicks, Malcolm

Raynsford, rh Nick

Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

Winnick, David

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Wood, Mike (Batley)

Rooney, Terry

Woodward, Shaun

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Worthington, Tony

Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

Wright, David (Telford)

Ruane, Chris

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Ruddock, Joan

Wyatt, Derek

Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

Jim Fitzpatrick and

Salter, Martin

Margaret Moran

NOES

Allan, Richard

Breed, Colin

Amess, David

Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

Arbuthnot, rh James

Browning, Mrs Angela

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Bruce, Malcolm

Baker, Norman

Burns, Simon

Baron, John (Billericay)

Burnside, David

Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

Burstow, Paul

Bellingham, Henry

Burt, Alistair

Beresford, Sir Paul

Butterfill Sir John

Blunt, Crispin

Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE Fife)

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

Cash, William

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Brady, Graham

Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

Chidgey David

Brazier, Julian

Chope, Christopher

406

Clappison, James

Maude, rh Francis

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Collins, Tim

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

Conway, Derek

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Moss, Malcolm

Cotter, Brian

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Cran, James (Beverley)

Norman, Archie

Curry, rh David

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Ottaway, Richard

Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

Page, Richard

Paice, James

Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

Paterson, Owen

Pickles, Eric

Djanogly, Jonathan

Portillo, rh Michael

Dorrell, rh Stephen

Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

Ewing, Annabelle

Pugh, Dr. John

Fallon, Michael

Redwood, rh John

Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

Rendel, David

Robathan, Andrew

Flight, Howard

Robertson, Angus (Moray)

Forth, rh Eric

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Francois, Mark

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

Roe, Dame Marion

Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Gidley, Sandra

Salmond, Alex

Gillen, Mrs Cheryl

Sanders, Adrian

Goodman, Paul

Shepherd, Richard

Gray, James (N Wilts)

Simmonds, Mark

Grayling, Chris

Soames, Nicholas

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Spicer, Sir Michael

Greenway, John

Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

Grieve, Dominic

Spring, Richard

Gummer, rh John

Steen, Anthony

Hague, rh William

Stunell, Andrew

Hammond, Philip

Swayne, Desmond

Hancock, Mike

Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

Harvey, Nick

Syms, Robert

Hawkins, Nick

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Hayes, John (S Holland)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Heath, David

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Hendry, Charles

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Hermon, Lady

Thurso, John

Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

Trend, Michael

Hogg, rh Douglas

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Holmes, Paul

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Viggers, Peter

Jack, rh Michael

Waterson, Nigel

Jenkin, Bernard

Watkinson, Angela

Johnson, Boris (Henley)

Whittingdale, John

Key, Robert (Salisbury)

Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Wiggin, Bill

Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Laws, David (Yeovil)

Willis, Phil

Leigh, Edward

Wilshire, David

Letwin, rh Oliver

Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

Winterton, Sir Nicholas

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

(Macclesfield)

Lidington, David

Wishart, Pete

Lilley, rh Peter

Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

Llwyd, Elfyn

Young, rh Sir George

Loughton, Tim

Younger-Ross, Richard

Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Tellers for the Noes:

Mackay, rh Andrew

Mr. David Ruffley and

McLoughlin, Patrick

Mr. John Randall

Question accordingly agreed to.
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House welcomes the Government's commitment to better regulation and enterprise, which has contributed to the UK becoming one of the best locations in the world in which to start

407
and run a business; welcomes the recent independent endorsements of the UK's light touch regulatory environment; applauds the deregulatory initiatives brought forward since 1997 which have contributed to a significant decline in the total number of regulations imposing a cost on British business; rejects outright the allegations claiming that the regulatory burden on business now exceeds £30 billion; supports measures taken to improve the regulatory environment for smaller businesses such as the removal of statutory audit requirements for small and medium-sized enterprises and the introduction of two specific commencement dates for employment regulations; congratulates the Government on signing up to the new European Constitution which promotes competitiveness and flexibility and which will ensure that national governments have new powers to scrutinise EU regulatory proposals; notes with concern proposals put forward by the Opposition which would damage Britain's relationship with Europe to the detriment of British business by withdrawing the UK from the world's largest common market; recognises the Government's constructive stance on the Agency Workers and Working Time Directives where it has maintained a position that promotes both fairness and flexibility; and calls on the Opposition to examine its own European policies which are consistently flouted by its own MEPs and Party members.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Madam Deputy Speaker Sylvia Heal): With the leave of the House, we will take motions 3 to 7 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  SUPREME COURT OF NORTHERN IRELAND
  That the draft Maximum Number of Judges (Northern Ireland) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 10th June, be approved.
  CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (SCOTLAND)
  That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers, etc.) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 20th May, be approved.

  CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
  That the draft Water Industry (Scotland) Act 2002 (Consequential Modifications) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 26th May, be approved.
  That the draft Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act 2002 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 26th May, be approved.

  CIVIL AVIATION
  That the draft Transport Act 2000 (Consequential Amendment) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 7th June, be approved.—[Vernon Coaker.]
  Question agreed to.

REGULATORY REFORM

  PATENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18(I)(a) (Consideration of draft regulatory reform orders),
  That the draft Regulatory Reform (Patents) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 7th June, be approved.—[Vernon Coaker.]
  Question agreed to.

Potters Bar Derailment
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Vernon Coaker.]
7.29 pm
Mr. James Clappison: The Potters Bar derailment was, and continues to be, a subject of the gravest importance to my constituents, members of the travelling public and everybody who saw the terrible pictures of the carriage wedged beneath the canopy of Potters Bar station. In that tragic accident, seven people died and 70 people were injured, some of them very seriously.
One of my constituents, the late Agnes Quinlivan, was among those who died. Two members of her family—her daughters—are here tonight, as is a Hertfordshire man who was sadly affected by the incident. That man is a constituent of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), who is also here this evening. I should add that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) has taken a particular interest in the subject, and I know that he wants briefly to intervene at the conclusion of my remarks.
This is the second short debate that I have obtained on this subject—the first occurred on 15 November 2002, six months after the derailment. Since then, the first and second anniversaries of the crash have occurred. The first anniversary was marked by a moving ceremony, where all those who attended were struck by the dignity of the bereaved families and survivors. At about the same time—May 2003—the third and most recent report from he Health and Safety Executive investigation board was published. I understand that the HSE plans to conclude its investigation into the accident by September or October of this year, and that a final report will then be published. When that investigation is concluded and concomitant legal decisions have been taken, the Secretary of the State will decide whether to hold a public inquiry.
It would be preferable if the Secretary of State had already decided to hold a public inquiry, because the case for such an inquiry is very strong, and I have pressed the Government to hold an inquiry for some time. As it stands, the earliest point at which a decision will be taken is two and a half years after the derailment.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: My hon. Friend knows that the train in question was heading to King's Lynn in my constituency, and that constituents of mine were on the train—mercifully, none of them was killed, although some of them were injured. He will understand why I feel very strongly about the situation, and why I feel that the Government have prevaricated—it is a disgrace that they have not announced a public inquiry hitherto. Does my hon. Friend find it extraordinary that the HSE is taking so long to produce its final report?
Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend is right that it would be better if we knew more of the answers at this stage. Along with many other hon. Members, he had constituents who were travelling on the train, and I know that he has taken a particular interest in the subject.

409
The stretch of line is very busy, and large numbers of people, including many of my constituents, travel up and down it. All those who use it are conscious that the tragic accident at Hatfield occurred a short time before the Potters Bar derailment. The fact that it has taken so long to make a decision must concern all those who use the line, but it particularly concerns the bereaved families and the survivors, who have had to wait for a significantly long time. That is not the only matter that I seek to raise on behalf of my constituents. The case for a public inquiry is strong, and I shall renew my request and give the Minister three reasons why one should be held.
First, from what we have seen of the HSE report so far, it appears that many questions remain to be answered about how the derailment occurred. The HSE report of May 2003 is very clear about the immediate cause of the derailment—the technica1 factors that led to the failure of the points—and it also makes some recommendations in respect of points elsewhere. However, it does not give anything like a full picture of the state of affairs that led to the points being in the lethal condition that they were in on 10 May 2002. It does not give a full picture of the state of affairs regarding the installation, maintenance and inspection of the points. Nor does it give a full picture in respect of what happened to the points—of who did what to them to leave them in that condition—or who exactly was responsible for what was going on. I make no criticism of the work of the HSE, which has been thorough, but all the questions arising from this tragic crash can be adequately dealt with only by a public inquiry that is held in the open with all the powers that are available to it. I put that forward as the principal reason for holding a public inquiry.
Secondly, I believe that in this case only a public inquiry can meet the legal obligations of the Government under the Human Rights Act 1998. I ask the Minister to take into account the implications of that Act and its case law, particularly that relating to article 2, on the right to life, and the findings of the European Court of Human Rights in respect of the right to an effective investigation where death is caused and a public authority is responsible. I respectfully invite the Minister to consider that very carefully. I also invite him to take on board the ECHR's judgment that any deficiency in the investigation that undermines its ability to establish the cause of death or the person or persons responsible will risk falling foul of this standard.
Thirdly, in the absence of a public inquiry there would be a coroner's inquest. However, there limits on the proceedings and evidence of such an inquest under the coroner's rules, and an inquest would not meet the obligations to which I referred; no would it meet the need to establish where responsibility lies for the state of affairs underlying the crash.
I put those three reasons to the Minister. In addition, I invite him to bear it in mind that holding an inquiry would be in keeping with the holding of statutory public inquiries into previous major rail crashes such as Clapham, Southall and Ladbroke Grove. I put it to the Minister quite simply: without a public inquiry into such a major rail crash, vital questions about an equally tragic incident will go unanswered.
410
I mentioned the issue of responsibility. In April this year, nearly two years after the crash, Network Rail and Jarvis made a joint announcement of acceptance of liability. There seems to have been some question, to say the least, about whether that was an acceptance of responsibility or of liability. In a carefully crafted statement, the two parties said that they would accept liability for all claims justified in law brought by the bereaved and injured, but there seemed to be some ambiguity about whether they actually accepted responsibility for the derailment.
Whether or not that amounted to an acceptance of responsibility, I am afraid that anyone who was led to believe that the families would in all cases receive appropriate compensation for their suffering will be sadly disappointed. I believe that the treatment of the families in that respect has fallen way below what it should have been, as can be demonstrated by the case of my constituent the late Agnes Quinlivan. Before turning to the particulars of her case, I should like to make it clear that the paramount concern of her family, and other families, has been to establish the cause of the crash and, in so far as possible, to prevent any other families from having to go through what they have gone through. However, most fair-minded people would agree that the families should receive compensation to recognise the value of the lives of their loved ones and the trauma they have gone through.
Agnes Quinlivan was an 80-year-old lady who had lived an exceptionally valuable life in her church and community in Potters Bar. As it happens, she was the only local victim of the crash. She died, tragically, when part of the bridge fell on her as she was walking through an underpass. Immediately after the accident, Network Rail and Jarvis gave £10,000 to her family on a without-prejudice basis and with a view to covering their immediate expenses. Since then, Network Rail and Jarvis have interpreted the law so as to refuse any further compensation to the family. As far as I can ascertain, they have no plans to make any further compensation available.
For the Quinlivan family, the acceptance of liability by Jarvis in April was meaningless. I understand that other bereaved families have been treated similarly. At least five of the seven families have been offered compensation that most fair-minded people would regard as low, and in accordance with an especially strict interpretation of the law by Network Rail and Jarvis. It would be open to those companies to take a more appropriate approach to compensation, as I believe happened in the case of the Ladbroke Grove crash.
Things are made even starker for the families by reports that appeared in the newspapers three months after the Potters Bar crash and appeared to suggest that much more generous compensation would be forthcoming to them from the railway industry. Three months after the accident, when it remained fresh in the public mind, there was talk of £1 million in compensation for each bereaved family.
There is little doubt about the source of the reports. In The Times of 13 August 2002, the chief executive of Railtrack is quoted as saying that a compensation package worth about £12 million would be offered to the injured and the families of people killed. In the case of

411
the Quinlivan family and, I believe, in that of four of the other seven families who suffered a bereavement, the compensation is a small fraction of that figure. The Quinlivan family have not received a single penny beyond the sum that was made available immediately after the accident to meet their expenses. The treatment that that family and others have received is unsatisfactory. I suspect that most fair-minded people would regard it as downright shoddy.
There has been far too much delay; far too much consideration has been given to media management and far too little to doing justice to the families. I hope that all those in the railway industry, especially Network Rail and Jarvis, will reconsider the issue. I am tempted to ask the Minister to say what he thinks about the treatment of the Quinlivan family, although I fully understand the limitations on his position. However, I ask him in any event to use his influence and that of the Government with Network Rail and Jarvis to ask them to re-examine the way in which they are dealing with the matter.
It is not acceptable to leave matters as they stand. Those who suffer injury and bereavement should not have to wait years for answers to questions about how this all came about. They should not be put through more agony when seeking a fair reflection of the life of a loved one; they deserve better than that.
7.43 pm
Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: I asked the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) whether I may have one minute of time on the subject. I congratulate him on securing an important debate and concur with most of what he said. I look forward to a positive reply from the Minister to the question of why we have a position whereby the family of a woman who was the mother of a constituent of mine are denied what I believe to be a given right to some form of compensation from two companies that have been very negligent in the conduct of their business.
7.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on securing this debate. I endorse his opening remarks about the continuing impact of the derailment, and thank him for the manner in which he made his speech.
I should first like to extend my sympathies to the families and friends of all those who lost their lives or were injured in this tragic rail accident. The pain and suffering that those people have had to endure over the past couple of years is difficult to imagine, and it is hard for any of us to put ourselves in their shoes and imagine the extent of the ongoing trauma and difficulties that the loss of loved ones causes.
The details of the accident are well known. The rear coach of a four-coach West Anglia Great Northern commuter train, travelling from King's Cross to Cambridge and King's Lynn, derailed while passing over points number 2182A just before Potters Bar station. The hon. Gentleman evoked the images of the pictures that we all saw subsequently. Seven people died
412
and more than 70 ware injured. However, the raw facts mask the intense emotional and psychological impact that the accident has had on so many lives. I totally understand the desire and determination to find answers to why this tragic accident happened.
The joint investigation into the accident by the British Transport police and the Health and Safety Executive is continuing. It has been the objective of the BTP to establish whether there was any deliberate criminal act or any breach of duty, other than health and safety at work offences, that could be described as grossly negligent. The HSE investigation has focused on establishing the direct and root causes of the accident and has published three reports, on 14 May 2002, 4 July 2002 and 29 May 2003. Two of those reports included recommendations designed to prevent a similar accident from happening again, and generally to make safety improvements on the railways.
The most recent report by the HSE's investigation board covered the HSE's investigations up to May 2003. It described the technical, forensic and other work undertaken by the Health and Safety Laboratory and the railway inspectorate. The report indicated that the most likely underlying cause of the derailment was the poor condition of points 2182A at the time of the incident, and that this had resulted from inappropriate adjustment and insufficient maintenance. The report made a number of recommendations further to improve safety on the railways. Those recommendations cover the rail industry's safety culture, management systems for safety, general design and engineering aspects, selection and control of contractors, and the regulation of railway health and safety.
The HSE is satisfied that the industry is making progress on implementing those recommendations, although it recognises that there is still more work to be completed. The HSE has appointed an experienced inspector to monitor progress on implementing the recommendations and validating the action taken. A final report can be published only when any legal proceedings that may arise have been concluded or ruled out.
The lead in the investigation was transferred in March 2004 from the BTP to the HSE, because the emphasis of the investigation now focusing on systems and procedures which fall within the specialist skills and experience of HSE investigators. The BTP has some remaining lines of inquiry to complete and continues to hold regular review meetings with the HSE to consider whether all the objectives of the investigation have been met. If evidence emerges that would lead to the possibility of prosecutions for serious offences other than health and safety at work offences, the HSE, the BTP and the Crown Prosecution Service will consider whether it would be appropriate for the BTP to resume the lead.
The HSE investigation is targeted at staff competency, the maintenance and inspection regime, and equipment design and supply issues. The HSE has estimated that its investigation team will be in a position to report to the investigation board in September or October 2004. That report will include the HSE's analysis of the statements taken and evidence gathered, and will include the issues that the HSE has identified as being the root cause of the points failure. If necessary, the investigation board expects to be in a position to

413
make further recommendations in addition to those already published, to prevent a recurrence of the accident. This is also the time at which the relevant prosecuting authorities and their legal advisers will review all the evidence to determine whether matters are to be brought to court.
I know that many of those affected by the accident have been calling for a public inquiry, as the hon. Gentleman eloquently stated. Public inquiries are not convened after every rail accident Prior to the public inquiries into the 1997 Southall and 1999 Ladbroke Grove accidents, there had not been one since the public inquiries into the 1987 King's Cross fire and the 1998 Clapham accident. They tend to be convened to look at general principles and major structural issues rather than merely establishing what the immediate cause of an incident was. The Southall and Ladbroke Grove inquiries produced many recommendations, which the industry has been implementing. I will happily pass on to the Secretary of State the hon Gentleman's three concerns to justify a public inquiry.
At this stage, however, the Secretary of State considers that it would be premature to make a decision on a public inquiry. Instead, he intends to await the conclusion of the HSE investigation and decisions about the preferment of charges. The Secretary of State expects the HSE to provide him with an overview of the outcome of the investigation at this point, which should allow him, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, to take a decision later in the year.
In a statement made through the British Transport police on 18 March 2003, the coroner made it clear that he was preparing for an inquest by asking for relevant information from various parties but no proposed timetable was given for a full inquest. The coroner has since indicated to the Department that he intends to await the outcome of all further investigations before holding the full inquest.
I know that the Potters Bar derailment once again brought forward concerns about track maintenance and the use of contractors. A report by the HSE made it clear that the use of contractors is not a problem in itself, but the contractors need to be properly managed and to have a properly trained work force. The hon. Gentleman will know that in October 2003 Network Rail announced the decision to take in-house all maintenance contracts for the rail infrastructure.
There has been recent public concern that Jarvis was awarded a major contract for rail replacement in the Potters Bar area. That is, of course, a track renewal contract and not a maintenance contract. Network Rail—not Jarvis—will decide what work will be done and where, and it will instruct Jarvis to carry it out to a nationally applicable standard method.
Mr. Clappison: The Minister has mentioned the rail replacement contract for Jarvis, which I had not. As he has brought the subject up, may I suggest that we should not set too much store by the distinction between rail replacement and maintenance, because it is important that the same culture of safety should govern both operations?
Mr. McNulty: I accept that point and I suggest that most of the industry would accept it, too. I merely put those things on the record as matters of fact.
414
Compensation is a key issue for those bereaved or injured in the accident. In a joint statement on 27 April 2004, to which the hon. Gentleman also alluded, Network Rail and Jarvis announced that they have formally accepted liability on behalf of the rail industry for all legally justified claims brought by the bereaved and injured, despite the continuing investigations into the root cause of the accident. I understand that a significant percentage of the claims have been processed, and that most outstanding claimants have received interim payments. Again, as a point of general fact, I shall pursue the matters that the hon. Gentleman raises, not simply about Mrs. Quinlivan but about the others, too. At the end of the day, as he will know, the issue of those who are aggrieved by whatever compensation is put in place is to be determined by the courts rather than by ministerial intervention.
More generally, the Government are committed to ensuring a safe, reliable and customer-focused railway.
Mr. Clappison: On the previous point, I acknowledged the limitations on the ministerial position. The Minister has mentioned the courts, but there is no legal action at the moment. My plea to Network Rail and Jarvis is to consider this matter again, including from the point of view of the public interest, and to examine whether they are doing justice to those people, bearing in mind the compensation that has been made in other cases, such as Ladbroke Grove, which was a similar situation.
Mr. McNulty: I am sure that, given this debate, they will have heard that plea. I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman said about the limitations on ministerial intervention. It is not for Ministers to intervene in specific cases. Perhaps I should have made it clear that, ultimately, only the courts can intervene if no agreement is reached.
Since the 1970s, the frequency of fatal train accidents has reduced from roughly five a year to about one a year. The hon. Gentleman will also know that the number of signals passed at danger in 2003–04 was the lowest total for 12 months since records began in 1985. However, I take very much to heart what the hon. Gentleman has said about the need to get the overall culture of health and safety right, and I think that that is happening.
Although the general safety record of the railways is good, a number of rail crashes, including the Potters Bar crash, have demonstrated that there must never be complacency and that much still needs to be done. The industry is, I think, focusing on remedying the weaknesses revealed by the series of accidents and subsequent reports. Most of the recommendations that emerged from the public inquiries into the Southall and Ladbroke Grove crashes have now been implemented. The Health and Safety Executive is continuing to monitor implementation of the outstanding recommendations and—as I have said—will publish a third progress report later in the year.
Progress is also being made in the establishment of an independent rail accident investigation branch. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Transport Safety Act, passed in July 2003, provides for that. It implements recommendations on accident investigation made after

415
Lord Cullen's public inquiry into the Ladbroke Grove crash. The chief inspector was appointed in May 2003, and the recruitment of investigators began in November 2003.
The RAIB has begun to develop the regulations that will underpin its operations and related policy and procedures. It will undertake investigations into railway accidents or incidents with the aim of learning lessons that will improve railway safety. The chief inspector will report directly on accident investigation to the Secretary of State.
A key component of the strategy to improve rail safety is the implementation of the train protection and warning system. The fitting of TPWS to all trains across the national rail network was completed on time at the end of last year. TPWS automatically applies the brakes of any train that has passed a red signal, or is travelling too fast on the approach to a red signal, speed restriction or buffer stop. It will safely stop trains attempting to pass a red signal at up to 75 mph. At higher speeds it will slow the train, thus reducing any impact.
Network Rail plans to fit TPSW-plus to a number of signals, which will be effective in the case of trains travelling at up to 100 mph. The Strategic Rail Authority is continuing to take the lead in developing a single national programme for the European rail traffic management system.
416
The Government are committed to ensuring that we have a safe railway and that the lessons from past accidents are learned. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, collectively, we owe it to all affected by the Potters Bar derailment to ensure that happens. I also agree with what he said at the outset: there is still much to find out about what happened at Potters Bar and—as I tried to make clear earlier—the Health and Safety Executive, the British Transport police and others are still trying to get to the bottom of it. All those processes are unfolding.
We owe that not just to the bereaved and their families, but to all on whom Potters Bar has had an impact of any kind. As the hon. Gentleman said, the line is extremely busy. There will have been an impact not just on those who used it on the day, but on those who use it regularly—and, indeed, on rail users and the rail industry everywhere.
I wish the hon. Gentleman well in pursuing his case with Network Rail and the Health and Safety Executive. The sooner we can reach a stage at which the final reports have been submitted and the Secretary of State is in a position to decide on whether there should be an inquiry or whether other avenues should be explored, the better.
It is almost a cliché now, but I entirely understand that for many of the people involved, what is required is closure.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Eight o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. JOHN MCWILLIAM in the Chair]

Council Housing
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
9.30 am
Mr. Austin Mitchell: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this important issue. There is an awful lot of interest in it among my hon. Friends; I wish that there were parallel interest outside the Chamber, where a crime against council housing is largely being ignored by the media. Today, I hope to draw the issue to the media's and the Opposition's attention.
We are talking about the problem of investment in council housing, and specifically about the fourth option, which, instead of forcing tenants and councils to choose from a large-scale voluntary transfer, arm's-length management organisations and a private finance initiative contract, allows for what tenants and councils in the main want to do: stay with the council, and develop and improve council stock under council control. Councils can renovate, renew and build, and I hope that we shall demonstrate today that they can do so more cheaply than any of the alternative options. They could even go on to build more public housing and make the contribution that we need in this country to expand and improve it.
Our housing record as a Government is frankly appalling. We have the lowest public and private bill for housing of any Government since the war. The main consequences of that failure have fallen on council houses. In 2000, there was a backlog of £19 billion of repairs and renovations because of the long Tory years of disinvestment in council housing.
Councils are naturally anxious to do something about the situation. They are proud of their council housing. The Government told them that they could not increase spending enough to finance the huge backlog, so councils had to get money from the private sector to do the job, preferably through a large-scale voluntary transfer, which would bring in housing associations to get finance into the market. However, as that began to flag, the alternative suggestion was to use an arm's-length management organisation by which the councils retain ownership; councils were told that such issues should be put to a tenants' ballot. The results of those ballots have been patchy: there has not been a unanimous clamorous rush to accept the privatisation option that the Government are offering.
I have just been facing a campaign by North East Lincolnshire council, in which it threw in £800,000 of expenditure on propaganda and consultancies to sell the idea of privatisation. It was supposed to put both sides of the argument, but it did not, and rather told tenants that it was crap—I mean appalling—at running council housing and was making a mess of it, so they should vote for privatisation. It issued a prospectus that was pure
76WH
propaganda—it was as if Laurence Llewelyn-Bowen was going to redesign every house in Grimsby and the surrounding area, and the residents would be living in paradise if they voted for privatisation.
In the event, 43 per cent. of tenants voted for privatisation. They voted for it on the basis of a prospectus with which the Department of Trade and Industry would never have allowed any private company to float on the stock market. They voted for an organisation with no business plan and no managing director, and it had not told people where it would raise the money. It had not even decided whether it would be a charity or a company. No such company could be floated on the stock market, because it would be specifically ruled out.
In North East Lincolnshire, we are giving council housing away in large chunks to organisations cobbled together after the vote. Elsewhere, votes have gone against the Government's proposals for privatisation. There was a classic case in Birmingham, and more recent cases in Camden and Stroud. Results have been patchy: some ballots are successful, while many are not.
The Government believe in choice and are now providing for choice in the health service and education, particularly for the meritocratic middle classes, who are supposed to have the intellectual ability to choose. However, we do not believe in choice for the tenants of council housing. We believe in offering them three alternatives that they do not particularly want, but not the alternative that they do want, which is staying with the council.
David Taylor: My hon. Friend was at the launch of the Local Government Information Unit booklet yesterday. We heard about Hammersmith and Fulham, a three-star-rated housing authority, whose tenants are being denied the choice to stay with that landlord. Does that make sense?
Mr. Mitchell: It makes no sense. The whole system is about the negation of choice. We think that choice is appropriate for the middle class but not desirable for tenants of council housing. That is a monstrous social assumption on the part of the Government. I can quote against that assumption some words from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said that
"tenants have to fill in a ballot form, but there's only one candidate on the list … this sounds more like a medieval dictatorship than democracy".
Unfortunately, he said that in 1996, but it sums up the situation that we face in council estates today.
The first question, therefore, is why the Government are not providing the real choice that tenants and councils want, which is the fourth option of staying with the council and of council housing being financed by the council. That can be done—I shall come to it in a moment.
Secondly, what happens to the areas that vote against privatisation? When my right hon. Friend the Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers) was Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, he said that it would be a Government responsibility to help tenants who voted to stay with the council to reach the decent homes standard. However, my right hon.

77WH
Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning said in effect that if tenants voted against privatisation, they had to rot in hell, or whatever the circumstances of their estates were. If they should vote against—as if this was some kind of European referendum in Denmark—the Government would treat them as if they did not exist and ignore their plight when it came to reaching the decent homes standard. I think that he has retreated slightly from that statement, but he has also unilaterally torn up the last manifesto commitment, which was to bring all public housing—not just the housing of those who voted for privatisation, but all council housing—up to the levels of decency. So what happens now? What is the latest opinion in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on how tenants who vote against privatisation should be treated and helped to reach the decent homes standard?
The third case against what is going on is simply that it will not work. There are 2.5 million council homes and 6 million people still in council accommodation. We cannot get all of them to ballot for privatisation and to submit a choice between the three alternatives by July 2005 as required. I emphasise that there will almost certainly be a general election early next year, in May or June. The deadline for submitting a choice by local authorities between the three undesirable alternatives is July. Is the ODPM seriously suggesting that in the run-up to and during a general election, we will be bashing the council estates and councils and dividing the Labour party on this issue to force them towards privatisation? It is inconceivable that we should behave in that fashion.
I hope that my fourth point can be answered. The process of privatisation and the three undesirable options, when they are accepted. help the better areas of council housing, not the most deprived areas, because the ballots have been successful in areas with better council housing and better prospects. Only six of the ballots were held in the 100 most deprived areas of council housing. We are channelling the money the wrong way: not to the deprived areas, which most need the renovation and improvement, but to the more prosperous areas. I emphasise again that this privatisation choice that is supposed to give tenants more power does not do so. The tenants are conned into believing that they are going to take an active part in running the properties under privatisation. In fact, the Audit Commission said:
"Many tenants of such housing associations feel that they are on the board to represent a constituency of tenants. Often this misapprehension is a direct result of mis-selling the role at the time of the ballot. At the time of transfer, tenants are often led to believe that they will have an explicit role in representing the interests of their fellow tenants on the board. This is not compatible with the accepted principle that dictates that as a board member they have to work for the interests of the organisation, that is, that the director's responsibility takes supremacy."
The tenants are simply being conned. That has happened on a massive scale in North East Lincolnshire, where the support of the tenants' assembly was invoked by offering them five places on the board—it has to be said—in the belief that they would be running the new operation; but they will not be doing so. The ODPM is effectively conning tenants. Experience proves that
78WH
tenant representation is developed by councils, but withers under registered social landlords. That is the record of the past.
The RSLs are going to generate huge surpluses once they become cost-positive in about 20 years. There is no requirement that those surpluses be used to improve the housing in the area where the RSLs have been given council housing. They can be used for all sorts of purposes by the fort nation of subordinate companies.
My last point is the most telling of all. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will help us with the mathematics by giving us a considered reply—if not now, later. The whole process is expensive. Just consider the costs of this folly of insisting on privatisation. First, massive sums of debt are being written off. In the past year, £800 million of debt was written off. The total allowance by Government for council house building—although they are not allowed to build any more— improvements and regeneration was £834 million. We can afford £800 million to write off debt, but only £834 million to improve council houses.
Secondly, there is the cost of the gap funding and the dowries that have to be given to the new social landlords, particularly in areas of negative equity, such as my own. Huge sums have been devoted to gap funding to help privatisation. In other words, huge sums have been used to give away the council housing that belongs to all of us There is also the shift of housing benefit from other tenants, which the ODPM has been paying this year, on to social security as a result of privatisation, the cost of which is estimated at £249 million per year.
Thirdly, there is the cost of all the consultancies and surveys and the propaganda that has been pouring out to con tenants, which the Audit Commission estimates at £430 per property. That is used not for housing but to enrich consultancies and pour out propaganda. The cost of renovating council housing is higher in the private sector, because it pays higher interest rates and much higher salaries to its top management. The Audit Commission estimates that over a 10-year period it cost £1,300 a year more to renovate council housing in private ownership than by the councils
Arm's-length management organisations cost about £2 billion in the three years up to 2005–06. The sum given to the Glasgow ALMO was equal to the cost of renovating and reaching a decent housing standard for every council house in Scotland.
Finally, there are the costs of a year off for the council officers and housing departments while they propagate and propagandise the case for privatisation. In North East Lincolnshire, repairs have not been done, more houses have been voided and boarded up, estates have been left to rot for a year, while people from the council have gone round propagandising the case for getting rid of council housing and for getting their jobs transferred to registered social landlords so that they can get more pay. That has compounded the situation, which was already bad enough.
All that money has been spent, and for what? Satisfaction, as measured by the ODPM's own surveys, has increased by 2 or 3 per cent. as a result of privatisation. There has been a substantial decrease—5 per cent.—in satisfaction with the repairs. The tenants are not satisfied by the process. The ODPM argues that

79WH
it separates management from strategy, but there are no grounds to say that that is an improvement or a benefit—none at all. It has not been able to produce any evidence for that assertion. There are small gains and huge costs.
We are wasting millions of pounds to give away billions of pounds of public assets in council housing, as a result of sheer, simple dogma and ideology—the dogma that private is better than council housing, that private is better than public. It is as if we were changing the ownership of the deck chairs on the Titanic as it went down—the process is as futile, fiddling and useless as that.
I say to the Minister that there has to be a better way—and there is. It is the fourth option: let the councils run their own housing, build and make their contribution to solving the housing crisis. We would not have to devote massive sums of public money to council housing to finance the fourth option, although I would favour that. It would not be a massive cost. We would have to let the councils keep their housing revenue accounts, all of them—let them keep the rents and use them for housing purposes. Since 1990, we have taken £13 billion out of housing revenue accounts to finance the housing benefits of other council tenants—£13 billion is a major part of the £19 billion cost of refurbishment. The daylight robbery process has looted and pillaged housing revenue accounts and we are still taking £1.5 billion a year out of those accounts.
Mr. Ken Purchase: Does my hon. Friend agree that a central principle of Labour policy has been that poverty should be remitted from the centre? With this housing finance debacle, we have simply said that the poor should pay for the poorest. Is that not against everything that Labour has ever believed in on poverty?
Mr. Mitchell: Absolutely; it is an appalling principle, which we maintained for far too long and only ended this year. The Tories began it—it accorded with their philosophy, perhaps—but we perpetuated it for the first seven years of power. Even now, the average tenant pays £2,600 a year in rent and gets back £1,773 in services, repairs, administration costs and the rest of it. In other words, £827 per tenant is not devoted to housing purposes.
Put that money into housing purposes and the fourth option could finance itself. Allow the money that the ODPM now uses to pay the housing benefit of council tenants to go into housing. Let councils keep the money from right-to-buy sales, which now runs to £500 million a year, and use it for housing purposes. Let the councils borrow, as they have the power to do under the Local Government Act 2003. They can borrow on the major repairs allowance and on an investment allowance.
That idea was floated by the ODPM, which consulted councils on it. The Minister for Housing and Planning then told us that there had been no interest. Now he has written me a letter to say that in fact 20 per cent. of councils showed an interest in the investment allowance idea. However, it was quietly shoved into the back cupboard by the ODPM, despite the fact that one fifth of councils were interested in pursuing it. If we had got that, it could have been used for housing purposes. Let
80WH
them borrow on the stock and let us have a level playing field with the RSLs, which can use their power to borrow. All that finance could even be supplemented with just a small proportion of the money that is being wasted.
Lynne Jones: Is it not true that the City has always regarded housing associations as a higher risk than local authorities? Therefore, if local authorities were permitted the same freedoms as RSLs, they could borrow the money much more cheaply and the renovations would be carried out more effectively.
Mr. Mitchell: Absolutely. That is such a glaringly obvious point that I am surprised that the ODPM has ignored it for all these years—public borrowing is cheaper. That is why it is cheaper to renovate, repair and rebuild council housing, and indeed to provide new council houses, than it is for the RSLs to do so. On that basis, most local authorities can balance their housing books and can use the money to renovate, repair and build anew to make their contribution to tackling the housing crisis that has arisen. Why are they not being allowed to do that? Previous Labour Governments have been so proud of the record of Ministers and local authorities in developing, expanding and improving council housing. Why are we shuffling away from it? Why are we shuffling it off the box? Why are we getting rid of it as if it were some broken-down car to be sold on the second-hand market? That is the present position of the ODPM.
The fourth option will come, because I do not think that even the Minister for Housing and Planning is daft enough to go on banging his head against a brick wall in this fashion. I doubt whether he will be allowed to abrogate the manifesto commitments or to go on with this war against council housing as we approach the election. I am sorry that he is not present to reply today; he probably finds it easier to sit in the office and write letters to the Grimsby Evening Telegraph telling the people of Grimsby that their MP is a liar. That is matter of taste on his part.
My hon. Friend, who is the acceptable face—the very acceptable face—of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, is present and will reply. I hope that she will consider the questions that arise. First, I hope that both she and her Department will seriously examine the costs of the fourth option and my assertion that it will be cheaper than the waste of money of going through the present rigmarole of privatisation, the real costs of which are so heavy. I hope that she will tell us definitively and authoritatively what will happen to tenants who reject the three options with which they are provided. Will they be left without the improvement up to the decent housing standard to which the manifesto commits us? Will they be left to rot? What will happen? It is crucial that that question be answered. I hope that she will give us an assurance that under these policies of privatisation the Government are confident that they can reach the decent homes target by 2010. I very much doubt it and I doubt whether tenants will be coerced in that direction.
Finally, I hope that my hon. Friend can give us the declaration of confidence that we need from this Government in council housing and in the ability of the

81WH
councils to run efficiently and effectively the housing that they have provided and built up over generations for the benefit of the less well-off people in their areas. I cannot understand the prejudice that exists against councils and council housing, and I am sure that, in view of her constituency, she will not share it. I hope that she will tell us that the ODPM is proud of Labour's record on council housing and that it wants to think again about the attempt to coerce, bully and freeze councils and tenants out of council housing and into handing over the stock at a cost of wasting millions of pounds to give away billions of pounds worth of public property.
9.55 am
Mr. Clive Betts: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on securing this debate on an important issue.
In our manifesto, we committed ourselves to getting all homes to a decent standard by 2010. We did not commit ourselves to transferring all homes out of council ownership into some other form of ownership. We suggested that the decent homes standard could be attained by one of four options, and that tenants should have the right to choose.
Throughout the debate on council housing, there has been an increasing betrayal by Ministers. They have argued that council housing has been mismanaged and has not been kept up to a proper standard of repair through some fault of the system—in other words, they argue that councils cannot deliver a proper standard of housing for their tenants.
In the recent Select Committee report on decent homes, a number of things were suggested with no evidence to back them up. It was asserted that housing could be properly managed only if responsibility was divided: the strategic role of housing should be carried out by councils, but the management should be carried out separately. However, there was no evidence to back up that assertion. Indeed, the Audit Commission said that it could provide no evidence that that was the case, and that it did not believe it to be true. It was also argued that management of council housing was worse than that of housing association properties, but again, no evidence was given to support that. If the Minister has practical evidence to support those contentions, I should be pleased to hear it.
It was also argued that tenants have more participation and involvement in a different system of management from that used in council housing—but there is no evidence to back that up. Some housing associations are good at involving tenants and some are not; some councils are good and some are not. There is no clear evidence to support the contention that, by effecting a change in the way that houses are managed, tenants will become more involved and participate better in the running of their homes.
The Minister for Housing and Planning said in his evidence that if one looks at where stock has been transferred or an ALMO created—mainly stock transfers, because they have been going on for longer—one will see that the standard of housing has improved, and that that shows what a good idea those are.
82WH
However, that is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If people are told that lots of money will be available for them to spend on their houses if they vote for a stock transfer, but that that money will not be available if they do not, they will vote for a stock transfer. The money then comes in and is spent, and the houses are brought up to a higher standard. That self-fulfilling prophecy does not prove that stock transfer is right. It merely proves that the Government have set up a mechanism under which money can be spent on the housing stock only if certain methods are used.
We have argued for some time about level playing fields. The Government have got themselves into a real mess on the issue of committing themselves to a decent homes standard and the options to achieve it. They assumed, somewhere in the spending agreements with the Treasury, that tenants would vote nicely in set numbers and set proportions for the various options. They assumed that most tenants would vote for stock transfers, some would vote for ALMOs, and that a very few would vote to stay with the local authority. When the situation changed, and tenants rejected stock transfers—particularly in the case of Birmingham—it suddenly became apparent that the decent homes standard could not be delivered with the allocations of money that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Treasury had agreed at national level, because tenants were not going to vote in the proportions that had been assumed.
Lynne Jones: Tenants in Birmingham are still angry and perplexed that the Government were prepared to make £650 million available to Birmingham to write off debt had tenants voted for stock transfer, but that there will not be a penny extra now that tenants wholeheartedly rejected that option.
Mr. Betts: Absolutely. I agree with my hon. Friend. One of the things that really bugs people in this debate is the lack of a level playing field—that the Government are prepared to write off hundreds of millions of pounds to encourage people down one road, but will not support them if they choose to stay with the local authority as council tenants.
The Government's next strategy has been to say, "Well, if we can't persuade tenants to vote for stock transfer, how about an ALMO?" In Sheffield, tenants who, by and large, would have preferred to remain with the local authority, and who totally resisted the attempt by the Liberal Democrats when they came to power to force wholesale stock transfer on them, are now going down the ALMO road, because at least the houses remain in the ownership of the local authority. They see it as a second-best option to get money in to bring their homes up to a decent standard.
That is nonsense in terms of the Government's overall strategy of trying to encourage stock transfer. As the borrowing is done off balance sheet and does not count against Government borrowing requirements, they have insisted that borrowing by an ALMO counts against borrowing requirements in the same way as local authority borrowing Therefore, the Government are not escaping from the problem that they have created. What is the difference between allowing a local authority and an ALMO to borrow? In terms of Treasury rules, there is none.
The Government helpfully brought in prudential guidelines for most council services, where councils can borrow against future income streams. Many of us have been pressing for that for many years to free up capital constraints under which local authorities work. However, they exempted the issue of council housing, so councils cannot borrow against the future rent streams of their housing to fund housing improvements and investment—it was completely disallowed. That was the one major exemption from the prudential guidelines, but there has never been a proper explanation for it.
The idea of investment allowances was strongly promoted by Unison and in the Local Government Information Unit pamphlet, "Housing: The Right to Choose", which was launched yesterday. It is not a sinister mechanism dreamed up in deep recesses of the Campaign group to pervert the Treasury's financial strategy. The idea was actually floated by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in a White Paper in 2002 but then dismissed. What is wrong with investment allowances? From relatively small sums—a few hundred million pounds a year—millions of pounds of housing investment could be generated. That could create a fourth way: another alternative for tenants wanting their homes to be improved under the ownership of the local authority.
We have seen one example alter another of the Government making the wrong decisions in terms of their overall strategy. Tenants would not vote in the numbers required for stock transfer ALMOs are now seen as second best. Will the Government guarantee that they will allow the funding—the Treasury still counts it as Government borrowing—for every ALMO that tenants and local authorities vote for to create the decent homes that tenants want by 2010? if that is not guaranteed, another line of choice is cut off for many tenants.
There has been a fundamental change since the then Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers), appeared before the Select Committee two or three years ago and said that the commitment was to decent homes and that every tenant had a right to have their home up to a decent standard whichever way they chose to do it—through private finance initiative, stock transfer, ALMO or staying with a local authority. The current Minister for Housing and Planning changed that approach when, during the inquiry on decent homes, he basically said, if tenants wish to remain with a local authority they choose not to have their home brought up to a decent standard.
The Government's motto for the next manifesto will probably be choice—choice in health, choice in education. What is wrong with choice for council tenants? The tragedy is that through their policy, the Government will do what the Tories ultimately failed to do, which is turn council tenants into second-class citizens with second-class homes. That is fundamentally anathema to many of us who have struggled on behalf of council housing and the rights of council tenants over many years.
Finally, the Select Committee's view on choice, which summarises my case very well, was:
"The Committee fully supports the Government's commitment to tenant choice and involvement in determining how Local Authority housing should be owned and managed. However, the
84WH
commitment to tenant choice is a charade unless Local Authorities are able to act in accordance with the wishes of their tenants. We recommend that the Government take immediate steps to ensure that where a majority of tenants wish for their homes to remain under Council management, they are not penalised when it comes to access to funding for investment in Decent Homes or any other policy initiatives."
10.4 am
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: This policy is clearly part of a process of privatisation and marketisation, which has been going on for a long time. I became a councillor for the first time in 1972, and the first battle in which I was involved was over housing finance legislation, through which the Government decided to move from subsidising houses and keeping rents down towards market rents, where the rents were higher and the tenants were subsidised. That immediately created a benefits trap, which still affects tenants in my constituency.
In my constituency, there are small areas of housing association housing and while canvassing for the general election in 1997, I was told by colleagues, "Don't talk about employment to the people in that street." When I asked why not, they replied, "Because they're housing association tenants—they don't want jobs because if they get jobs they'll lose all their benefits." There was a massive benefits trap for some of the poorest people in my constituency. The rents for local authority housing, although high, were still lower. The whole process is clearly about moving in that direction, which will have disastrous social consequences and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) said, will merely churn income between the poor and the very poor. When we took control of the council in 1972, we set about building masses of council houses. We brought the council housing waiting list right down. We had the benefit of a Labour Government who were committed to housing. We even bought large numbers of private sector houses and housed thousands of people.
We now have a situation that is twice as bad as that in 1972: there are not only high rents and benefit traps but a desperate shortage of housing. By moving towards the privatisation of council housing and even higher rents and even bigger benefit traps, the Government are doing nothing to solve the problems of the 7,000 people in Luton who need housing. The only solution is to reinvent council housing as it was and for the Government to take over control and even possibly to develop new town strategies again. It must be public sector housing with low rents, subsidised from the historic equity of local housing, as in the past. I have said similar things before. I should like to make many other points, but those will suffice for now.
10.6 am
Jeremy Corbyn: We should put on record our thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) for his phenomenal speech in opening the debate and for his tremendous work for the Defend Council Housing campaign, supported by Alan Walters and many others. It has put council housing right up on the political agenda where it belongs.
I hope that the Minister will recognise that many people around the country simply do not accept the three options that have been proffered by the Office of

85WH
the Deputy Prime Minister to deal with the housing crisis. It is simply not on to tell council tenants that they must choose between stock transfer, private finance initiatives and ALMOs, and that if they reject all three, as they have every right to do if a ballot is properly organised, they will get nothing. Where do the decent homes standards fit in with that? What sort of free and open democracy is it if we offer people no real choice other than a form of privatisation of their existing council stock? That is what it amounts to.
Not so long ago in our 1997 manifesto we said that we would free up all the capital receipts that could be used for housing investment. That has not happened. Some have been freed up but most are tied to some kind of private finance initiative or private investment in an estate. Some £2 billion is still being held that cannot be used for housing improvements. When tenants are asked to vote on a stock transfer or whatever, they are not given a free choice. They step out into the unknown if they say no, but many have said no.
I have just been through the experience of a large-scale stock transfer vote on the Tollington estate in Finsbury Park in my constituency. The tenants voted down the stock transfer emphatically: 60 per cent. of them said no. They did so because they were told that in order to lever in this private finance to improve the estate they would have to sell off what little open space there is to build 300 homes for sale on the open market at between £200,000 and £300,000 each, and 120 street properties owned by the council would have to be sold. In other words, in order to improve the housing conditions, which need improving urgently, we would end up with 300 more places for private ownership and sale and 120 fewer places for affordable rent.
The housing crisis in my constituency is worse than it has ever been. There are fewer new lettings and fewer new properties coming on stream from the council or housing associations. In fact, none come from the council; they come only from housing associations. There is a record high number of people in short-term tenancies and short-term lease properties. That is at a phenomenal cost to the public purse, largely through housing benefit. Frankly, the situation is not sensible.
Will the Minister recognise that there is currently a terrible housing crisis in London? Tenants looking for a transfer and people living in hostel accommodation who are desperate for somewhere to live have told me that they have been given only one offer—to move somewhere else in the country. If they have a genuine wish to move out of London, there is no problem, but most people cannot do that. They have to stay in London for family, work, education or whatever reasons. The only way forward is to invest in new affordable property in London.
Is that best done by investing in schemes in which the rents end up higher or by allowing local authorities the freedom to borrow, develop and provide housing for people in desperate need? I simply cannot understand the Government's position, and I do not understand the politics either. What we have done is to say to tenants throughout the country that they have a choice, when in reality they do not. They can choose only either some form of privatisation or going into substandard property that means that the Government cannot
86WH
achieve their decent homes standard. I hope that the Minister, having considered the Barker review, the housing crisis in London and the south-east, the huge cost of privatisation and how we are pouring money into the private sector when the work would be done better and cheaper in the public sector, will be able to give us some news on the situation.
A number of estates throughout the country voted against stock transfer and have been left in limbo. Camden as a borough rejected stock transfer and ALMOs, so it has now a problem on its hands. I hope that the Minister agrees that the democratic wishes of the people of Camden should be recognised and that money should be invested for new housing development and improvements by the local authority. The Aylesbury estate in Southwark emphatically voted no, but the tenants have still not seen the improvements to which they have a right, like everyone else in this country who wants to live in decent housing.
Will the Minister please say that she has heard, understood and recognised the arguments for the fourth option and that she agrees that local authorities have provided and can and will provide decent, secure, good quality and cheap accommodation in desperate housing need? The options offered by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister do not achieve that.
10.12 am
Alan Simpson: Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition launched one of his opening salvos for the next general election on the question of choice. He did it on the basis of some half-baked ideas on education, knowing that they do not stack up and, like his colleagues, knowing that when they are put to the electorate, they will be seen through and rejected. I am happy about that—it is a legitimate choice for the electorate at the general election.
What would we have been saying had the Leader of the Opposition sussed his real opportunity? He could have said that, at the next general election, we will offer the electorate a different choice—Tory, Lib Dem or Green, with no fourth option. if he had done that, the Labour party would rightly have called the Tories a bunch of thieves, making an outrageous proposal and committing an act of charlatans that would steal from the electorate the legitimacy of a fourth option. Yet, here we are telling council tenants that they are not entitled to the legitimacy of a fourth option or an equal choice of different ways to address their housing needs.
Nottingham is about to embark on its ballot on the proposals for an ALMO, and the proposal has torn apart the Labour group that has run the city council's housing department for a long time and had some remarkable achievements in the past 10 years, specifically in the development of safe neighbourhood strategies. Councillors and police officers have asked me why we would want to follow a path that pushes council housing out of council management. Local authorities have been the key driver in our safe neighbourhood strategies, because they own and manage the assets in which the tenants live. The police are using their powers to issue antisocial behaviour orders to tackle neighbourhood-based crime, but what makes the difference is when the local authority pulls in the housing department and the education department, and

87WH
everyone gangs up to deliver safe neighbourhood strategies and decent standards of behaviour. They can do that because they manage public resources and are at the front line of delivering wider public policies.
I want the Minister to do two things. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) set out the case for the fourth option, but I want her to clarify whether my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) was right that the borrowing rules for ALMOs meant that their borrowing counted against local authority borrowing. Many people in my authority have been persuaded that ALMOs, although a lousy choice, are the only choice, and that improvement work can be done without its counting against the authority's borrowing. If it does count against local authority borrowing, however, the implication is straightforward: ultimately, ALMOs can only be a step towards transferring assets into private hands, because that will be the only way of getting the borrowing off the public accounts. If so, people need to make an honest and informed choice.
Secondly, I would like an assurance. When Nottingham tenants decide how to east their votes in the ballot on the ALMO, they would like to know that the choices are equal, that there is a level playing field and that they will not be financially penalised for deciding to remain council tenants. They will want to be offered the choice of equal financial arrangements, which will apply to all the options, and not to be bribed or browbeaten into taking a path that leads to the surrendering of a public asset. They do not want millions of pounds in bribes to be given away, as my hon Friend the Member for Great Grimsby said, to dispose of billions of pounds of public assets, which we will never get back. I hope that the Minister will give my constituents that assurance.
10.17 am
Mr. Ken Purchase: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on obtaining this important debate. Labour is on the brink of perhaps its worst domestic policy disaster. So far, the policy has been brutish: it has injured Labour councillors, fractured relationships and divided estates. I sincerely hope that it will also be very short-lived.
This could be Labour's railway privatisation disaster. Let us consider the situation for a moment. At the beginning of the 20th century, more than 90 per cent. of all housing was in private hands. Almost 5 million houses were under democratic control until the Thatcher years; today, 3 million are. In my borough, we now have massive housing shortages, and tenancies are simply not becoming available. People are unable to transfer between different parts of the city, and new people coming in find it extremely hard t o get a council tenancy, unless they are in the direst circumstances. This is the 21st century, in the fourth richest economy in the world, yet I, like many other hon Members, face a dreadful housing shortage in my borough. That cannot make sense to the ordinary person.
Council housing is very popular in my borough, but the Government take no notice. They believe that they know better than the tenants, who, through their life choices, have expressed the wish to be housed and managed by the local authority. There is an exact
88WH
analogy with the privatisation of the railway system. The then Government sought to atomise it, split up the ownership and ensure that no one had a coherent view of the whole thing. That was a recipe for disaster, and our Labour Government are now grappling with the consequences. Surely we can learn something from the kind of public policy adopted by the Conservatives throughout the 1980s and apply a bit of common sense to what we are trying to do today.
We have a new privatisation. Council housing was once the symbol of everything that Labour ever achieved. Was it not council housing that completely changed aspects of public health? Did it not make just as big a contribution to the health of the nation as our treasured national health service? It did, and it continues to do so, but we are in danger of atomising it.
We will soon have almost as many landlords as there were at the beginning of the 20th century. Buy to let is everywhere. There will be dozens, hundreds, thousands of individuals who are nicely ensconced in their own home and letting another home to someone else, just like at the beginning of the 20th century.
Mr. Hopkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that, historically, one of the most pernicious relationships in human society is that between landlord and tenant?
Mr. Purchase: I could not agree more. We had two world wars, and at the end of both of them Ministers declared that we would build homes fit for heroes. We did so, first through the Housing and Town Planning Act 1919 and then through Bevan's heroic efforts at the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.
We did that—that is our achievement. It is not old-fashioned or out of date. It is doing a splendid and amazingly good job, and yet our Labour Government are telling us to get rid of a public asset. I can scarcely believe it. When I hear of Ministers appearing before our Select Committee and saying, "If tenants don't choose one of my three options, they won't have their new kitchens," I think, my goodness! Have we got to the point where a Labour politician actually says, "Trade your democratic heritage for a new kitchen"?
If that is where we have got to, I tell the Minister here today, whom we have heard described as the acceptable face of the ODPM, that this is the time when she can tell us that she will go back to the Department and convince colleagues that this policy is unpopular and unhelpful, divides the Labour groups in our cities and towns, and will not put a single lick of paint on any windowsill in the country.
10.23 am
David Taylor: Earlier this month, our television screens were full of remembrances of six decades ago, and the start of the end of the war in Europe was brought back to our minds. The world of peace to which the demobbed soldiers returned was still a world in which Beveridge's five giants of idleness, ignorance, illness, want and, in particular, squalor stalked the land.
Dealing with squalor was one of the most successful areas of activity for post-war Labour Governments and councils. It is not that a long-established policy has failed or faltered in those intervening periods. It has

89WH
been remarkably successful in most parts of the country. In an east midlands mining village, a couple with a young daughter and a toddler son left overcrowded accommodation to enter a council house provided by Ashby-de-la-Zouch rural district council. I was that toddler son. I was one of millions in the two decades after the war who had the opportunity to live in decent, affordable, accountable housing where no such option had previously existed.
I have not researched the background of Labour Members, but I would hazard a guess that a slight majority spent some or all of their childhood in local authority accommodation. We are not speaking from the vantage point of ignorance, but from information and experience.
Some powerful speeches have been made in support of the case for option four and council housing. I suppose that the two are intertwined. We have heard the economic argument. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) said, who is responsible for the Labour party's dramatic and almost rash change of policy, given that it is facing a general election in the next year or so, when a good 10 per cent. of the electorate will be tenants of local authority housing? Surely, it cannot be the Ministers who are notionally in charge of such matters. Is it someone in the white building over the road—the Treasury—that looks balefully at this place and tries to restrain our powers and impulses in our own interests? Is that the driving force behind the change in policy?
The cost is not the driving force. We have heard that when the Government consulted on options in 2002, they suggested an investment allowance, which would allow councils to make use of new borrowing powers. The amounts were pitifully small, much less per year and nationwide than would he written off in Birmingham, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) made clear.
An allowance of £150 million this year, increasing to £350 million next year would be enough to finance almost £5 billion of new desperately needed housing investment, not just in the inner city of Islington, or the large south-eastern town of Luton, or in Great Grimsby, but in rural areas, especially in constituencies such as mine. There were almost 7 million council houses nationally at the peak, not 6 million. A slight majority of those disappeared under the right to buy. In rural areas, much more than just half the housing has disappeared; indeed, the vast bulk of housing has gone. Young couples in such areas need access to affordable housing.
There is an economic case for council housing, in that it costs less than all the mooted alternatives. There is a political case because it is important to people in the Labour party to look back on and promote the successes of local authorities and Labour Governments in postwar years. There is a social argument, too, in that development and investment in social housing allow there to be an integrated approach to tackle social problems.
Tenants should not be coerced or blackmailed into an alternative option that is not the one they want. They should be given a rational choice and full information
90WH
about matters, not simply wiped out of the equation. To my astonishment, earlier this month my good friend, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning, mooted the idea that the 2010 decent homes target would be met if we ignored those tenants who had chosen to stay with their local authority. Apparently, that idea was hastily withdrawn.
Perhaps that was the first swallow of a summer, which will reveal the awful mistake that has been made. There will be apologies. There will be a smokescreen behind which a U-turn will gracefully and gradually take place because we—a Labour Government facing perhaps an historic third term—will depend significantly in some areas and in some marginal seats on the support of people who live in local authority housing. That U-turn will be welcome; it will be even more welcome if my hon. Friend the acceptable face of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister—although she has not got a lot to beat—can tell us today that the Government are sorry, that they have got it wrong and that they will allow option four. Let us hear that today.
10.29 am
Richard Younger-Ross: My party believes in council housing. I do personally, because I spent my teenage years in a very well-designed, modern council house. A lot of council housing was extremely well built, particularly the well-designed post-war estates. However, although there was a lot of good housing stock, a lot of local authorities did not look after it well. I remember my formative years in politics looking at damp running down walls in council flats, in appalling conditions on appallingly managed estates. Clearly, something had to be done to improve that.
The problem today is that the balance has tilted too far one way. The Government set targets for decent homes, and judging from what I have read from the Housing, Planning Local Government and the Regions Committee, on which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) sat, they did a good job. However, the targets for decent homes are being impeded by the process of stock transfers. Evidence was put before the Committee on that. Although the Government have said that they want decent homes, they have delayed that process by demanding that the ballots go ahead.
What is required is that magic word: choice. I congratulate the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on securing the debate, and he put the point powerfully that there is a fourth option. which is being denied to local authorities and tenants. That is not real choice. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) questioned how this situation arose. I can tell him: in the 2000 Green Paper, the ODPM stated:
"We strongly favour the separation of authorities' strategic and landlord responsibilities for housing. This will strengthen both roles."
The Government clearly set out, some time ago, that they would split the two roles.
Mr. Purchase: I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstood "strategic" in the sense that we all understood it. This was a regional approach, not a district by district one.
Richard Younger-Ross: Clearly, the approach has been a district by district one; that is how I interpreted

91WH
it. Perhaps this was mis-sold; it would not be the first time this Government have mis-sold their policies, and will probably not be the last.
The Select Committee report is well balanced and says that there are serious questions about what current Government policy is. On the first option, on stock transfer, the Committee considers the transfer to registered social landlords, and says that there are problems. On ALMOs, it says:
"ALMOs receive significant extra investment funding as compared to Local Authorities who retain the full management of their stock. Conversely, ALMOs are unlikely to have access to the levels of funding which many RSLs can achieve, because like Local Authorities, ALMOs cannot borrow freely. In other words, there is no level playing field between different models, and this inequality is tiered over several levels."
That is a good point, which I hope the Minister will pick up on and answer later. There must be a level playing field.
Still on ALMOs, the Committee said:
"We have not heard evidence that creating an ALMO per seenhances the achievement of Decent Homes, or indeed of tenant satisfaction. The option of creating an AL MO should continue to be available to Local Authorities, but there should be no financial incentive for Councils to do so."
That is exactly the point that I would make: there must be a level playing field between the options. If local authorities are not maintaining their stock well—if somebody asks for their door to be repaired and it takes a month for the carpenter to come to fix it, and there is a two-inch gap at the bottom—that is a real instance—tenants have a right to say, "No, we are not happy with you as a local authority running it. We would like another option. We would like somebody to come and manage our housing stock who will do a better job."
If local authorities have good housing departments, which care and manage their properties well, as my authority in Teignbridge did, there is every reason for tenants to vote for maintenance under the local authority. Teignbridge had a ballot recently, and hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that it decided to vote for ALMO. It voted for ALMO because, as has already been said, there was a large financial incentive to do so. That is wrong, however, and it is not my understanding of democratic choice.
Choice is the new buzz word. All of a sudden, parties seem to believe that talking about choice will win them the next election—if we tell the electorate that there is choice, they will vote for us. In fact, the choice is Hobson's choice, and the electorate are being sold a pup. There is no choice on this issue because the three options are not comparable. The Committee said that PFI did not work at all, so one wonders why PFI is even considered as an option when the Committee has lambasted it so strongly. I am surprised that the Government still allow PFI to be part of the process.
David Taylor: For the benefit of people in the Chamber and elsewhere, as Liberal Democrat policy varies between different parts of the country and different parts of this House—even the same person varies the policy from time to time—can the hon. Gentleman tell us what is the Liberal Democrat policy on council housing and the tenants who live in it, who are happy with their landlords?
Richard Younger-Ross: It is exactly the same. Local authorities will make their own choice. Labour
92WH
authorities have gone down the road of choosing ALMOs and registered social landlords. Liberal Democrat councils have done the same. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe referred to the previous leadership of Sheffield choosing RSL. and that was probably the right decision at the time. He then said that the current administration is considering an ALMO, but I do not know whether that has gone through.
Local authorities feel that they are being pressured, and the Liberal Democrat position is that there should be the fourth option and a level playing field. I think that other Members would argue for that. If local authorities want a choice, that is fine, but that is up to them. The choices must, however, be on a level playing field where there is no financial incentive to go down one route rather than another.
10.37 am
Mr. John Hayes: I feel slightly like an intruder in a heated family row, or perhaps an uninvited guest at a wake. For that reason, I shall abbreviate my remarks so that the Minister has the maximum time to respond to the points raised by other Members.
However, some points need to be made from the Opposition's perspective. Some of my favourite Labour Members have contributed to this debate: the hon. Members for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson), for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) and, not least, for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). The latter has done a service to this Chamber and the House by bringing the matter to our attention and securing a debate on it.
It is an important subject, because social housing is important. When we talk about social housing, we should remember that we are not talking about units and buildings to be occupied, but homes and people, especially vulnerable people. My personal commitment in politics is to mitigate disadvantage in favour of people who are vulnerable and to act in the interests of those who are least able to defend their own interests. That is the proper purpose of people in this House, and it no less true for housing than it is for other areas of public policy.
It is certainly true that we have a problem with social housing. The fundamental problem touched on by several contributors is that we are building an insufficient number of social houses. It is as simple as that. I shall say a word about the management of those houses, but before I do, the Minister has to answer the charge that we are building far fewer houses than we did under the last Conservative Administration. I have the figures for 1990–91, when about 36,000 social houses were completed. She will know that in 2002–03 barely 20,000 social houses were completed. There has been a collapse in social house building, which is causing some of the pressures that we have heard about from speakers today. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby is right that that is at the very root of the problem.
The hon. Gentleman is also right about the proper expectation of people to have decent standards, regardless of how their housing is managed. Let us not be under any illusions about the decent homes standard. Raising standards is a noble objective, but the Government have, to a degree, missed a trick with the

93WH
decent homes standard, because people want decent communities. Many of the things that people crave most, like a stable, secure community, are not included in the decent homes standard. People are happy to do things that they can effect themselves, but the things that they cannot control happen right outside their front door.
I should like to see the decent homes standard turned into a decent communities standard, as is being done in locations where a range of agencies are coming together to try to improve the quality of life of people living in council housing or housing that is run by other registered social landlords. That could be achieved by working on those factors that people cannot control—the things that happen outside their front doors.
David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is widely recognised as being at the one-nation end of his party, but will he accept, at least indirectly, the responsibility of past Conservative Governments, of which he was a supporter, for starting the process by which housing authorities were impoverished and enfeebled and through which people on local authority estates were seen as the poor and feckless, to be corralled and ignored? Is this not just the latest stage in the process that his party started?
Mr. Hayes: Governments throughout recent history have given insufficient regard to local democracy and have not given proper support to local government in discharging its functions. I am pleased to say that under the current leader of the Conservative party—and the previous one—there has been a renewed commitment to what is called in the modern idiom localism, which really means empowering local people through their communities and local councils to make decisions that have the best impact on their lives. The hon. Gentleman has a point in saying that we have not always got it right across the political spectrum, in terms of trusting people to make decisions that affect them directly.
I have only three points to make. First, it is appropriate that whoever runs social housing should run it properly in terms of allocation, repair, service to tenants, the warmth and security of the homes, and the management of the neighbourhood. That can be done effectively by a variety of agencies. There are good housing associations, good local councils and good ALMOs. All sorts of people involved in the management, running and provision of social housing do it well. Equally, there are people who do it badly.
The idea that every council housing estate was some halcyon place where people lived in a golden age is naive, and we should not delude ourselves. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby is far too wise to have suggested that, and he did not say that. However, it needs to be said that councils do not run housing perfectly, any more than any other agency does. Whoever runs housing, the standards should be universal. It is true that if people are living in council housing—not in one of the arrangements that have been discussed at length today—they should be entitled to the same levels of service and standards of decency as anybody else. That is my objective, and I speak both as
94WH
someone who was born and bred on a council estate, as many hon. Members have said that they were, and as the shadow Minister for Housing.
Secondly, I am not against councils building and managing houses. My council—Tory-controlled South Holland district council—is building small numbers of houses and supporting incremental development in our villages, because of the rural housing problems mentioned by the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire. Those houses will be built to a better standard than the decent homes standard.
Thirdly, we need to recognise that if extra money has to be brought in, and if other people are going to build and run social housing, the standards to which they work, and the rules and regulations to which they must adhere, should be common ones. We cannot have, for example, private sector organisations building and running social housing if they are not asked to conform to the same standards as other RSLs.
The Minister has a lot of questions to answer, given what has been said today. Every Briton should have the chance to live in a warm, secure home that is fit for its purpose and is in keeping with the built environment and the landscape, in both character and style. Every home should be sustainable ecologically and part of a safe, stable and confident community.
We need to inject more money into social housing, and that can be done in a range of ways. There must be consistency in how we run social housing, because people who rent have just as many expectations and just as much entitlement to choices and quality as people who live in market housing. Those ambitions are at the heart of my personal political agenda, and they will be at the heart of the programme of the next Conservative Government.
10.46 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Yvette Cooper): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on securing this debate on council house funding, and I apologise to him, to other speakers and to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for missing the beginning of the debate. At one point this morning, as I sat stuck in solid traffic, I considered that it would probably be quicker to walk; however, in my current condition, walking any great distance is probably not a good idea. It was very kind of my hon. Friend to describe me as the acceptable face of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, but my acceptable face would have been rather red and puffing had I tried to get here any faster than I did. I apologise again for my lateness.
I recognise the strength of feeling among my hon. Friends on this issue. I admit that I was a little surprised to hear how many of my hon. Friends were so enthusiastic about choice in their contributions, but I recognise the points that they were making, and I want to try to respond to them. I will start with the problems that we faced in 1997—the backlog in council house repairs that we faced, the cuts in investment in new housing that had taken place, and the under-investment in existing housing stock, which left us with 2.1 million homes deemed non-decent. We all agree that it would not be acceptable for any Government to ignore that problem. or the need for heating, to mend windows, and to ensure that people have decent kitchens, bathrooms and so on.
If I have time, I will come back later to the issue of increased investment in the provision of social housing, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) and the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) referred. First, I will address the issues of investment in existing housing stock.
We have reviewed the financing regime, which involved a whole series of rigid control mechanisms, and have attempted to improve the funding regimes in place. We have targeted funds where they could achieve the most and encourage investment. For example, there is the major repairs allowance, which is expected to increase to £596 per dwelling by this year. There is also the review of the major repairs allowance. In 2004 we are introducing prudential borrowing, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) referred, in order to replace the old capital financing system, promote capital investment and give authorities much more flexibility to borrow, subject to borrowing being affordable.
We have also substantially increased social housing investment since 1997. We expect to support local authority expenditure on council housing to the tune of £2,500 per dwelling, which represents a massive contribution from the taxpayer. Expenditure on council housing has increased by 13 per cent. in real terms since 1997. Also, we have made available £2 million for ALMOs and £1.4 billion through PFI credits. That will take the overall real increase in investment through the public sector between 1997 and March 2006 to 55 per cent.
Lynne Jones: Does my hon. Friend believe that there is a cat in hell's chance of meeting the decent homes target in Birmingham on current resources? Does she not realise that the only way in which the council plans to move towards that target is through wholesale demolitions? We already have a homelessness crisis in the city—we might reach the decent housing target, but only by having hardly any homes, so the homelessness target will be way off the mark.
Yvette Cooper: There are two issues. One is about expanding social, affordable housing across the country. That is important, and we are discussing it as part of the spending review and in the context of the Barker review. We certainly agree that social housing needs to be expanded. We inherited two challenges in 1997: to increase and expand social housing, but also to invest in the existing housing stock, which we cannot simply ignore. That has left us with a huge backlog of capital investment. We have massively increased that capital investment, but we need to go further. We should be realistic about looking for different ways of raising resources to go into the housing stock because we inherited such a problem in 1997. Looking at the historic record, one sees that it is wrong to say that the Government have not supported or invested in council housing. We have made a massive increase in investment available to local authorities to put into their local housing stock.
Mr. Hayes: I want to get the record straight for the purposes of accuracy. The Minister said that the Government had two objectives: first, to improve the
96WH
stock, and secondly to increase the number of houses. However, even within the lifetime of this Government, the number of social house completions has fallen, year on year: in 1999–2000, there were roughly 25,000; by 2002–03 the number was down to 20,000.
Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman is well aware of the problem that we face. There were cuts in social housing and new building investment for every year under the last Conservative Government. We inherited a situation in which funding had been cut year on year. We have increased that investment, and changed where new houses are built to areas with the greatest housing need, such as south-east England, where house prices and construction costs are higher. We have had to deal with rising construction costs—recognised by everybody in the sector—that increase the cost of building new affordable homes. We have already doubled the funding for new affordable housing, but we need to go further—the Barker review was clear about that.
The hon. Gentleman wants to score political points on this issue, but I do not see where the additional houses would come from if the housing budget were cut by £400 million, which is his party's policy. We could not get the additional investment if the budget were cut in the way that Opposition Members have suggested.
I will try to deal with where the funding could come from, a point raised by a series of hon. Members. As I said, there has been a substantial amount of additional public investment through changes to public sector borrowing and investment from the taxpayer, but there is a limit on how much the taxpayer can fund and how much public sector borrowing can sustain. That is why it is essential to bring in private sector resources through stock transfer as well.
Some suggestions seem to have been made today almost in frustration at the nature of the public borrowing constraints and the PSBR. I understand those points, but, for very good Labour reasons, we have to take public finances seriously. We cannot simply find ways in which to redefine sums of money. As long as borrowing is effectively guaranteed by the Government in the long run, it counts as public borrowing and has an impact on interest rates and on confidence in the public finances.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my hon. Friend not appreciate that that money has to be found at some point? She is young enough to be able to pay the bills; some of us might not be around. She and her family will be paying the bills.
Like my hon. Friend, I was unable to get here on time. I was speaking to a council leader in Bolsover about this issue. Is she aware of the effect of the constant reduction in opportunities for local authorities such as Bolsover district council? That is what really sticks in our gullet. Bolsover is not a metropolitan authority and has limited areas of operation. If it loses its housing, there will be hardly anything left. When the Tories were in power, many other things were taken away, but if housing goes, what does a small urban district council such as Bolsover function for? It will have the refuse collection and that is about it. That is the danger we face.
I want to impress on my hon. Friend the need to get back to local authorities having functions, because if they do not, the quango world will take over. I do not

97WH
like the reference to social housing, because to me it is not that at all. This is about quangos and power being taken away from local authorities. That happened mainly under the Tories, but is being repeated under this Government to the extent that local authorities do not have the power to carry out many of those functions. Let us have the fourth option. Yes, I am favour of choice this time.
Yvette Cooper: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of local authorities being able to take decisions in their areas. We need to give authorities more flexibility and more powers to take all kinds of decisions. Authorities such as his and others throughout the country, including mine, can do a huge amount on some of the links between economic development and housing strategies throughout their areas. There is huge potential for authorities to do more in a way that they were not able to 10 or 20 years ago as a result of different policies.
I want to finish the point about the realities of our financial position. Sensible public finance rules have been critical to sustaining the economic growth that we have had over the past seven years. They have been critical to the jobs growth and the falls in unemployment that we have achieved in that time, which are making a massive difference in constituencies and deprived and disadvantaged areas throughout the country. We should be proud of those achievements, because playing games with the public finances, as the Tories did, was one factor that pushed the country into such terrible recessions, which did huge damage to our areas. For that reason, we must recognise the realities of the way in which the public sector borrowing requirement and the public finance rules work. It is right for us to look for other ways to raise funding.
98WH
The stock transfer option has levered in £8.5 billion of private finance, of which £5.3 billion has been used to improve tenants' homes and the remainder to provide a receipt for councils.
Mr. Betts: Will not my hon. Friend accept that under the Chancellor's own golden rules, borrowing for investment is treated separately? That is what we are talking about: borrowing for investment. The logic of her argument is surely that there is a limit on the borrowing that ALMOs can do. Is she saying that some tenants will have no choice to remain with the local authority or to go with ALMOs and will have to go for stock transfer because that is the only option left to them?
Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend has raised important points about ALMOs, which I wanted to come on to. I wanted to deal first with stock transfers and move on to ALMOs. He is right that ALMOs count in terms of public sector borrowing and local authority borrowing. In response to a question that he asked earlier, I can tell him that resources will be available for ALMOs that are set up over the next few years, as part of the spending reviews. The ALMO idea was developed because my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister was keen that we should develop further options for local areas and local tenants within the public sector.
As hon. Members know, the argument is that there is a strong case for separating out the strategic function from the management function for local councils to pursue. I appreciate that hon. Members may disagree with that, but that is the point of disagreement between us. A technocratic disagreement is preferable to concern about the principle and the intention. The intention is, for all of us, to improve decent homes and get more investment into all our affordable housing and to improve tenants' lives as a result.

Easington Primary Care Trust
11 am
Mr. John Cummings: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to raise the issue of health inequalities in Easington and to continue to press the case for a fair funding deal for Easington primary care trust.
Although Easington primary care trust is the prime provider of primary health care and the principal commissioner of secondary health care for my constituents, I should point out the fact that five of the most deprived local government wards—Wingate, Wheatley Hill, Thornley, Deaf Hill and Hutton Henry—which suffer some of the worst ill health in the Easington PCT area, are in the Sedgefield constituency of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Easington PCT covers 26 local government wards and is responsible for health care for 93,900 people who reside in east Durham.
This is the second Adjournment debate that I have initiated on this issue, and although some progress has been made since the first debate in June 2002, I feel that I must keep up the pressure on Ministers for an equitable settlement for my constituents.
I begin by stating for the record that credit must be given to the Government for a record increase in funding for primary care. A 39 per cent. increase was awarded to Easington PCT over the current three-year funding allocation period of 2003–2006, compared with a national average increase of 29 per cent. Nevertheless, the size of the percentage increase must be put in context against the background of a relatively low baseline. Health inequality, like deprivation, poverty and affluence, is a relative concept. Easington PCT is £26 million a year short of the baseline resources required to deliver adequate health care to the people in east Durham.
A much more substantial increase is needed to address the historic underfunding of health care in the former mining communities in east Durham. Resources are needed to meet local health need and address the inequalities in health, an aim which the Secretary of State described as one of the cornerstones of the Government's social policy, and which was identified as one of his four key priorities in his speech to the NHS Confederation conference in Glasgow on 26 June 2003. At the present rate of catch-up—approximately 2 per cent. per year—it would take 20 years for Easington PCT to reach the target. That is clearly too long. Over the three years from 2003 to 2006, the health economy of east Durham is being deprived of £78 million in funding. That is a huge gap, which must be bridged.
Properly targeted, £78 million of additional resources could significantly improve the health of the local population. Easington PCT is more than 20 per cent. under target in the current financial year. The Secretary of State's reply to my parliamentary question in November 2003 showed that Easington PCT is the worst funded of the 304 PCTs in the country. The league table published in response to that parliamentary question shows clearly that although Easington PCT covers an area that is one of the most deprived by any accepted measure and suffers high levels of chronic ill health, it is funded at only 80 per cent. of target. At the
100WH
other end of the scale, Kensington and Chelsea PCT and Westminster PCT, which cover relatively affluent areas, are funded well above target—at 130 per cent. in the case of Westminster PCT.
I fully understand that Ministers are required to strike a balance between how much is awarded to PCTs as a whole to maintain continuity and stability in the service and how much extra is awarded to under-resourced PCTs such as Easington to bring them up to target. It is important to recognise that not all PCTs are the same, and the needs of the populations that they serve are different.
I do not intend to develop the argument in this debate, but it would be perfectly reasonable to put forward the case that deprived communities such as Easington, suffering high levels of chronic ill health, should be funded well beyond target, compared with more affluent areas like Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea. I do not, however, seek a reduction in provision or to destabilise the system for anyone. All I seek is an uplift in the funding for Easington PCT to get it within striking distance of the target.
What I am looking for in this debate is some indication, or better still a clear statement from the Minister, that when a PCT is both under target allocation and significantly deprived, as Easington is, special measures should be applied to the allocation formula under a heading such as health needs or health inequalities readjustment. It is unjust that the district of Easington is consistently identified in the indices of multiple deprivation as one of the most deprived communities outside inner London, yet has the worst funded PCT in England.
There are a number of deficiencies in health provision that must be addressed in the short term if we are to make progress in improving the overall health of the population in the Easington PCT area. To begin with, there is an identified need for double the number of practice nurses in Easington. There are no hypertension, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or diabetes clinics currently operating in my PCT area. All the GP practices in the Easington PCT area require and have requested additional nursing resources to improve the management of chronic disease.
We need more funding for mental health services, which have traditionally been a Cinderella service both nationally and locally when it comes to resource allocation. People living in east Durham are over 30 per cent. more likely than the national average to suffer from mental illness. GP practices have identified the need for their own community psychiatric nurses, as they would like to offer group therapy sessions and drop-in clinics for their patients. Some areas receive as little as three hours per week from community psychiatric nurses for counselling sessions.
Health services for young people are also sadly neglected in east Durham. A comprehensive counselling, family planning and advice service to prevent teenage pregnancy should be available. Easington's rate of teenage pregnancy is 55.3 conceptions per 1,000 women aged 15 to 17, which is one of the highest in the country.
Easington also has a relatively high incidence of diabetes. Providing a quality service to fit in with the recommendations in the national service framework

101WH
published by the Department of Health would include providing access to dieticians, physiotherapists, chiropodists and retinopathy screening. Developing the service in this area would have a rapid impact on the quality of life for diabetics in my area. As a diabetic myself, I would like to declare an interest in seeing an improvement in that area of service provision.
Providing resources to support GPs with a special interest who can offer secondary care services in the community would have the added benefits of taking pressure off the acute sector and relieving patients of the need to make long and difficult journeys by public transport to the nearest hospital. Easington, as the Minister may appreciate, does not have its own hospital. The acute hospitals serving my constituency are located in Sunderland, North Tees and Hartlepool, Stockton and Durham City.
We need to develop our primary health care infrastructure in terms both of facilities and of the human resource element. New premises are urgently required in many communities. A recent report commissioned by the PCT indicates that health visitors and district nurses are currently working from inadequate premises. In some cases the premises are in a shocking and dilapidated condition, which is hardly the image that the NHS would wish to portray in the 21st century, particularly if we are to attract more staff, especially dedicated health care professionals, to work in the Easington PCT area.
We desperately need more community nurses. Nurses working in east Durham tend to have large case loads—twice as large as those in the neighbouring areas of Sunderland and Hartlepool. That means that our community nursing staff are working under intense pressure. They do not have time to promote health and give advice to their patients on healthy eating or smoking cessation, or offer general advice on how to maintain good health. The Wanless report highlighted the cost-effectiveness of investing in public health, but first there is a cost to be borne in having sufficient staff to promote good health interventions.
There is an excellent, if rather depressing, report produced by the public health intelligence service and the County Durham and Tees Valley Public Health Network with the apt title of "Miserable Measures". The report makes grim reading for the uninitiated. It analyses the range and severity of deprivation in the County Durham and Tees valley area, and—in case there is any doubt in the minds of hon. Members and the Minister about this—it clearly demonstrates the link between deprivation and ill health.
The report uses the index of multiple deprivation to analyse the various strands—or domains, as they are referred to—of deprivation. They are housing, income, employment, health, education and child poverty. It may he useful at this point to consider the definition of deprivation in health terms. Deprivation has been defined and measured in many ways. It is a word used to convey the idea of an individual or a community being in need, and having unfulfilled needs in absolute or relative terms.
Absolute needs are commonly assessed in relation to some kind of standard or baseline, whereas relative needs are evident when one individual or group is
102WH
compared with another. Relative deprivation can and does exist in the absence of absolute deprivation. For the record, people living in Easington suffer both absolute and relative deprivation. As long ago as 1980, the Black report demonstrated the link between poverty, deprivation and ill health, and that link was reinforced by work carried out by Professor Townsend in the 1990s.
In 2003–04, Easington PCT received £104.6 million, whereas the target was £131.2 million. That is a £26.5 million shortfall, or 20.23 per cent. below target. In 2005–06, Easington PCT will receive £131.3 million compared with a target of £156.7 million. That is a £25.4 million shortfall, or 16.2 per cent. below target. To put it another way, as I said earlier, Easington PCT will forgo about £78 million of funding over the three-year allocation period, comparing baseline with actual allocations. In effect, the health care professionals, GPs, community nurses, health visitors and so forth who are expected to improve the health of the population in my constituency are being asked to deliver five years of health care with four years of funding.
The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson)—the member of his ministerial team who is here today—have both visited Easington PCT. I am sure that they will agree that there is the capacity and ability to improve health outcomes, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank them for visiting, as they promised to, to see some of the problems at first hand.
From lengthy correspondence with a succession of Ministers in the Department of Health, I gather that the Secretary of State understands and sympathises with the problems that we face in Easington. I respectfully point out to the Minister that the Secretary of State's warm words to the NHS Confederation and his reference to a commitment to address health inequalities in funding are not a test of political faith; they are more a test of political will. A promise is only a promise when it is delivered, and I am looking to the Minister for a commitment to address the funding anomaly that leaves health services for my constituents underfunded to the tune of £78 million over three years. In the short term, I am also seeking special measures to bring additional health resources to Easington to bring my PCT at least within striking distance of its target. That will allow the dedicated team of professionals that we have in place to get on with the job of improving health outcomes in one of the most deprived communities in the country.
I await the Minister's response with great interest and, as a loyal member of the Labour party, some expectation. I remind her that with loyalty come obligations. The nation owes a debt of honour to mining communities such as Easington that have suffered ill health over many generations to produce the coal that the nation required The mines have closed but the legacy of ill health remains, and must be addressed if the Government's commitment to their heartlands and to social justice are to have any credence.
On 28 April 2004 the Secretary of State made a speech to a conference on 28 April 2004 entitled "Choosing Health: Closing the Gap on Inequalities." In his opening remarks to the conference my right hon. Friend restated his commitment to the principles that established the NHS—a health system based on the principle of equal

103WH
access to health care that is free at the point of need. The Government have signed up to reducing inequality with a public service agreement target to reduce health inequalities by at least 10 per cent. in terms of outcomes, measured by infant mortality and life expectancy at birth.
Those are admirable targets, which my colleagues and I fully support. To achieve the targets and fulfil the Government's pledge, the issue of resource allocation and inequalities in funding for PCTs such as Easington must be addressed as a matter of urgency. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to raise the subject today, and I await the Minister's response with anticipation.
11.17 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson): I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings) on securing today's debate, which is of great interest and concern to his constituents and the health community in Easington. As he has already reminded us, I had the pleasure of visiting his constituency and talking to people there. I saw good work being done and place on record my thanks to all the staff involved.
I have listened carefully to the points that my hon. Friend has raised, but before responding directly to them, I would like to say a few words about the progress and investment being made in the Easington area, and in particular to praise the hard work and dedication of the NHS staff there.
There are a number of drivers for change across government, the NHS and the Department of Health. Ministers, including the Prime Minister, have put a real focus on making reducing health inequalities a top priority for the Government. Following the cross-cutting review, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning and Local Government Committee has responsibility for overseeing the implementation of the inequalities strategy. That will be crucial in ensuring that tackling health inequalities remains a key priority across government. Indeed, the NHS improvement plan explicitly sets out how the NHS will develop into a health service rather than one that focuses primarily on sickness, and will in partnership make further inroads into levels of smoking, obesity and the other major causes of disease. There will be a sustained drive to reduce inequalities in health.
Strategic health authorities have a key role to play in performance managing health inequalities, not just on the key targets, but on other public health and health inequalities performance indicators and on progress with local delivery plans, which for the first time include tackling health inequalities as a priority. The recent launch of the consultation paper "Choosing Health?" was aimed at helping us put inequalities at the core of the nation's health. We want to use the consultation to promote a wide debate on the roles and responsibilities of individuals, the NHS and all the other players in civil society, as well as the Government, in the debate on choosing health.
Governments on their own cannot reduce inequalities. They depend on the hard work of disadvantaged people working to overcome the
104WH
conditions that have in the past disadvantaged them. We help, but they must do it themselves. The publication in July 2003 of "Tackling health inequalities: a programme for action" is an indication of our commitment to addressing this issue. The programme provides the basis of meeting the 2010 national health inequalities target on life expectancy, by geographical area, and on infant mortality, by social class, by building on current work, and addressing the wider causes of inequalities in years beyond.
Key issues that are addressed in that programme are, first, health inequalities, which affect a large part of the population, not just the most deprived. Action to meet the targets will need to address the needs of the poorest 30 to 40 per cent. of the population. In the context of overall health improvement, the aim is to improve the health of the poorest fastest. Secondly, health inequalities must be integrated into mainstream service delivery, focusing on disadvantaged areas and groups, and recognising that a one-size-fits-all approach to health care will not reduce the health gap. Thirdly, co-ordinated effective activity is required across traditional boundaries at all levels, working in partnership with communities and service users.
As for the local picture in Easington, I am pleased to note that Easington PCT achieved all its key targets in 2003 performance ratings, and was awarded two stars. In particular, according to the latest available figures, from April 2004, 100 per cent. of patients were able to see a GP within two days or a primary care worker within one day.
I recognise that there are challenges facing the local health community. My hon. Friend is right to say that Easington is indeed one of the most deprived areas of the country, with significant levels of deprivation in its wards. However, it should be noted that the PCT has an admirable track record of meeting its population's needs. When I visited the area earlier this year, I was most impressed with the commitment of the staff delivering the health agenda. The PCT is taking part in a number of initiatives designed to address health inequalities. It reduced the incidence of heart disease by 25 per cent. over a two-year period, and I commend the PCT and its partners for the progress that has been achieved in that area.
Easington was one of three sites that helped the Modernisation Agency to win first prize in the health and social care awards in 2003 for its work focused on reducing falls in the community. Easington achieved a 63 per cent. reduction in falls over that periods, and I again congratulate the PCT and its partners for their contribution to that fine achievement.
The PCT has also established a local education and training programme to develop the expertise and skills of local health professionals, to ensure that it can attract and maintain motivated and experienced staff. In 2003–04, £750,000 was invested in expanding the nursing workforce. It is expected that by April 2005, multidisciplinary teams will be working in defined communities with delegated budgetary responsibility. We are taking the decision making and provision closer to the local communities.
With regard to specific action on health inequalities, the PCT is active in a number of areas, including the smoking cessation service, a range of activities based on

105WH
the healthy living centre, participation in the health communities collaborative, and the expert patient programme. In addition, the Department and the strategic health authority have been working with the PCT to explore other possible initiatives to support the PCT's priorities, where those can be linked to existing central Department of Health or Modernisation Agency schemes.
To tackle health inequalities effectively, the big programmes—where the big money is—must change, and that means working through the mainstream and getting health inequalities thinking into existing and future programmes. Real change will be delivered only by changing the way in which mainstream services work, to ensure that we do not leave the worst off behind. We have learned that deep-rooted problems such as health inequalities cannot be tackled by short-term initiatives that dry up when the money runs out.
My hon. Friend referred to finance in his speech, and I should say straight away that the NHS must deliver overall financial balance and the NHS plan targets if we are to maintain credibility and meet our obligations to Parliament and the public. It is important to remember how much funding has been made available. In the 2002 Budget, the Chancellor announced the largest sustained increase in funding of any five-year period in the history of the NHS. Over the years 2003–04 to 2007–08, those plans mean that expenditure on the NHS in England will increase, on average, by 7.4 per cent. a year above inflation.
All NHS organisations must be clear that they have a responsibility to manage their resources effectively. Although we expect overall financial balance across the NHS, that is not to say that there are no health bodies facing financial pressures. There are always pressures to be managed in year, and substantial moneys, including the NHS bank support for the most hard pressed health economies, have been allocated to the NHS to meet the increasing demands placed on it.
My hon. Friend addressed the issue of the allocation of resources to primary care trusts in considerable detail, and I emphasise that Easington PCT will receive an increase of £36 million over the three years from 2003–04 to 2005–06. That represents a cash increase of 41 per cent. I am, of course, aware that that will mean that the Easington PCT continues to receive less than its target share. However, the pace of change policy that we have adopted for 2003–06 will reduce the PCT's distance from its target over the three-year period. For 2003–04, Easington PCT was 22 per cent. under its target share, but by 2005–06 it will be 16 per cent. under that target share. The allocations have been made direct to PCTs as part of the process of shifting the balance of power, by putting resources and responsibilities in the hands of front-line services. PCTs now control more than 75 per cent. of the NHS budget.
In response to some of what my hon. Friend said, I can see that it is not unreasonable to ask why some PCTs continually receive less than their target share. Our pace of change policy involves a balance between how much we give to all PCTs to maintain continuity and stability and make progress nationally in priority areas, and how much extra we give to under-target PCTs to bring them nearer to their weighted capitation targets. Allocations to all PCTs include resources to finance the cost of pay reform, new drugs and treatments, and additional capacity. However, we have also given extra resources to under-target PCTs.
It is important to remember how much extra funding we are making available. There has been an increase of £3.8 billion in the allocations to PCTs, bringing the total for 2003–04 to £45 billion. By 2005ߝ06 that total will be £53.9 billion—an increase of £12.7 billion over three years. We are committed to bringing all PCTs, including the Easington PCT, to their target allocations as soon as is practical. However, that must be consistent with all PCTs receiving sufficient extra funding to enable them to deliver national end local priorities. I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate that there is a balancing act to be done.
We will consider a new pace of change policy before the next round of allocations are announced in the autumn. That will be decided in the light of the circumstances at the time. I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that I cannot pre-empt any decision regarding the pace of change policy. However, I assure him and his constituents that his representations have been noted carefully and will be taken into account.
The pace of change policy decided by Ministers for each allocation round varies from round to round to take account of a number of factors. I believe that we have struck the right balance for this allocation round. I think that there will be an announcement about the new pace of change policy in the autumn, which, as I said, will be devised in the light of the circumstances prevailing at the time.
As a result of the Secretary of State's commitment to supporting the PCT, the Department of Health policy and Modernisation Agency officials continue, where appropriate, to define the support that can be given to Easington PCT in line with the relevant Department and Modernisation Agency work programmes, and will work through the strategic health authority to give meaning to that support. The Department of Health policy and Modernisation Agency officials will continue to monitor the progress of the support that is secured. My hon. Friend has made a strong case on behalf of his PCT on several occasions, and I assure him that Ministers are listening carefully to what he says.
11.30 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Air Quality
2 pm
Mr. John Randall: I am grateful to have the opportunity of airing this subject this afternoon. We should all be concerned about air quality, but because it is something that we cannot immediately see, or even feel, it has not been at the top of many people's lists of priorities over the years. I am just about old enough to remember my father coming home from work in the smogs of the late '50s and early '60s. At that time, pollutants in the air were visible—they formed smog—and their nature meant that they caused deaths, which would have been headline news. We can be proud of our record over the years of removing the smoke from our city centres and of the fact that, after restoration work, our buildings are no longer covered in ash and other pollutants. Today's air pollution is of a different nature, which in many ways makes it more dangerous.
We see many media articles about the problem, and the House of Commons Library has produced a good debate pack—well up to its usual high standards—which outlines many of the problems caused by increasing air pollution, such as climate change. Recently, my elder son saw the film "The Day After Tomorrow." Although it shows a worst-case scenario, when I showed him some information that I had received about climate change he was rather shocked to see that the fantasy was not so far removed from the reality revealed by the figures. We would all do ourselves a lot of good to realise that the situation is serious and cannot be lightly put aside.
However important it is. I want to concentrate today not on climate change in relation to air quality, but on the problems of air quality affecting those of us who live in west London, especially my Uxbridge constituency. Not so many years ago, relatively speaking, Uxbridge, West Drayton, Hayes and Harlington were almost in the country; they would have been regarded as semi-rural only 60 or 70 years ago. People came to our area from central London because they wanted fresh air. That was one of the area's big selling points and why people started using the Metropolitan line to go to Uxbridge—incidentally, the line celebrates 100 years of going to Uxbridge this weekend. Metroland was an oasis for people escaping the smoke of central London.
Over the years, however, the area has changed. Perhaps I am getting older or becoming more cynical—in the seven years since I have been an MP, the latter has become more and more true—but I believe that I can now tell the difference in the air quality around my home and those of my constituents and neighbours. Like many people, I suffer minor symptoms of such pollution—I find myself increasingly bothered by nasal congestion, for example. In the local area, the incidence of respiratory disease and asthma seems to have increased. Some evidence may be anecdotal, and some—perhaps in the case of asthma—might have emerged because more is known these days; inhalers and so forth were not around a while ago. However, when I go around schools, I see that more and more of our young people are suffering from such conditions, and I think that air quality has a large part to play in that. When I escape to a rural area—perhaps not one in this country—I can taste fresh air mush more than I did
108WH
before. It concerns me that a lot of people in and around our cities have to put up with air that, if they knew what was in it, they would be unhappy about.
One problem is that whenever I look into the issue and collect briefing notes and details from the various Departments, which are incredibly helpful, much of the information I receive is mumbo-jumbo to a man such as me who does not have scientific training. Some of my constituents do not understand the figures because they are not stated in a way that is accessible by the lay person. I do not necessarily blame anyone, but we must think hard about how we educate people, and not just about the problems. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Minister answering my debate today have an important role in ensuring that our constituents believe what they are told.
In my part of west London, there are two principal threats, and a person does not have to be very intelligent, which is lucky in my case, to work out what they are. One is road traffic, which is a huge problem for us. There is increasing road traffic going in and out of London on the main arterial roads and all the other roads. Although I do not want to reminisce too much, I could hark back and say that the idea of a rush hour in Uxbridge 10 or 20 years ago would have been fantastical. Now, traffic congestion is a serious problem in the area. If there were an easy solution, I appreciate that by now somebody might have come up with it. Unfortunately, severe problems are being caused while we search for one.
The biggest and most immediate problem is Heathrow. I say that the problem is immediate because there is the very real threat of a third runway being built at Heathrow if the air quality is deemed sufficiently high to allow that. From the Government's response to the White Paper, it seems that if the air quality considerations, which are huge, can be satisfied, the third runway will go ahead.
A large section of opinion believes that problems relating to air traffic around airports are not properly understood. My neighbour, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), might want to enlarge on that point, because his constituency is not so much in the firing line, but the firing range itself. Suffice it to say that my constituents, the hon. Gentleman's and others are unhappy about how air quality is monitored. The issue is one of confidence. DEFRA is monitoring air quality, but locally we have our worries about whether the monitoring is rigorous enough and done properly. I am not accusing the Department of doing anything underhand, but the process is of such importance to our constituents that we must have confidence in it.
I recently wrote to the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), because I found it strange that the Department of Health did not have any input to the monitoring of air pollution—after all, it has to pick up the bill in the end. Although I understand that officials from the Department's health protection, toxicology and radiation branch are in regular contact with the air and environment quality division of DEFRA, I would prefer the Department of Health to have a larger role.
At the moment, there seems to be one monitoring site at Harlington. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington might have something to say about that, but

109WH
I am beginning to wonder whether the site is big enough for the job. I also want to be reassured that the monitoring work does not have any link to the aviation industry. Again, it is a question of confidence. It is not that I necessarily distrust the monitoring, but I need to be convinced as a local resident that the air quality figures for Heathrow are not being produced to help a particular case. We all know how statistics can be used. That is all I have to say on the matter.
Norman Baker: I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's comments. Does he agree that the important question is not simply whether the air quality is monitored properly, but what the real results are? Does he share my concern that the number of flights touching down at Heathrow will increase far beyond the aviation industry's capacity to reduce aircraft emissions by efficiency measures? Air quality is likely to get worse in the next few years.
Mr. Randall: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There are some serious questions and it would be good if we could have a more joined-up debate with other Departments. I would not lumber the poor old Minister with transport matters, however, as I am sure that the Departments involved have enough discussions.
The hon. Gentleman and I recently attended a launch of a paper by the Sustainable Development Commission. It contained some alarming facts and some interesting solutions. There, he mentioned something that I did not know. We are always told that we cannot tax flights, but internal flights in the United States are taxed, so there may be some merit in the proposal. That strays into the transport aspect of the debate, and although it is important I will not go down that line, particularly bearing in mind the number of hon. Members who want to speak.
Another proposed development impinges on my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. At present I take a neutral view, not having all the facts. As the Minister, or at least his Department, will be aware, there is a plan for an incinerator at Colnbrook. It is all part of the Government's plan on incineration—or rather it is part of the EU's plan, but if I say that I will be labelled a Tory Eurosceptic who blames Europe for everything. There is an existing waste disposal incinerator and a new one is planned, which is causing much local concern. It has not quite reached the headlines in my constituency, but it has in Slough and some villages in the Hayes and Harlington constituency.
I am sure that the operator, Grundon, will do all that it has to do. There is no question but that the new facility will be built to European specifications, but various materials, including X-rays and clinical waste, which all have to be got rid of, will be disposed of there. I get the strong impression that local people are not convinced by the reassurances that are being given about it, and I would be grateful if DEFRA could somehow—perhaps through a public exhibition—convince the public that the proposal is okay.
There will always be a problem convincing the public because although we have certain limits, the EU is constantly raising them. What is okay by today's
110WH
standards will be unacceptable in 2010. The more we find out about these things, the higher standards become. My constituency already suffers from a great deal of pollution as a result of road traffic, Heathrow and the prevailing westerly winds. If we get more pollution from the new incinerator, quite frankly many people will seriously wonder why on earth they should stay put. But life is not that simple—people cannot simply up sticks and go. I notice that 25 local GPs have signed a petition and have asked many questions about the incinerator. I would bow to their knowledge on these matters, even though I want to be as neutral as possible.
Fortunately, we in the London area have just had some elections, but we never know whether a general election is just around the corner. Some issues that I have mentioned become local party political issues, and I am anxious to ensure that that does not happen. If people do not like airports nearby, they have to think about alternatives. If they do not like incinerators, they have to consider alternatives—for example, more recycling and perhaps less packaging.
Some people know that in my previous existence I was a retailer. I am always amazed by the amount of packaging that is used even to wrap things like furniture, when tying it up in the back of a van with an old blanket can provide adequate protection. Now it has to be bubble-wrapped and all sorts of other things, but there is just as much damage, if not more, because people assume that the security of all that packaging means that they can treat items more roughly. There is an incredible amount of waste in packaging, and we as a nation have to take that seriously. It is no good our saying that we do not want an incinerator or a third runway unless we are prepared to consider the options.
I come today not in anger, but to voice my concern for my constituents and others, and for my health and that of my children. I feel that I am rather in the dark. There is plenty of paperwork on this subject, but there is a great danger of people being deluged with scientific facts and figures. I am happy to admit that I am not a scientist and cannot quite understand some facts and figures. I can just about make out carbon dioxide and a few other chemical signs, but that is about it, and they get more and more complicated over time. We in Uxbridge and the surrounding area are a decent lot, but we are not all experts.
We have to persuade people using the real facts about air quality, and we have to do something to improve it. After all—I was about to add, "without being too dramatic", but it does sound dramatic—if we are not careful, air pollution will be a silent killer.
2.21 pm
David Taylor: Several hon. Members present are here because of aviation, and that is the topic on which I shall focus. We recently received the air transport White Paper, which anticipates a growth in airports until 2030 and in the allocation to airports in the United Kingdom. It does that using a fairly straightforward econometric model, which shows that the growth will lead to significant increases in emissions from all airport-related sources. That will diminish local air quality around those airports, particularly those that are set to expand rapidly. Airport growth means more flights and more

111WH
car and truck movements. Where increases in volume outpace technological improvements that could control and reduce pollutants, we have a serious problem. The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) referred to that.
It would be unfair to say that all airports will have poorer air quality to the extent of breaching legal limits. We are saying that, in terms of tonnes per year of NOx and particulate matter of all sizes—the two pollutants that have the greatest health impact—and where there are tough legal limits, the volumes emitted will increase. Ground level ozone will also be a problem, although pollutants such as carbon monoxide will probably decrease, as will sulphur dioxide because of better combustion from vehicles and clean fuels.
Modelling exercises estimate the quantities of pollutants from all sources. At airports, those sources are: aircraft during take off, landing, taxiing, holding and so on; airport operations; airside vehicles; staff transportation; airport-related traffic—passenger vehicles, public transport and so on—and internal operations, such as combined heat and power plants and standby generators. I realise that the Minister here today is not heavily involved in those matters, but I am sure that he will write to me after consulting his ministerial colleagues. One of the difficulties with environmental issues is that they are, by their very nature, cross-cutting, and therefore difficult to handle.
At most airports the hot spots for air quality problems—focused, as I said, on NOx and particulate matter—occur in the immediate vicinity of runway ends and the terminal road access interface. That is particularly true of what I must now, reluctantly, call Nottingham East Midlands airport in the northern part of my constituency. The area around the airport is straddled by the M1, the M42, which links Birmingham to Nottingham, and the Derby southern bypass; it is very much the transport nexus of the east midlands, focused in a small area, and a quantifiable human health impact is occurring. Domestic properties and the people who live in them are being affected.
I ask the Minister either to respond to the following point or to write to me about it. When pollutants breach limits, residents and their houses are affected. Schools are also affected and there are schools fairly close to airports in all parts of the country. There are other at-risk groups—elderly people in care homes, for example. Where the mix of residents and the land-use patterns are as I have described, surely a local authority has a duty of care to invoke an air quality management zone. Will the Minister say where responsibility for that lies? Only by the use of air quality management zones can we begin to address the methods of controlling and reducing pollution, whatever the source.
The air transport White Paper and the associated background paper state that some airports could have significant air quality problems in future. The hon. Member for Uxbridge and my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) know more about it than me, but I believe that there is an air quality management zone in force at Heathrow. Fairly horrific air quality is possible if and when end-of-runway alternations happen, and it would be even worse if there was a third runway.
Manchester airport has a small problem, which arises from the fact that there is development right up to the boundary, a closely spaced two-runway layout with very tightly packed terminal buildings and a significant road network. It does not have an air quality management zone, but many believe that it ought to. There might be political problems with that, given that Manchester airport is owned by local authorities in the Greater Manchester area.
Birmingham airport is close to where I live. I believe that its management will proceed with great care when considering the possible second runway. The air transport White Paper indicates that there could be air quality problems owing to factors not dissimilar to those affecting Manchester. The site is confined and closely spaced and a second runway has been proposed. There is poor dispersal, with dwellings in fairly close proximity. If the second runway went ahead, an air quality management zone would be needed without doubt.
Finally, I turn to my own airport, if I may refer to it in that proprietorial fashion. I have described the geographical setting of Nottingham East Midlands airport. Its likely growth, as envisaged by the air transport White Paper, will—or could; I have to be fair—have a serious effect on the surrounding settlements and villages, such as Kegworth, Castle Donington and the smaller villages around. If so, North West Leicestershire district council, the local authority with responsibility, will have to rack up the air quality monitoring and management. It does that work now, but much more is necessary.
I conclude with a couple of broad themes to put things into perspective. I think that we all agree that generally dumping more known pollutants on to people is not a sparkling idea, but that will be one of the outcomes of airport expansion on the scale envisaged in the White Paper. I am not sure that the research on the impact on air quality that was carried out in parallel with the production of the White Paper was adequate. Recent background papers have made me feel uneasy. The trouble is that although the campaigning organisations—local community groups, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and others—have some resources, they do not have enough to undertake the scale of research necessary to analyse, predict and tackle some air quality problems.
There is an absence of technological solutions to reduce air pollution from fossil fuel sources that causes problems around airports. If that continues, the only way to control the huge increases in NOx and particulate matter is to remove or reduce the road traffic contribution to the problem, stop or restrain the increase in flights, or introduce a contribution from both measures. It is important that the Government and airport operators commit to major public transport access to the facilities that airports and aviation provide.
The hon. Member for Uxbridge did not want to be labelled a swivel-eyed right winger blaming everything on the EU; nor do I. I am sceptical about things European from time to time, but not about the positive impact of the EU in terms of driving up environmental standards in western Europe. I welcome that, and I

113WH
predict that today's EU air quality standards are likely to become much tougher over the next 30 years, which is the period covered by the air transport White Paper.
In the light of that, I hope that all Ministers who have an influence on how aviation is developed in the United Kingdom will take the fabled precautionary approach. We are talking about a period of three decades and the likelihood of minimum standards of air quality rising significantly. Let us not take decisions or sanction development now that will make it impossible to hit those targets in the years to come.
2.33 pm
John McDonnell: I congratulate my friend and near neighbour the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on securing the debate.
I come to the debate in desperation, because I am not sure where else to go. A few weeks ago we had a debate on aviation during which I raised a number of points about air pollution and urged a ministerial response. Today, I am asking again. I plead at an early stage in my speech for a meeting with the Minister, his advisers and perhaps some of his colleagues in other Departments to examine the specific problems with air pollution that are occurring in my constituency, because they exemplify the potential problems throughout the country.
We in my constituency suffer from the worst air pollution in the country, comparable only with inner-city London itself. My constituents endure the prospect of that situation worsening and being poisoned by the air that they breathe—a continuous process from now until the prospects of runway development are clear, and for ever afterward. I am here in desperation. I want someone to talk to me about the potential Government solutions, because I do not know where else to go.
My constituents live in an area with a lethal cocktail of air polluters. There are three sources: industry, the airport and the aviation industry, and motor vehicles that go along our local roads, in particular, the combination of the M4, M25 and M40 and the minor roads associated with them. They combine to pollute the atmosphere in such a way that certain parts of my constituency will soon be rendered unliveable in—not just by definitions of quality of life, but on health grounds as set by the standards of the European Union and the present Government. I come here asking questions, because I am now desperate for solutions to my constituents' problems.
A number of industries in my constituency provide valuable employment. It is no coincidence that they are situated in the constituency next to the airport, because for many industries our area is the logistical centre for Europe, if not the world. I give the example of Nestlé, which has a pollutant problem: it provides employment, but something about the coffee-burning process is affecting the ability of my constituents living in the area to breathe. We have met the company every three months for a number of years and have tried to identify solutions. Some problems have been resolved, but many have not.
There are a number of individual factories such as that in my constituency, and current legislation dealing with enforcement when an air pollution incident occurs
114WH
is not sufficient to enable my constituents to be confident that they will be able to breathe properly again within days. Incident after incident occurs, and they feel that, even working with the local authority and the Environment Agency, they have no power to control the situation. I believe that we must reconsider the immediate enforcement powers that local authorities have in relation to industrial processes.
The second major threat, apart from individual industries, is incinerators. The hon. Member for Uxbridge mentioned the processes through which we have passed in relation to the development of Colnbrook, next to Heathrow airport. That is a good example for the rest of the country of incineration gone wrong. There was an incinerator at Colnbrook and the company wanted to enhance its facilities. It went through the planning processes with one local authority—the one in whose area the proposed incinerator was situated. However, the prevailing wind means that the major pollutants come across the boundaries of the next planning authority, which did not adequately deal with the planning application. This is not a party political issue, as all the parties in the area agree on that. Incineration capacity will enlarge dramatically and my constituents are worried about what effect that will have on air pollution.
Let me explain why my constitutents are worried. I have been asking a number of questions about birth defects in my area. I have been working with Dr. van Steenis, who has worked with a number of Members of Parliament, on the development of incineration and the coincidence of incinerator locations and increases in birth defects.
David Taylor: Is my hon. Friend aware of research from five or so years ago—the Dolk report—which considered levels of congenital malformations focusing on pregnant women living within 3 km of a hazardous waste site? Does he fear, as I do, that the pressure on and the unavailability of sites for hazardous waste means that more such material will be incinerated and that the problem will thus be transferred?
John McDonnell: I share those anxieties, which relate to the point made by the hon. Member for Uxbridge about the development of packaging and the non-resolution of the problem of incineration and waste management at source, allowing us to become dependent on incineration for the long-term future.
The research on the link between incineration and pollution and birth defects to which Dr. van Steenis has pointed a number of hon. Members prompted me to ask a number of questions about my constituency. The latest figures available from the Government—from the Office for National Statistics—confirm that the number of birth defects in the London borough of Hillingdon, which encompasses the constituencies of Ruislip-Northwood, Uxbridge and Hayes and Harlington, has risen from 194.8 per 10,000 births to 266.9 per 10,000 births in 2001. Thal is a 37 per cent. increase in five years. The peak came in 2000, when there were 348.6 birth defects per 10,000 births, so at one period there was a 79 per cent. increase in birth defects in the borough.
I tried to relate those statistics to development in the area—the development of additional motorways or the increasing impact of the airport—but the factor to

115WH
which they seem to relate is the development of incineration at Colnbrook. The Government are enabling the incineration process to develop so that a range of waste is being incinerated that can emit particulates into the atmosphere. I approached the Environment Agency, which told me that there was no conclusive research linking pollution from incinerators and birth defects. Elsewhere in Europe, such research is going on apace, and there are examples of Belgian courts having halted incineration as a result of the health impacts of incineration in local areas.
The statistics are extremely worrying. We need an explanation of the high incidence or birth defects. I am requesting a meeting with Health Ministers to argue the case for more general research in that area and, specifically, for the monitoring of birth defects and more precise identification of the time scales over which their incidence increased. From a lay person's examination of the statistics, that escalation appears to relate to the 1992 legislation passed to allow alternative fuels to be used in power stations and industrial processors, including incinerators and cement kilns. There is also a cement factory in my area.
David Taylor: Like my hon. Friend, I take a keen interest in the matter. He accurately quoted the figures for the London borough of Hillingdon, which appear to have doubled in a five-year period. Would he be astonished to know that the Leicestershire rate is the highest in England? At 564.9 per 10,000 births, it is two-and-a-half times as high as Hillingdon's. It may be that a noxious cocktail of influences out of which incineration may need to be stripped is leading to those figures.
John McDonnell: There may well be a cocktail, but I do not know. I come here in desperation to ask the questions because I no longer know where else to go. I have asked the questions, I have the statistical data and there seems to be a correlation. However, at present, there is resistance to responding to that correlation with further research or with immediate action, such as preventing any further incineration on the Colnbrook site until we are clear that it is not having an impact on the birth of healthy children within our local community.
Industry is the first source of pollution in my constituency. The second, obviously, is Heathrow airport. Based on the Government's own statistics and assuming the most aggressive use of abatement measures that the Government can identify, and without any further development at Heathrow—terminal 5 is already under construction, and the cap of 480,000 air traffic movements remains—it is predicted that in the next 11 years, 5,000 of my constituents will be poisoned by nitrogen dioxide at levels above the EU's legal limits. If we said that we were going to poison 5,000 people elsewhere in the world, particularly in the developing world, it would sound like Halabja to me. People lost their homes to flooding in the Ilisu dam project; if thousands of people were going to die, we would be campaigning and up in arms against a barbaric Government risking the lives of their electorate and civilians. We would be on the streets demanding action,
116WH
yet in 11 years' time, 5,000 of my constituents will be poisoned and we are part of the conspiracy to implement that policy.
Norman Baker: Is not part of the problem that when there is a sudden incident, for example a train accident in which 100 people are killed, we can understand the need to take action, but it is difficult for society and Governments to respond to a chronic problem over a number of years when there is no immediate headline or spur for people to take action?
John McDonnell: I agree, and that is why I am almost in despair, because I raise the figures time and again but get only a limited response. That is due not to a lack of good will, but to inertia because of the scale of the problem and because for many other constituencies it is a problem for the future. However, for my constituents, it is a problem now. We are already predicting the number of people who will be poisoned by air pollution in 2005. As the hon. Member for Uxbridge said, those people are often economically unable to move away from the area—they are trapped.
If the third runway goes ahead, it is predicted that 35,000 of my constituents will suffer poisoning from nitrogen dioxide. If the runway does not go ahead and the Government consult about alternation of existing runways at Heathrow over the next couple of years, according to even the best air pollution estimates, 14,000 people will be poisoned by nitrogen dioxide. Those figures are unacceptable in a civilised society. The figures impact on aviation policy, but also on dependence on health services, GP facilities and even, tragically, hospice facilities for people dying as a result of air pollution. The problem is not only lung disease, but associated cancers, as discovered in the American studies on the development of airports.
Another way in which the lethal cocktail of air pollution affects my constituency is through motor vehicles, often linked to either the airport or motorways going through my constituency. Having campaigned for nearly 30 years against the development of further motorways and roads because they would increase traffic, I am astounded that the recent response has been to widen the M4 and the M25 and to return to a retrograde policy of further road development. I thought that we won the argument 10 years ago on control of motor vehicles and investment in public transport.
We had a meeting yesterday about the introduction of a stopping service at Hayes and Harlington station that could run to the airport. That would probably double the number of people able to get to Heathrow airport using public transport rather than cars or motor vehicles. However, we cannot even afford the development of the station for that purpose because we are £1.2 million short. We are grubbing around to find that money from the Strategic Rail Authority, which may not exist in six weeks' time, from Transport for London, or from the London borough of Hillingdon—I will not go into the incompetence of long-term capital investment by the local authority. The failure to invest in public transport, even in my area where there is recognised need, means that the polluters combine to poison my constituents.
Let me illustrate what that means. At school, large numbers of the children in my constituency are given a box with their name on it to put their puffer in because of the high rates of asthma and respiratory problems. Our local education authority provides a good service, but the hon. Member for Uxbridge will know that it has to give teachers special training on how to deal with children who have an asthma attack at school, because that is so common. That is the point we have reached.
I just ask the Government for help. Will someone please give us a solution? An air quality management area was declared three years ago. It has been so effective that air quality has worsened over that period. We have applied Government policy at a local level and it has failed. I ask for a ministerial meeting; I want a discussion about the way forward. In addition, I want some assistance for my area and the constituencies of Uxbridge and Ruislip-Northwood.
First, I want adequate investment in full, independent monitoring around the airport. We should work with local community organisations, the primary care trust and the local authority so that we get an accurate picture of what is going on. Secondly, I plead again—for the sixth time, I think—for funding for local research on the health implications of air pollution in my area. That research would monitor what is happening and its effects in detail. At the moment, our local primary care trust bears a financial burden from Heathrow airport. We are not compensated for that, nor do we get any additional money for air pollution monitoring.
I would also like a thorough discussion on preventive techniques and some long-term planning to deal with the specific problem that the area faces. If there were an asbestos factory in my constituency, we would all be piling in with policy after policy. There would be enforcement and action on health, benefits and support. However, because we are talking about the slow erosion of air quality over time, limited action has taken place. In addition, I ask for treatment for my constituents who are suffering from health problems.
Mr. Randall: Twenty or 30 years ago nobody really recognised the problems with asbestos. There was an asbestos factory half a mile from where I have always lived, but it was not a problem until people suddenly realised that it was. That will happen again. We must take this matter seriously.
John McDonnell: I agree. When I first left university, I worked for the National Union of Mineworkers dealing with health and safety and the pneumoconiosis scheme. In the old days, when miners went along to claim for a bit of dust, the doctors used to tell them that it was good for them—and in a way it was. Someone who got a bit dust on their lungs did not suffer from anything else because the pneumo killed them. It took a long time to get pneumoconiosis recognised and to secure compensation and for the mining industry to take it seriously. Why? Because of the economic force of the mine owners, successive Governments thought that the problem was irrelevant.
I have a crisis on my hands, and the crisis in my constituency could well be repeated in constituency after constituency if current policies—particularly aviation
118WH
policies—go ahead. The Government need to tackle the crisis, with some assistance at local level that is reflected in national policy.
2.54 pm
Norman Baker: I congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on securing the debate. I am sure that his constituents appreciate the way in which he regularly and quite rightly nags away at the issue. I welcome the other contributions, which have been useful to the debate. In particular, the speech from the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) was very powerful and delivered with sincerity and conviction.
I am only sorry that the Minister, for whom I have a lot of time, is in some ways the wrong Minister to answer the debate: we need a Transport Minister, because many issues that have been raised are Department for Transport matters. That shows the folly of splitting up the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The Government were right to bring the environment and transport together after the 1997 election, but we now have separate Departments, which is not helpful when dealing with an issue such as air quality.
The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): The Government's aim is to provide a Minister to reply to the topic being debated, and this is a debate on air quality rather than on transport. There are many similar issues that have implications for a variety of Departments, and we try to join up our response to such debates. It is for the Member who initiates the debate to make clear the topic to be discussed.
Norman Baker: I fully accept that, and I am sure that the Minister will do his best to respond. I often come to debates when DEFRA Ministers end up defending the indefensible as a consequence of the actions of other Departments; I suspect this afternoon will be no different. I add, mischievously, that the Minister is nodding at that point.
We have heard a lot about airports and Heathrow in particular, and rightly so. There are issues of air capacity and the effect on air quality of the Government's policy on expansion of the aviation industry. I am concerned that the predict-and-provide policy in aviation will lead to a dramatic increase in the number of flights and in emissions of carbon dioxide—those were not really touched on, although the aviation industry will double its CO2 emissions between 1990 and 2010—and air pollutants. That will directly affect those living near Heathrow and other airports, as we graphically heard from the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington.
The Government must recognise that there is a level of air pollution beyond which it is not sensible to go. If extra flights generate that pollution, they should be stopped. In some places around the world, local authorities are able to stop traffic coming in if the air pollution in a town goes beyond a certain level. It seems to me that there ought to be similar monitoring capacity at our airports: if the pollution reaches a certain level, flights should be stopped until the air pollution is cleared. Obviously, one cannot stop flights landing, but one could prevent them from taking off.
That might seem a drastic solution, but the alternative is simply to accept that the number of flights will increase exponentially, and the technological improvements that the aviation industry is no doubt working on to make planes cleaner will not be sufficient to offset the massive increase projected over the next 20 or 30 years. Air pollution, with all the accompanying problems that Members from constituencies around Heathrow have described, will sadly get worse. That is an unacceptable message to give to the constituents of the hon. Members for Hayes and Harlington and for Uxbridge, and those elsewhere. We cannot continue to gamble with people's health in the way we are just because the aviation industry wants to demonstrate that it has an economic benefit for the country. It undoubtedly does, but that cannot outweigh the health impact it has on those who are directly affected.
The Government's answer is to promote an emissions trading scheme for airlines to reduce emissions. I am not quite clear whether that will relate simply to CO2 or to other pollutants as well; perhaps the Minister will respond to that point. I notice that in the Transport Council the other day, which was referred to in Hansard, there was no mention of the emissions trading scheme or any other steps to reduce air pollution, although plenty of other issues relating to airlines were discussed. I am concerned that the Government are adopting the emissions trading policy as a "one golf club" option when they should consider other options to reduce pollution and control emissions of carbon dioxide.
The Minister may be aware of the figures that I have showing that pollutants at Heathrow in particular are reaching unacceptably high levels. In 2000, 8,949 tonnes of nitrogen dioxide, 414 tonnes of sulphur dioxide, 1,000,400 tonnes of carbon dioxide; and 102 tonnes of particulates were emitted around Heathrow, and those figures will have since become worse. Studies in the United States have shown that particulates are particularly damaging to health They are micro-particles that can get into your body and do great damage. The figures for particulates are much too high—roughly double, if not slightly more, the levels experienced at Gatwick, which is of more concern to me with my constituency hat on, as I represent Lewes. I have great sympathy for those who live in the conurbation near Heathrow. We need to do everything possible to limit such pollutants and if technology cannot provide the solution, there should be a cap on the expansion of air flights from Heathrow until that solution is achieved. Predict and provide is simply not an option for Heathrow.
We must also do more to increase access by public transport to Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, because, as the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington said, many of the pollutants come from road transport, not simply from aviation. I sympathise with him when he talks about the difficulties of getting £1 million or so for an obviously much needed rail improvement. The difference that it would make is obvious to me, even though I am not the Member for that area. We cannot deliver the simplest rail improvements that everyone agrees are necessary and desirable, yet we know that there will be another Government announcement for more roads and road widening, and the RAC and the AA will no doubt say that it is not enough. Why is
120WH
money spent on roads considered investment, but money spent on railways considered subsidy? Have we in the 21st century really not got around that mindset?
I received a parliamentary answer a week ago from the Department for Transport showing that over the past 30 years the cost of motoring has decreased in real terms by 5 per cent—so much for all the fuel protesters. It also showed that the cost of travelling by bus has gone up 68 per cent. in real terms and by train 86 per cent. It is hardly surprising that we have a problem with road traffic pollution when all the economic indicators have encouraged people to switch from public transport to the roads. The trend for rail and bus costs to go up and for motoring costs to go down has continued under the present Government.
David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman might have been present in the House a week or two ago when we debated an issue relevant to this debate. When I pointed out that Britain was in the middle of the European table for taxation on motor vehicles, I was howled down by members of Her Majesty's official Opposition, who try to depict any fiscal attempt to control environmental degradation as an attack on the motorist. Surely, that is simplistic nonsense.
Norman Baker: It is. We all owe it to the environment to be honest about the fact that the cost of motoring has gone down. The sooner we in Parliament agree on that and take appropriate measures through economic instruments the better. The Treasury is beginning to understand how economic instruments can help the environment—the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, in particular, understands that—but we must go further. That will require courage from the Government, but if they show some, the Liberal Democrats will support them.
I am concerned about the inadequate monitoring of air pollution. In a parliamentary answer on 26 December 2002 to my question about how much the Government were spending on monitoring, the Minister said that £4.79 million was spent on monitoring ambient air quality and £2.4 million on regulated industrial processors. That might sound a lot, but it is not; there is an inadequate network of sites for monitoring air pollution. I gently point out to the Minister that those sums combined amount to less than the Government spend on cars for Ministers and others to rove around London quite unnecessarily. That is not a statistic of which I would be proud were I a Minister.
Local authorities provide inadequate monitoring as well. Research that I have undertaken with colleagues shows that of the 408 local authorities in England and Wales, 237 failed in 2002 to meet the minimum inspection level of two inspections a year of industrial processors that was set by DEFRA, and more than 50 authorities failed to check each processor even once. There is a big problem with local authority monitoring. I do not know whether the Minister will argue that local authorities are not taking their responsibilities seriously and that there is no reason why they should not, or whether he will accept that they receive insufficient funding. As far as this debate is concerned, the answer does not really matter; the point is that local authorities are not monitoring the processors that they should. We must improve that.
The Minister also knows that although there have been many welcome improvements in air quality in this country during the past 10, 20 or 30 years, we sometimes see statistics that demonstrate a worrying reversal. For example, he will be aware that nitrogen dioxide in London has increased by an average 15 per cent. during the past two years. Only one of the 19 monitoring sites recorded a decrease and there have been some horrific increases. The monitoring station in Marylebone road, which is not that far from here, recorded a 32.1 per cent. increase in such emissions during that time. Things are going wrong in London, in our other cities and in the countryside. He will also be aware of a number of occasions when the ozone-monitoring site in my constituency—at Lullington heath in Sussex—recorded levels that exceeded the maximum advisory limit. Therefore, there is an additional problem with low-level ozone in rural areas.
The Government have more to do. I know that the Minister takes those matters seriously and that he is concerned about them, but I do not see the results. The Government as a whole do not give dealing with air pollution the weight that they should. Sometimes these important matters get swept aside when people make economic cases for further transport infrastructure development.
Lastly, I will say something about trees and forests and the effects that they suffer as a result of air pollution. This is not simply a matter involving people, although they are the most important thing. A parliamentary answer demonstrated that in the UK there are 22 million dead trees and more than 900 million that are suffering from moderate to severe defoliation. That puts us 26th out of 33 in the 2002 European table. There is clearly a big problem with the effect of air pollution on the natural environment. I hope that the Minister can answer the questions that other hon. Members and I have put today. This is a serious issue.
3.7 pm
Miss Anne McIntosh: We have established on the record the fact that there is a lot of dead wood in Sussex. I take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on securing this debate. It is very timely because of the review of the air quality strategy, to which, regrettably, nobody else has referred during this debate. I hope that the Minister will respond on that matter.
I have several transport interests and it is important to place them on the record: they include British Airways, BAA plc, First Group, the RAC and Eurotunnel. My interest in air quality dates from last year's figures, which we put on the parliamentary record in early-day motion 1279. I congratulate all hon. Members who have contributed to this debate and I urge them to sign the early-day motion. I hope that they will support it. I recognise the work that the Government have done and I pay tribute to it, but they are falling far short of having a coherent strategy to tackle the problem of air quality. It is a genuine problem, which the Minister must deal with. The Government have signed up to mandatory EU levels, yet in their national policy they have set only indicative targets and objectives, leaving the matter largely for local authorities to monitor and control.
Moving and powerful examples of the health problems that result from poor air quality were given by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and by the hon. Members for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor). It appears from press reports, in addition to the excellent debate pack that was prepared for today's debate by the House of Commons Library, that exhaust fumes from vehicles may be to blame for up to one sixth of cot deaths. That information came from a recent study. Similar studio show that the UK has the worst asthma record in the European Union, with the proportion of the population affected by it—just under 14 per cent.—almost double the EU average.
The contributions that we have heard this afternoon have shown that air pollution is caused not only by activities in and around aviation, but by car transport. It is particularly alarming that two reports made in the past week—one from the Institute of Economic Affairs and the other from, I think, the university of Central Lancashire—speak despairingly of the contribution of rail transport to environmental pollution. As all the main parties are committed to transferring freight from road to rail wherever possible, that is deeply alarming. I hope that DEFRA and the Department for Transport will look into that in a genuine cross-cutting exercise. I would be very disturbed if we were causing pollution by moving freight on to rail.
There have been positive contributions. The UK Petroleum Industry Association—UKPIA—has produced the "Future Road Fuels" report as part of the debate on alternative fuels. I also welcome the fact that my party has done, and continues to do, a great deal on alternative fuels.
It is interesting that the Minister who will respond to the debate has responsibility for rural affairs. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge, although Uxbridge used to be well known for being a rural part of London, that is no longer generally perceived to be the case.
The debate is timely because figures for air quality tend to be seasonal, they are very high in periods of extreme temperatures, such as those we experienced in August last year. The poor air quality headline indicator figures show that pollution in urban areas was moderate or higher on 50 days on average per site last year, which compares unfavourably with 20 days in 2002. The situation was even worse in rural areas, where air pollution was moderate or higher on 63 days on average per site, compared with 30 in 2003. I urge the Government to develop a coherent strategy to improve those figures. I acknowledge that the weather and pollution are no respecters of frontiers; pollution from other parts of Europe is a factor, as we have seen with acid rain. However. the Government must recognise that while such other factors play a part in creating poor air quality, the main causes of pollution are the combustion of coal, transport emissions and industrial pollution.
The economies of the constituencies of many Government Members owed a great deal to coal and its extraction; that has had consequences for energy policy. I welcome the investment in clean coal technology, and I hope that that technology can continue to be explored as a part of the reduction of sulphur dioxide emissions.
The combustion of coal, transport emissions and industrial pollution contribute to pollution, and so too might incineration. In about 1996, there was a plan to build an incinerator to dispose of animal carcasses on the border of Aiskew and Bedale in my constituency, and I had contact with local GPs at that time. It is interesting to note what happens in other parts of the European Union. Half of my family comes from Denmark, so I follow what happens there closely. Denmark disposes of 56 per cent. of its household waste through incineration. The Minister might wish to comment on that. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington pointed out the problems with a local incinerator. However, waste offers possibilities for getting clean and smokeless energy recovery and distribution. In Denmark, that has been used to bring what Danes call distance heating to local homes. I urge the Government to look into that, particularly before this year's hot summer pushes up pollution levels even further.
I commend the work of the National Society for Clean Air and Environmental Protection. It has raised concerns about the DEFRA's forthcoming review of the air quality strategy. There is worry that there has not been sufficient consultation and great concern about what choice of baseline year and scenario years will be taken, as that will be crucial to evaluating the effectiveness of air quality control measures.
We have had an excellent debate this afternoon. The Government have identified a way forward, but they will have to reconcile their obligations under the European Union provisions to which they have signed up with the fact that they have set only indicative, not statutory, targets and objectives and that it is left to local authorities to monitor and control matters. Those who have spoken this afternoon identified deficiencies in the monitoring and control procedures. We must recognise the work of the Mayor of London in improving air quality, but many causes of pollution fall outside the power of local authorities. I commend clean air and good air quality to the Minister and I hope that he will come forward with a stricter air quality strategy based on greater consultation and a wise choice of baseline year.
3.16 pm
The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): I start by welcoming the last remarks of the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) and her references to reconciliation—not a word that is always used in our debates. When dealing with air quality, one of the first challenges is to ensure that we make an incremental improvement year on year, which is how to deal with environmental issues. We must properly reconcile often conflicting interests, or balance priorities.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on securing the debate, which is rapidly becoming an annual fixture. As was mentioned, he has assiduously raised air quality issues in relation to his constituency. The contributions to the debate demonstrate how generally well informed hon. Members are and how seriously they take such issues. The hon. Gentleman began his remarks by referring to the smogs of 50 years ago. I remember what it was like as a visitor to London from the fresh, clean air of north
124WH
Wales—having to grope my way through the murk to the underground in conditions that are almost impossible to imagine in the modern day. Smog was headline news in those times, whereas good air quality is not news. "Man breathes clean air" is not as potent a headline for the average journalist as "Man chokes in smog".
The environmental changes that have occurred during the past 50 years have not all been in a negative direction. River water, air quality and the state of our buildings have seen major improvements, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that much remains to be done. We have to meet new challenges all the time. I am sympathetic to his references to the technical language, the detail and figures that scientists and technicians offer us. What has struck me since becoming a Minister at DEFRA is the gap in the language between the simple statement, "We want clean air," and the language of emissions and particulates, percentage improvements and deterioration, which must be measured year-on-year to make sure that the quality of our environment is protected and improved. Those targets and thresholds, boring though they seem, are essential to achieving improvement. In addition, it takes time to influence aspects of air quality. Decisions that were taken 10, 15 or 20 years ago about emissions from vehicles are only now having an impact on the quality of our environment.
The complexity of the issue is illustrated by the points raised by hon. Members. One or two speakers, including my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), invited me to write to them with the specifics. That is the only way to deal with some complex issues that have been raised. We have covered a great deal of ground, and if I am not able to cover all the points adequately today, I shall try to address them in writing for each Member who has contributed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) sought a ministerial meeting. I am sure that we can arrange one, either with me or with my noble Friend Lord Whitty, who takes the lead on some of these issues. We simply need to identify the specific issues on which he would like to concentrate.
The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) was entirely in order—occasionally, even complimentary—in some of his remarks. However, he made several sweeping generalisations to which I would respond vigorously if there were time. It is important to consider each issue and deal with it properly. On many matters, concerns are raised by a particular study, but when the study and its implications are examined in context and set against monitoring and other evidence, it produces slightly different results.
The hon. Member for Vale of York was kind enough to acknowledge some work that the Government have done. She referred to my responsibility for rural affairs but, of course, local environmental quality is the other half of my brief. One strength of DEFRA, which makes life as a Minister there interesting, is the way in which we cover a range of issues from the international aspects of pollution and global warming down to the local environment issues of air quality, chewing gum and so on. It is therefore appropriate in a debate such as this to deal with issues that impinge on one another.
It is important to note that air quality has improved considerably over the past decade. However, as the hon. Lady said, in 2003 there was a significant increase in the number of days of poor air quality compared with 2002.
Miss McIntosh: Will the Minister give way?
Alun Michael: Given the number of topics that I must get through, I ought to gallop on.
The increase was mainly due to exceptional hot, sunny weather, which resulted in high levels of ozone. In addition, as the hon. Lady acknowledged, a significant amount of poor air quality was caused by pollution blown into the UK from abroad. It has always been recognised that the headline indicator can show significant yearly fluctuations because of variations in weather conditions, so we need to concentrate on long-term trends. Despite last year's overall increase, the average number of poor air quality days in urban areas in 2003 was about 15 per cent. lower than in 1993.
Several Members referred to asthma, which is clearly a growing problem. We must consider the other contributory factors, such as air conditioning and other environmental conditions that have both advantages and downsides for us. We accept that asthma can be aggravated by air pollution, but that is not, in general, a cause. It should be underlined that we are reducing air pollution levels, and that will continue.
A number of hon. Members referred to the overlap between different governmental responsibilities. We work very closely indeed with colleagues at the Department of Health and the Department for Transport. We are in almost daily contact with them about air quality and health issues.
The issue of monitoring and its adequacy was raised, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington made some specific points in that respect. The monitoring of the Harlington site, which was mentioned, is done by the contractors who do DEFRA's own monitoring. Much of the monitoring around Heathrow is undertaken on behalf of DEFRA. There is a specific Harlington site where monitoring is done for BAA plc, but evidence from that site is incorporated in the DEFRA monitoring network and the data are published on the web. The new work to be done at Heathrow following the aviation White Paper will involve scrutinising the monitoring at that site and others in the area.
Is the monitoring adequate? We believe that it is. Moreover, it will be supplemented by modelling. All that work will be scrutinised by a steering group of academics and by local authorities to ensure independence. Monitoring around Heathrow is also done by local authorities and DEFRA. It is worth underlining that monitoring is undertaken by and for DEFRA, but in addition to the finances that we commit, about £5 million a year is made available to local
126WH
authorities for monitoring and for their other air quality obligations. The Government provide funding to local authorities for their air quality duties through the annual revenue support grant and supplementary credit approvals, and partly via the local transport plan. Hillingdon and Hounslow have applied for supplementary credit approval for the financial year 2004–05: Hillingdon has been awarded £178,500 and Hounslow £132,500.
The Government are fully aware of the concerns about air quality around Heathrow airport. That was a significant part of our debate and a significant issue affecting the decisions announced in the air transport White Paper. The Government have said that another runway at Heathrow could not be supported unless there was confidence that levels of all relevant pollutants could be consistently contained within EU limits. It is important to underline that. As promised in the White Paper, the Government have commenced the package of work on how to make the most of Heathrow's existing runways and on adding a new runway there after the Stansted runway while complying with air quality and other environmental conditions.
The Government are committed to reporting progress on White Paper commitments generally in 2006. Work is under way to improve technical understanding of air quality issues and modelling capabilities so that further assessments of air quality impact at Heathrow can be made within that time scale.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington also made reference to industrial activities in the area of Heathrow. Industrial activities with significant potential to pollute more than one environmental medium have been regulated by the Environment Agency under the integrated pollution control system since the early 1990s. Considerable improvements in environmental performance have resulted, and the results for recent years can be seen in the Environment Agency's pollution inventory on its website. IPC is gradually being replaced by integrated pollution prevention and control, which will carry on and enhance environmental performance. Both IPC and IPPC are based on the application of best available techniques for dealing with pollution. That concept incorporates considerations of the cost and benefits of the techniques. In addition, the air emissions of about 17,000 installations are regulated by local authorities. A recent performance review of the local authority pollution control regime praised the achievement of securing air pollution improvements at the vast majority of those installations.
I am not complacent about any of the issues raised in this debate. Hon. Members from all parties have rightly pointed to the implications of air quality for local communities and people. They have also spoken about people's fears, whether or not those are always justified. Air quality is therefore an important issue to tackle. We at DEFRA wish to engage with colleagues in the House on the issues that affect their constituencies directly. We also seek to lead on the air quality issues debated across Government.

Suez Canal Zone Medal
3.30 pm
Mr. David Laws: I am pleased to have secured this short debate, and I welcome the Minister to it. You will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we have discussed whether there should be medal to mark and reward the service of those in the armed forces in the canal zone conflict between 1951 and 1954. The subject has been debated in the House many times in the past few years.
I do not think that this is the place—or even that it is necessary—to go back over old arguments that have been debated many times before, given that last year the Government accepted the case for allowing the veterans from that conflict to be awarded the general service medal with a canal zone clasp; people who already had the general service medal were given the addition of a canal zone clasp.
I want to take the opportunity to pay tribute to all the veterans who served in the conflict on behalf of the United Kingdom, particularly those who campaigned so persistently for an award to mark the service of all members of the armed forces in the canal zone between 1951 and 1954. At times it must have seemed something of a hopeless and thankless campaign, as it continued for some 50 years after the conflict in Egypt had finished. We finally reached a positive conclusion last year, and the veterans are to be congratulated on their persistence.
I put on record our thanks to all the Members, from different political parties, who have campaigned for the award over the years, including, but not exclusively, my hon. Friends the Members for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) and for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), the hon. Members for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) and for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard). and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. There are undoubtedly many others whom I have neglected to mention.
I also pay tribute to the sub-committee of the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals under Lord Guthrie, which was established in 2002 to report on the matter and whose conclusions paved the way for a change in the Government's position in 2003. Finally, I give credit to the Government for paying heed to the recommendations after a long time, and not merely sheltering behind the tempting argument that changing policy could set dangerous precedents and create future problems. If would have been easy for the Government to continue to shelter behind that argument, particularly considering the time that had elapsed, and they deserve credit for not having done so.
After the Prime Minister's announcement on 11 June 2003 that veterans of the service in the canal zone would receive the general service medal and clasp, many of us felt that the long-running campaign had come to a successful conclusion, and we could assume that the matter would be dealt with. I suspect that I was only one of many Members who, after the Prime Minister's statement, passed on representations to the Ministry of Defence giving details of those who had served in the canal zone, assuming that the medals would be issued shortly.
Although I became aware of some delays, it was not until this May that I realised how serious those delays were. I was canvassing for the European elections when I met a constituent called Mr. Ford in Chard. He said how pleased he was that the Government had finally given way on the issue, but that many veterans expected that it would be many years before the medals were issued. That is entirely unacceptable, given that the veterans have already waited for 50 years. Mr. Ford told me that he believed that only a couple of hundred medals were being processed each week and that it would therefore take years to clear the backlog. I had not been aware of that.
Mr. Ford wrote to the Army Medal Office earlier this year:
"I am now in my seventy-sixth year and my brother who is also a veteran is seventy-eight and so in our case and that of many others I am sure time is important if we are to receive our awards before the Great Recruiting Sergeant in the sky calls us on parade."
That is an issue. Many individuals are now well into their 70s or 80s, and they have waited 50 years already. Not only is that a very long time to have waited for this award in recognition of their service, but there is a real danger that some veterans will die before all the awards are issued, which must concern us all.
I am pleased to say that Mr. Ford has now received the clasp to his general service medal, because it means that I can demonstrate to the Minister that I am not citing only the gloomy cases in my constituency. However, over the past couple of days I have spoken to a number of veterans who are still waiting for their medals, despite my having written to the Secretary of State on their behalf on a number of occasions. They include Mr. Copley, who lives in Tintinhull just outside Yeovil, and served in the 41st Field Regiment Royal Artillery from 1953 to 1954 in the canal zone.
Written answers from the Minister over the past couple of weeks have indicated the scale of the problem relating to the issuance of the medal. In response to my written question of 21 June 2004, he said that as of 18 June, 39,666 applications had been received, in respect of which only 9,709 medals or clasps had been issued. There is therefore a backlog of some 30,000 medals, even assuming that no more applications come in, and there may well still be quite a few to come.
It appears from the Minister's answers that the longest delay is at the Army Medal Office, which apparently has nine staff processing claims and three people dealing with correspondence and dispatch. The office is still dealing with claims from 10 October 2003—almost nine months ago—which is worrying when we consider that it was only on 23 October last year that the detailed criteria relating to entitlement to the award were set out in Command Paper 5999.
The Royal Marines Medal Office seems to be performing rather better. There are no delays at that office, where there seem to be a much smaller number of applications. However, delays at the Royal Air Force Medal Office and the Royal Naval Medal Office date back to mid and late November 2003, which is a long time for people to be waiting. Many veterans hoped to receive their awards by Remembrance day this year, if not last year, so that they could wear the medals with pride and finally have some recognition of their service

129WH
in the canal zone between 1951 and 1954. However, it now seems that many individuals may still wait as long as another two or even three years.
We need to remember that this delay is only one of the delays in the processing and awarding of the medals over the years. The first delay was the 50-year delay before approval of a medal in the first place. Then there were delays between Lord Guthrie's report being submitted and a conclusion being reached. He wrote to me at the time stating that he could not understand why the matter was taking so long to sort out. Then there were delays before the Prime Minister's statement. There were also delays, although they were short, before the criteria were set out in Command Paper 5999, and now there are further delays in processing claims.
We have always had an indication from the Minister that there would be some delays. Indeed, in a written answer of 3 July 2003, he said that
"it is estimated that it could take a further two years to distribute the majority of medals to eligible applicants."—[Official Report, 3 July 2003; Vol. 408, c. 453W.]
That is a year ago almost to the day, but the Government's estimate still seems to be that we are two years away from the distribution of the medals, so we seem to have lost a year despite the fact that the two-year delay was already at the boundaries of acceptability. The fact that only a couple of hundred medals and applications have been processed each week is extremely worrying.
Over the past couple of days since this debate was selected for Westminster Hall, I have received in my office many e-mails, letters and calls from veterans who are still awaiting their medals. A number have asked me to raise particular questions today. Mr. Duncan, an ex-paratrooper, e-mailed to say:
"Can the Armed Services Minister be asked what is stopping the MoD from assigning more staff and resources to the four Medal Offices? So far, this has not been made clear. The question should be hard to duck."
Mr. Duncan points out that although he has received the medal, he knows many other veterans who have yet to do so.
Mr. Rogers, an ex-corporal from the Royal Marines, also contacted us on behalf of the Suez veterans forum to point out that there is a two-month backlog in the Army Medal Office stamping department. Even when the searches have been completed and the issue instructions delivered there is still a further two-month wait to have the names stamped on the medals.
Other veterans have expressed concerns about the issuing of the medals, including Mr. Ford, the constituent whom I mentioned earlier, who was dissatisfied with the quality of the clasp. He compared it rather unfavourably with the medals and clasps struck when the general service medal was first issued. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that the UK armed forces have had a proud record in striking good-quality medals. It would be a pity if, for financial reasons, the quality of those awards were diminished in any way.
Dr. Julian Lewis: What effect does the hon. Gentleman think the proposed closure of the Army Medal Office at Droitwich will
130WH
have? My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr Luff), in whose constituency the Army Medal Office is located, has expressed the gravest concern that that can only add to the delays that he has so eloquently described.
Mr. Laws: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I am aware that the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire has raised his concerns about this. I do not pretend to be an expert in the reorganisation of the different medal offices within the armed forces. It would certainly be a. risk if the consolidation of those offices led to a significant reduction of staff. It could worsen the backlog in the issuance of these medals. On the other hand, I hope that the Minister will also think creatively about the deployment of staff across the different medal offices. The admittedly small office that handles the Royal Marines medals has no backlog at all. The staffing of that office, in terms of full-time equivalents, is only half a person—which suggests that it deals with a much smaller number of cases. I hope that the Minister can consider the situation imaginatively.
The solution seems pretty clear. More resources need to be put into the issuance of the medal. Other medals are being dealt with by the medals office at present, and I assume that everyone wants to get their awards quickly. But I am sure that the Minister would recognise that this is a particularly sensitive case: veterans have waited for such a long time already, and there is a real chance that some will die between the Prime Minister's announcement that the medal would be issued and the processing of the applications. I am sure that the Minister would feel as strongly as I would that that would be wholly unacceptable.
I hope that the Minister can therefore tell us today how he will speed up the processing of the medals in a fairly dramatic way within his Department. I hope that he can set a target for processing all of the existing outstanding claims—for example, by Remembrance day this year. That is an incredibly ambitious target given that the Ministry of Defence estimates that it will take another two years to clear the backlog. But the armed forces have dealt with worse crises than this. If they cannot organise themselves and put in some extra resources to get these medals to the veterans who deserve them pretty quickly, they are not rising to the standards that they have so consistently set over hundreds of years of service to this nation.
I hope that the Minister can tell us what measures he is taking to deal with the situation. In some of his comments in recent weeks on the Floor of the House and in other parliamentary answers he has acknowledged that the length of the delays is unacceptable. I hope that he can therefore set out minds at rest today. Before I conclude, perhaps I may cite one further comment from a veteran who has contacted me within the last 48 hours to set out his concerns:
"The veterans have waited 53 years already, many will be dead before they get their medal Surely he"—
the Minister—
"must realise that these are grandparents with many offspring who will be disenchanted with a Government who couldn't organize issuing issue Grandfather with his medal before he died."
This is an emotive issue. For many years, successive Governments resisted the award of this medal, and the Government deserve credit for making the award and

131WH
not hiding behind precedence. It would be a great pity if they now undermined the progress that they have made by failing to act rapidly enough to make sure that the veterans get the medals within a limited time scale.
3.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin): I congratulate the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on securing this debate. Virtually the whole of his list of the Members who had been involved in the campaign consisted of Liberal Democrats, so perhaps I can put the record straight by saying that a lot of credit should go to my hon. Friends the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), who were heavily involved in the campaign.
As the hon. Gentleman made clear, there has been much interest in the Suez medal, and the issuing of medals generally, of late. I take this opportunity to reaffirm my commitment to improving timeliness in issuing medals, but I note that medals can be issued only when policy, and the associated eligibility, have been established.
I want to put the whole question of the Suez medal into context. Campaigning for the medal and demands for recognition began in the mid-1970s and increased significantly during the 1990s. However, our predecessor Governments declined to consider the issue again, because the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals—the HD Committee—has a policy of not considering the institution of medals for service given more than five years earlier, because those who took decisions not to make an award at the time were in possession of contemporary evidence, and it would not be appropriate for the committee, at a much later date and probably with less evidence available to it, to second-guess why such decisions had been taken. That policy was strongly supported, particularly by the last Conservative Government, of whom the Leader of the Opposition was a very senior member. The claim for a medal was therefore resisted.
After further campaigning, and after our Government, who were aware of the circumstances, came to power in 1997, my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence requested a review of that policy in relation to the Suez medal. A small group was set up under the chairmanship of General Lord Guthrie, which took evidence from canal zone veterans and the relevant Government Departments. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, it reported to the HD Committee at the end of 2002.
As far as possible, the sub-committee tried to make a judgment on the case for a medal not against current standards but against those of the late 1950s. It concluded that a medal was justified, endorsed the HD Committee's non-retrospection rule but agreed that there were unique exceptional circumstances in this particular case. It had been established that the Commander-in-Chief at the time had requested the award of a medal, but there was no conclusive evidence that the case had ever been fully considered or a formal decision reached.
As I have said before in the House, I am pleased that the decision has been reached. There is no doubt that an injustice had been done to those men, the vast majority
132WH
of whom were on national service, and that injustice has now been corrected. The HD Committee accepted the sub-committee's findings, and the Prime Minister made the announcement in June 2003. Applications for the medal and clasp started to come in immediately, but could not be dealt with, as the criteria for the award had yet to be agreed. I made that announcement on 23 October, at column 45WS of Hansard and in Command Paper 5999.
Where are we today? As of last Friday, 39,805 applications had been received by the four single-service medal offices, and 10,054 medals and clasps had been issued. I recognise that there is a backlog in assessing eligibility and in issuing the canal zone and some other medals. The reasons behind the current failure to match output to demand are complex, but in part it is due to increased demand arising from the recent operational tempo, in parallel with a surge in requests for the Suez medal. However, an additional factor is that there are four separate medal offices at different locations, with their own procedures. That is why I have decided that this cannot be allowed to continue. The introduction of joint personnel administration will improve the situation.
Joint personnel administration is a key defence modernisation project that will transform the delivery of personnel administration to the armed forces. The platform of old information technology systems will be replaced with new responsive and flexible systems. Disparate single-service processes will be harmonised and simplified. The formation of a joint personnel administration centre is central to the delivery of joint personnel administration and will provide a single organisation from which entitlement to, and delivery of, future campaign medals will be administered and supported by the centralised database of information held on the joint personnel computer system.
The medal process is part of the modernisation process. One strand of the major overall improvements is the formation of the new Ministry of Defence medal office, which will bring together the current four single-service medal offices at a single site at RAF Innsworth. That will allow us to spread best practice, make the best use of staff by flexing people into the areas where demand is highest, and remove the separation between some of the assessment teams and the engraving and dispatch organisation. It will also provide access to the joint personnel administration centre inquiry service, which will provide a new and effective means of handling inquiries. As I made it clear at Defence questions in the House last week, I am convinced that this provision will bring about substantial business improvements that will be to the ultimate benefit of veterans—and, of course, to today's serving personnel.
Although the new MOD medal office will be fully operational at Innsworth from early spring 2005, I have decided that all the medal offices will be under a single management structure in the near future. Of course, detailed discussions are taking place with our staff at the offices that will close. We had planned in the initial assessment for nine members of staff to transfer from Droitwich. In fact, 17 of the Droitwich staff have indicated that they wish to transfer to Innsworth. In addition, seven staff have yet to make a decision, and a further seven have recorded their desire to reserve the right to change their minds at some stage in the future.
Nine members of staff from the RAF Medal Office have indicated their wish to transfer, along with two staff members from the Royal Marines Medal Office. The Armed Forces Personnel Agency will recruit any additional staff who are required as soon as possible, which will allow them to be trained alongside the experienced medal office staff, so the risk of any adverse impact of the move on the existing medals backlog can be minimised. However, steps are also being taken to reduce the backlog by increasing medal engraving capacity though the establishment of a second production line at Innsworth, utilising laser engraving technology.
I am committed to improving the service provided to serving and former members of our armed forces, and to ensuring their more rapid receipt of the medals to which they are entitled. Clearly, that will not be achieved through the medal system as it is currently organised.
I shall now answer the direct questions asked by the hon. Member for Yeovil. He asked whether there were more staff. Yes, there are. There are already nine more staff at Droitwich, and they are effective. He also asked whether there was a backlog in the engraving department. Yes, there is, as I have just said, particularly in the Army Medal Office, which distributes all the medals. Even when assessments are done elsewhere in the RAF or the Navy, the Army Medal Office at Droitwich is responsible for engraving and dispatch. I was sorry to hear about the quality of the medal. Of the 10,000 or so medals that we have issued so far I have only heard one or two people talk about that. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that that is a low percentage. Finally, the Army Medal Office has about two thirds of the total applications for all the medals requested for Suez.
I can update the House on the latest dates on which assessment is taking place. For the Navy, it is 3 December, for the Royal Air Force 18 November and for the Army 17 October. Nobody is happy with the figures, and that is why I outlined in detail how we intend to progress from this point.
Mr. Laws: I am grateful to the Minister for outlining some of the measures intended to speed up the process.
134WH
Even from his recent comment about the current situation, it seems that there is a tremendous delay, particularly in the Army Medal Office. Will the measures that he is putting in place reduce that delay rapidly? In particular, is the two-year estimate that he made a few weeks ago about the time taken to clear the backlog still correct. or is he planning to bring that down significantly?
Mr. Caplin: I very much hope that we will reduce that figure. The aim of the changes that I outlined—both in the written statements that I made to the House and the questions that I have answered orally, in writing and in today's debate—are all about reducing the backlog and getting medals to veterans, particularly Suez veterans, much more quickly. The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not put a timetable on that. I always think that it is probably best not to do that in such circumstances.
I am convinced that developing the new MOD medal office is the only sensible and practical way forward in both the short and the long term. I see it as the solution rather than the problem. I appreciate that forming a Ministry of Defence medal office will not allow us to accommodate the wishes of every individual in the dedicated work force, which I pay tribute to. They have been tremendous. Every effort will be made to handle the impact on our staff as sensitively and flexibly as possible, as befits a good employer such as the Ministry of Defence.
I conclude this short debate by paying tribute to all those who served in the Suez canal zone in the 1950s. I am sure that everyone in the House would echo those words. Those who served were national servicemen who campaigned for more than 30 years to have an injustice put right. It has been put right by this Government. I am grateful for the remarks of the hon. Member for Yeovil and the veterans that he has met that recognise that point. We need to match it with the determination to see through real reform of the medal offices so that delivery of all medals, not just those relating to Suez, can be speedy and efficient. I know that the House expects nothing less, and that is what the new MOD medal office will deliver.
3.58 pm
Sitting suspended.

Dame Shirley Porter
4 pm
Peter Bradley: This is not the first time that I have raised issues relating to Westminster city council here. I make no apologies for that. There is long-unfinished business. The deputy leader of the council recently described me as a "Shirley Porter obsessive". I am afraid that that is characteristic of his party's occasionally casual and often concerted attempts to undermine those who have been critical of Shirley Porter and her policies over the years, including myself and colleagues, community activists, and the district auditor when he investigated her affairs. It also shows a failure to understand the depth of feeling aroused by the issues that I want to debate this afternoon, and an inability to acknowledge the grievous wrongs done in Westminster in the Conservative party's name.
If I have an obsession, it was probably nurtured during my time as a councillor in Westminster. I am obsessed with probity in the making of public policy, in governance, and in the justice administered by the courts. I am not the only one with that obsession. When the Westminster objectors, of whom I was one—those who registered objections with the district auditor and set the whole "homes for votes" inquiry in train—sought to raise funds so that we could be legally represented at the public hearings, we collected £240,000 from people all over the UK. They were people with all kinds of political backgrounds or with none at all, but believers in democracy, who felt that the establishment should not always be allowed to get away with it. That was a humbling and inspiring experience.
That is why, some 18 years after the events of which we complained began, 15 years after we registered our objection with the auditor, 10 years after he produced his provisional findings of "disgraceful, improper and unlawful" gerrymandering in Westminster, eight years after he published his formal findings of "wilful misconduct", seven years after the High Court endorsed those findings, three years after the Law Lords pronounced on what they judged to be
"a deliberate, blatant and dishonest misuse of public power"
amounting to "political corruption", and a year after the European Court of Human Rights rejected Shirley Porter's final legal campaign as "manifestly ill-founded" and "inadmissible", we still seek justice and the vindication of our systems of scrutiny and redress in Government—in local government in particular. After all this time, we still despair of achieving either of those in full.
It is worth reminding ourselves that the "homes for votes" scandal was not just about gerrymandering electoral results; it was systematic political corruption to the point where the pursuit of power overwhelmed any sense of responsibility in the exercise of it. Chilling instructions were issued by political leaders to officers of the council to be "mean and nasty" to vulnerable people in the community—and they certainly were. Housing and planning policies in particular were bent to a political stratagem, which decimated long-established traditional working class communities and dispersed them to the four winds. Hostels intended for the homeless were sold off and gentrified. Homeless families
136WH
were forced into asbestos-ridden tower blocks, in the name of building a stable Conservative majority in Westminster.
All that was obvious to Labour councillors, to community activists and to many journalists while it was happening. However, the administration was protected by secrecy, concealment and obstruction—as the district auditor found when he tried to investigate those affairs. The judges in the Court said that Shirley Porter and her acolytes had
"lied to us as they lied to the auditor."
The stratagem was reliant on the acquiescence, if not the active connivance, of the Government of the day. Now, when it seems that at least some of the £42 million surcharge for which Shirley Porter is liable will be recovered, we are confronted with the same lack of accountability, the same concealment and secrecy—and it is just as unacceptable now.
Over the past few years, Shirley Porter has defied public opinion, the findings of the auditor and the judgment of the courts, while she cruises between luxury apartments in Israel and Florida. On 24 April this year, in a statement released to the press just as the Sunday papers were going to bed, she said:
"I have decided that it is time to bring this case to an end, despite my belief that I did nothing wrong."
What breathtaking arrogance! She has now decided that she is prepared to pay £12.3 million of a £42 million surcharge. She is establishing a new legal principle that felons should set the tariff for their own misdemeanours. If we accept that precedent, we can negotiate our own sentences when we do wrong, and rip up our parking tickets if we object to them.
Westminster city council's chief executive said that hard bargaining had taken place on both sides, as if such bargaining were acceptable. It should be remembered that the bargaining into which Shirley Porter and her advisers entered was with her protégés on Westminster city council, because some of the leading figures in Conservative Westminster now were her lieutenants during her reign of terror in the mid '80s.
There is another important principle. Surcharge is not a sentence or a tariff, but a calculation of loss and deficiency caused by the unlawful policies that Shirley Porter pursued. If £12.3 million is accepted as a full and final settlement of a surcharge of £42 million, there will be a £30 million loss to the public purse.
I have had a lengthy, revealing and profoundly disappointing correspondence with the chief executive of the Audit Commission, Steve Bundred. He has confirmed that the Audit Commission was party to the negotiations between Shirley Porter and Westminster city council—not so much in the public interest, as in order to recover its own costs, which amount to about £1 million. Mr. Bundred told me in writing:
"I am fully satisfied that the settlement was equitable and a good outcome."
The question is: for whom is it a good outcome—for Westminster city council and its council tax payers, for the Audit Commission, or for Shirley Porter? Is it credible that £12.3 million is all that Shirley Porter has access to? I use the word credible advisedly; should we believe a word that she says? Her record is not impressive.
On 28 December 2001, the courts awarded a freezing order that obliged Shirley Porter to disclose her assets, and restrained her from
"in any way dealing with or diminishing the value of her assets worldwide whether in her own name or owned beneficially by her and whether solely or jointly owned up to the value of £33 million."
It warned her that if she failed to comply with the freezing order, she would be
"in contempt of court and liable to imprisonment, fined or her assets seized."
On 9 January 2002, Shirley Porter disclosed in a sworn affidavit that she had no more than £300,000-worth of assets worldwide. Then, according to the Daily Mirror, she went on a £90,000 cruise in the Pacific. The Metropolitan police are now investigating whether she committed perjury and are seeking the view of the Crown Prosecution Service on whether there is sufficient evidence to pursue a prosecution. Belatedly, in February 2003, a disclosure order was awarded that she should reveal her control of or interest in worldwide trusts. She failed to comply with that order. By July 2003, Westminster city council had paid lawyers some £400,000 to track her assets—and recovered £3,000 and a gold-plated toilet seat.
On 30 June 2003—exactly a year ago today—the "Today" programme broadcast evidence of sales of Tesco shares to the value of £1.2 million, in which Shirley Porter had an interest, which took place on 14 May 2002, just a few months after she had disclosed assets of no more than £300,000. The programme had come across e-mails that revealed offshore companies in the British Virgin Islands and what was assessed as £34 million in Guernsey bank accounts. Those e-mails also revealed that she had made loans to her son of £1.5 million and that he was asking for another $2 million to get him out of trouble. The "Today" programme had discovered more in two weeks than Westminster city council and its expensive lawyers had discovered in two years.
After that broadcast, and the reports that appeared in national newspapers, it was estimated that Shirley Porter's wealth was anything between £60 million and £400 million. Now we are told by Westminster city council and the Audit Commission that the proposition before the council is the best achievable deal. We have not been told that by Shirley Porter, and that is not surprising because she has done everything she can to evade justice and proclaim her innocence in defiance of the facts. Suddenly, she decides to hand over £12.3 million that she said she did not have, and we are expected to accept that the deal is in the public interest.
The problem is that we are in no position to judge, because Shirley Porter and Westminster city council have signed a confidentiality clause that obscures the details of the contract. The Audit Commission, with a remit to ensure probity, transparency and accountability in public finances, is a party to that clause. That means we can only speculate about the basis of the deal. I speculate that Shirley Porter recognises that the only way to unfreeze her assets is to pay off Westminster city council with a fraction of her worldwide wealth in order to release the rest for her to access. No doubt the trustees who sheltered her funds in
138WH
the Virgin Islands and elsewhere have demanded the anonymity of the confidentiality clause to conceal their role in the affair.
I may be wrong, but by the time we know—if we ever do—it will be too late. The deal becomes unconditional on 1 July: tomorrow. When it does, it is a "full and final settlement"—a quotation from Audit Commission correspondence. If it transpires that Shirley Porter has again lied about her assets, it will be too late. If she inherits a substantial fortune, which is not impossible, it will be too late. None of that newly found or newly discovered wealth will be attachable to the deposit of £12 million on a £42 million liability. By then the clause will have served its purpose, and she will be laughing all the way to an un-numbered Swiss bank account.
I find it shocking that the Audit Commission should be party to that arrangement, entirely on the basis of the chief executive's sanction. As he has confirmed in correspondence with me, the commissioners, although advised of its progress, have not seen the terms of the agreement.
Section 15(1)(a) of the Audit Commission Act 1998 confers a right on individuals to
"inspect the accounts to be audited and all books, deeds, contracts, bills, vouchers and receipts relating to them".
On 19 July, Westminster city council's books will be open, and I and others will have the right to inspect them. Even if that statutory right sets aside the confidentiality clause, however, it will be useless because whatever we discover we will discover too late. Shirley Porter will have bought her freedom from any further liability. All parties to the deal, including the Audit Commission, know that.
I now turn to the role of the Conservative party in these affairs. I gave the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) an opportunity, as I have done many times before. to attend and contribute to the debate, and I accept that he has a long-standing engagement that prevents him from being here. For that reason I will curtail my comments involving him.
David Winnick: As my hon. Friend has said, the deal is shameful. When we raised the matter repeatedly in the Chamber before 1997, Conservative Ministers and, indeed, the Prime Minister of the day, said that if Shirley Porter were found guilty after all legal processes had been exhausted, they would make a statement. However, they refused to condemn her in the meantime. Legal processes have now been exhausted, but there has not been one word from the Conservative party, and that, too, is shameful.
Peter Bradley: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments; he has anticipated the point that I am about to make. He gives me the opportunity to pay tribute to him and many other parliamentary colleagues for the support that they gave us before I was elected to this House, when we were fighting what seemed a losing battle against the establishment of the day to reveal the wrongs and to seek to right them. His role was prominent, and we are grateful to him.
My hon. Friend is right to say that one of the most extraordinary features of this long-running pitiful saga is the fact that in all the years since, and particularly in the 10 years since the district auditor published his

139WH
provisional findings, not once has a senior figure in the Tory party condemned what Shirley Porter and her administration did in the name of their party—not John Major, not the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), not the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), and not the current Leader of the Opposition.
It is a fact that the Conservatives in Westminster city council, that flagship Thatcherite council, could not have done what they did without the connivance of the Government of the day. Ministers at the highest level knew exactly what they were up to. Let me quote from a letter that Shirley Porter wrote on 19 December 1986 to Margaret Thatcher, the Prime Minister of the day:
"We in Westminster are trying to gentrify the City. We must protect our electoral position which is being seriously eroded … I am afraid that unless something can be done, it will be very difficult to keep Westminster Conservative!"
I do not consider that an appropriate letter for the leader of the council to write—on council notepaper, I assume—to a Prime Minister.
In March 1990, lobbyists employed by Shirley Porter reported to her that:
"John Gummer is the most alert of Ministers to political nuances … Gummer is said to be angry that the D of E officials had failed to understand the real and political consequences of the redistributive effects of the community charge".
Shortly after that, the anticipated community charge that Westminster was to levy was reduced from £429 to £195—much to the chagrin of other Conservative authorities throughout the country.
By the time the district auditor published his report, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal was Secretary of State for the Environment. He cannot have
forgotten—nor, indeed, has my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick)—what he, and the then Prime Minister, said in the House of Commons. Let me quote three of the seven assurances that the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal gave the House. In 1994, he said:
"In the end, if any of the allegations are found to be true, I will, as I have said unreservedly and without distinction between political parties, condemn them"—[Official Report, 13 January 1994; Vol. 235, c. 349–50.]
In 1996, he said:
"I have made it clear that I would condemn utterly any failure to meet the highest standards of propriety,whenever it is found and whoever is found guilty."—[Official Report, 9 May 1996; Vol. 277, c. 367.]
Again in 1996, in case we had misunderstood him earlier, he said:
"when wrong is done and proven beyond reverse, it should be condemned, and I would be the first to condemn it."—[Official Report, 14 May 1996; Vol. 277, c. 863.]
He may not have been the first to condemn, but today I tried yet again to give him the opportunity at least not to be the last. I accept that he cannot be here now, but I do not accept that he has had no opportunity to redeem his pledge, either in the past or during our lengthy correspondence over 18 months. If he did redeem it, as my hon. Friend and I have made clear, he would be unique in his party.
Finally, I want to put some direct questions to the Minister. Is she satisfied that less than one third of the surcharge imposed on Shirley Porter is to be collected? Is she content that, even if Shirley Porter is found to have more assets, or inherits more assets, they will not be recoverable? Does the Minister believe that this is the best deal that can be struck with Shirley Porter and, if so, on what basis does she think so? What does she know about the details of the deal?
What is the Minister's view of the Audit Commission's agreement to be party to the confidentiality clause, and on the way in which the commission has made its decisions? What has she to say about the rights of individuals to object to, and seek remedy for, the accounts of Westminster city council if the deal is done? Will she ensure that even at the eleventh hour the proposed deal is suspended so that she can be satisfied about this matter, and the current police investigation can be completed?
It is interesting that the title that has been chosen for this Adjournment debate is "Dame Shirley Porter". That is not the title that I gave it, but the House has decided otherwise. Is it not obscene that Shirley Porter continues to boast the award of the title of Dame of the British Empire on the basis of her services to local government? Is that not an insult to those who have earned their distinctions? When will that wrong be righted? Shirley Porter was responsible for the worst, most cynical and callous, and most costly, conspiracy of political corruption in this country in the modern age. Is she really going to be allowed to have the last laugh?
4.21 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Yvette Cooper): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) on securing the debate, and on the huge amount of work that he has done to pursue justice on behalf of people in Westminster over many years.
The case of Dame Shirley Porter and her colleagues in the "homes for votes" scandal has been a blot on the reputation of local government. My hon. Friend has also set out clearly the failure of many senior Conservatives, at the time and since, to condemn the events that took place, and the deep unfairness and injustice of what happened to those who lived in the Westminster area at that time.
My hon. Friend and his colleagues have played an important role in the saga from the very beginning. They first raised an objection to the accounts of Westminster city council in July 1989, and have followed all the twists and turns of the case, through the auditor's consideration and judgment and the numerous legal cases, to the final decision of the European Court of Human Rights in April last year. That settled the last legal issues once and for all, and finally confirmed the auditor's judgment of wilful misconduct and the surcharge that he placed on those concerned. The amount of the surcharge reflects the scale of the misconduct.
All of the surcharge, including interest, is a debt due to Westminster city council, which has a duty to act in the interests of its taxpayers in pursuing the debts. I understand that it has reached an agreement with Dame

141WH
Shirley Porter for a final settlement of £12.3 million, which is due to be paid tomorrow. An agreement with David Weeks, who was deputy leader of Westminster city council at the time, is still being pursued. I understand my hon. Friend's concern that the settlement does not reflect the full amount of the surcharge against Dame Shirley Porter. She originally faced a judgment debt of some £27 million, plus interest and costs. My hon. Friend has described some of the things that happened, and the fact that the council has needed to trace and freeze assets, many of which have been moved overseas, as part of the process.
My hon. Friend raised a series of questions in his speech. As he will know, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local and Regional Government and the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Phil Hope) deal with many of these issues in the Department. They are on the Front Bench for the debate taking place in the main Chamber as we speak, but I will do my best to answer the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin, and if I miss any issues, I will ensure that I raise them with my colleagues so that they can respond to him further if need be.
My hon. Friend asked about the nature of the settlement that has taken place. The Department has no powers to intervene in the settlement or the judgment. It is a matter for Westminster city council to make a judgment about the settlement and to decide its appropriate level. We have no powers to intervene, to influence the council's judgment or to compel the parties to provide us with information. It would not be appropriate, therefore, for the Government to take a view on the fairness or otherwise of the settlement.
Westminster city council must account for its decision. Its judgment will be subject to audit scrutiny in the usual way. That will fall to the current appointed auditor, Derek Elliot, who will follow the procedures for ensuring that his responsibilities are carried out. Should he determine that any matter should be reported in the public interest, he will need to take action. My hon. Friend expressed his worry about the chance for individuals to protest. I understand that it will be possible for individuals to express worries to the auditor at the appropriate time, as part of the audit scrutiny process, and I shall be happy to provide him with more information about that process.
My hon. Friend also referred to the Audit Commission's involvement in the settlement. I know that he has also raised the matter with the Audit
142WH
Commission directly. As he will know, the appointed auditor at the time—John Magill—was the person responsible for investigating the objection to Westminster city council's accounts raised by my hon. Friend and his colleagues in 1989. Following a detailed investigation and a public hearing, he determined in May 1996 that Dame Shirley and her colleagues were guilty of wilful misconduct and subjected them to a surcharge of some £31 million.
The legal challenges to the appointed auditor's original judgment on the objection to the council's accounts in 1989 incurred significant costs; the Audit Commission is liable for those, and is supporting the appointed auditor in defending his judgment. The costs were added to the debts of Dame Shirley Porter and her colleagues in the court's final judgments. The Audit Commission has therefore been responsible for pursuing the debts and has done so completely separately from its responsibilities for appointing auditors to the council.
Rather than pursue its debts separately, the Audit Commission combined efforts with the council, and that has resulted in the Audit Commission being party to the settlement that will be reached tomorrow with Dame Shirley Porter. Of the £12.3 million of the settlement, about £1 million will go to the Audit Commission. As a consequence, the Audit Commission is also party to the other terms of the settlement, including the confidentiality clause.
Again, it is not appropriate for the Department to take a view on the matter, as it is something about which the Audit Commission must make its own decision. I understand that it is content with the outcome of the settlement, but of course, its view will also be subject to the usual scrutiny of its own auditor, which is the National Audit Office, so that will need to be scrutinised, too. My hon. Friend has raised a series of extremely significant issues during the debate, and some important questions need to be answered by Westminster city council as part of the process. He is right to say that the saga of Dame Shirley Porter and the "homes for votes" scandal has been long running. It has taken much time to pursue justice, and it is important that people consider that justice should be done. It is therefore important that my hon. Friend's questions should be answered. He will understand that the Government do not have a role, or powers to intervene, in this matter; nevertheless, I appreciate the importance of his having raised it this afternoon.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Four o'clock.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester.

Lord Roberts of Llandudno
The Reverend John Roger Roberts, having been created Baron Roberts of Llandudno, of Llandudno in the County of Gwynedd, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Hooson and the Lord Livsey of Talgarth.
Lord Rana
Diljit Singh Rana, Esquire, MBE, having been created Baron Rana, of Malone in the County of Antrim, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Alderdice and the Lord Dholakia.
The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord ChancellorMy Lords, before business begins, may I take the opportunity to inform the House that I shall be undertaking a ministerial visit to Bournemouth on 2 July? Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

Aurora Space Exploration Programme
2.49 p.m.
Lord Tanlawasked Her Majesty's Government:
What will be the consequences for space science education and space-related industries if the subscription to the European Space Agency's Aurora/Inspiration programme is not funded in full by June 2005.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville)My Lords, the European Space Agency's Inspirations/Aurora programme is still being defined. There is a great deal of pressure on space budgets across Europe. Work has already taken place to turn ESA's aspirations into a realistic programme based on robotic exploration. Such a programme is more likely to be affordable. If not, timescales will be lengthened with inevitable consequences for space science education and space-related industries.
Lord TanlawMy Lords, while giving the customary thanks to the Minister for his reply, which I take to be a "no", I wonder whether there will be thanks from
256
the teachers of planetary sciences or from space industrialists when they learn that we shall appear to have no part in the inspirational project Aurora, which is the search for life elsewhere in the solar system and beyond.
The Minister's reply was convoluted and does not give us the reassurance required. As I understand it, funds have to be put aside in this current review in order to pay the full subscription in June 2005. We have been confined to 20 years of being terrestrial spectators in a game that will be played on another planet with equipment supplied by our competitors in Europe. Before the Minister leaves the political arena for the joust of the retail trade, I wonder whether a legacy could be left by applying to his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to re-establish funds for this subscription.
Lord Sainsbury of TurvilleMy Lords, perhaps I have been too long away from the retail trade. I thought my answer was a "yes" and not a "no". Clearly, political life is beginning to affect the clarity of my replies.
The Aurora programme will be funded in two ways; partly by the mandatory programme, to which we give a percentage of GDP, and partly through optional payments, which we will also make. We are looking at the contribution we will make. That will depend of course on how the programme turns out. We are very keen that it should focus on robotic exploration and not manned exploration and are extremely keen to take part in the programme.
Baroness Harris of RichmondMy Lords, notwithstanding what the Minister has said, is the follow-up to Beagle 2 at risk if we do not participate in the Aurora programme?
Lord Sainsbury of TurvilleMy Lords, we want the Aurora programme to focus more clearly on robotic exploration and to build on both the science and the instrumentation work done for Beagle 2. That is why we are keen to ensure it heads in that direction.
Lord TanlawMy Lords, perhaps the Minister will clarify one further point. The Aurora programme is in two parts—part robotic and part involving astronauts. How can young people be enthusiastic about robotic exploration in the next 20 years when they see that there will be Italian, German or French astronauts' boots on the Moon or on another planet?
Lord Sainsbury of TurvilleMy Lords, as Beagle 2 demonstrated very clearly, it is possible for people to be enthused by planetary exploration when it is robotic, not manned, exploration. That came through clearly. The really exciting part is the planetary exploration which is taking place. People, including many young people, are beginning to realise that manned space exploration is probably not the way forward at this stage.

Chechnya
2.53 p.m.
Lord Hyltonasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy towards the current conflict in Chechnya and the effect which this has on the population.
Baroness CrawleyMy Lords, the Chechen conflict has had a devastating effect. Tens of thousands of people have been killed or are missing. We recognise the genuine security problems Russia faces. We have repeatedly condemned terrorist attacks across Russia, including the recent raids into Ingushetia. We continue to be concerned by reports of human rights abuses in Chechnya by federal, local and separatist forces.
Lord HyltonMy Lords, I welcome the general tone of the noble Baroness's reply. However, does she agree that there is no conceivable military solution? Therefore, will the Government commit themselves to starting a political dialogue which, with luck, may lead to negotiations? Is it not the case that we need a peace process to begin somewhere?
Baroness CrawleyMy Lords, I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that a genuine, open political process is exactly what is needed, as well as reconciliation within that process. I hope that he will be heartened by the news that my honourable friend Bill Rammell, the FCO Minister, raised that very point in his discussions with senior Russian officials in Moscow in April.
Baroness RawlingsMy Lords, I agree totally with the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. What is Her Majesty's Government's response to the finding of Human Rights Watch that human rights abuses, which previously occurred almost exclusively in Chechnya, are now increasingly spreading across the border?
Baroness CrawleyMy Lords, we are extremely worried about the recent incursion into Ingushetia. That shows the fragility of the security situation there. Further attacks by rebels cannot be ruled out. There is likely to be further instability leading up to the Chechen presidential election at the end of August. So the whole Caucasus area is very fragile.
Lord JuddMy Lords, does my noble friend accept that if a political solution is necessary, there are dangers in the forthcoming presidential election—so-called—due to take place at the end of August in Chechnya, in that that election is based upon a flawed referendum approving a flawed constitution?
Does the Minister not agree that if the Russians try to manipulate the result they want in that election, the result will be to draw more young people into the arms of extremists and increase the forces of global terrorism?
Baroness CrawleyMy Lords, we very much hope that elections will not bring about the result that my
258
noble friend referred to. We recognise his great experience in the matter, as his work in the Council of Europe shows. The Government see the new Chechen presidential elections planned for August as a fresh opportunity to show commitment to democratic principles, to build up the political process and to aid efforts to bring stability to the republic. So we see those elections as a new opportunity, which I hope will be grasped.
Lord AveburyMy Lords, does the Minister agree with the findings of the Amnesty International report published last week that Russian security forces are continuing to rape, kill, torture and "disappear" civilians in Chechnya? If so, will she comment on the recommendations made by Amnesty International to the member states of the Council of Europe? Does she also agree that Russia is violating the December 1994 OSCE code of conduct on security? What measures will the Government take to bring that home to the Russian authorities?
Baroness CrawleyMy Lords, we very much welcome Amnesty International's recent report and are aware of the very serious and appalling issues of human rights abuses it raises. On the noble Lord's point about bringing pressure to bear on Moscow, we have made very clear the UK's concerns over continuing reports of human rights abuses in Chechnya and North Caucasus; we have done so bilaterally, with the EU and of course through our colleagues on the Council of Europe. The FCO Minister, Bill Rammell, raised those concerns also with senior Russian officials during his visit in April.
The noble Lord raised the issue of the OSCE. I should like to tell him that we want to see a re-establishment of a permanent OSCE presence in Chechnya, but that will not be possible without the agreement of the Russian authorities, as he well knows.
Lord ReaMy Lords, owning to the length of the conflict—nearly 10 years—and the scale of the human rights abuses in Chechnya, should not this case be raised at the United Nations Security Council? I know that this is officially an internal Russian matter, but it has been going on for so long and the abuses have been so severe as to constitute an international cause of concern.
Baroness CrawleyMy Lords, we have raised our concerns at the UN. Along with the European Union, we have raised Chechnya at the UN Commission on Human Rights. However, as my noble friend will know, at this year's Commission on Human Rights, Russia blocked our attempts to push for a resolution.
Lord Russell-JohnstonMy Lords, does the Minister remember that, after the end of the first Chechen war, the Russians, as a commitment on entrance to the Council of Europe, promised to settle any future disagreements peacefully—a promise that they subsequently brutally ignored? With all respect to the Minister's claims that Her Majesty's Government have been vigorous in condemning human rights in Chechnya committed by

259
the Russian Federation, they have been remarkably muted. Why is that? Is it because trade is more important than principle?
Baroness CrawleyNo, my Lords, I disagree entirely with the noble Lord. We raise serious issues of human rights abuses in Chechnya with our Russian counterparts all the time at ministerial and senior official level. So I refute his accusation.

Elections: All-postal Ballots
3.1 p.m.
Earl Attleeasked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they made a Written Statement on 21 June (WS 46–48) on the recent all-postal ballot pilots.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin)My Lords, to keep the House informed. The all-postal pilot elections were held on 10 June. We had previously made a Statement on the progress of the elections in the pilot regions for the European parliamentary and local elections on 27 May 2004. We felt it was important to follow that up with a further Statement following the completion of the elections.
Earl AttleeMy Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but can he explain why the work of the Electoral Commission has been pre-empted and undermined?
Lord FilkinMy Lords, it has not in any way been pre-empted or undermined. The Electoral Commission has a statutory duty to report on the electoral pilots in the four regions and it will do so by 13 September or before.
Lord WaddingtonMy Lords, surely the Government have committed themselves to all-postal voting in the regional elections before the Electoral Commission has evaluated the pilots. That was the point that my noble friend was making. Why on earth have they pre-empted the work of the Electoral Commission and committed themselves in that way before the evaluation?
Lord FilkinMy Lords, the noble Earl's Question was slightly Delphic. The position is clear. The Government's position is that in principle it is desirable to hold the regional referendums on an all-postal basis, as has been the view of the Electoral Commission to date. The Government have also made clear that the Electoral Commission is evaluating the all-postal pilots and that if it concludes that it is unsafe to proceed with all-postal voting, the Government will be prepared to recommend to Parliament that it should amend the approach to the referendums. But if there is to be an option for regional referendums on an all-postal basis by the required date in November,
260
those orders must be laid now to allow the information leaflets for the public to be published and to allow a 10-week period for campaigning.
Lord GoodhartMy Lords, will the Government expedite arrangements for individual registration to replace household registration, which is seen as an important way to make all-postal ballots less subject to fraud and deceit?
Lord FilkinMy Lords, our position on this is as previously stated. We are well aware of the advice of the Electoral Commission that, in time, it would be desirable to move to individual voter registration. The Government are keeping that under review.
Baroness O'CathainMy Lords, is it not true that the Electoral Commission was set up by the Government? It seems that it is not doing what the Government wanted it to do. First, the Government completely ignored its suggestion that there should be only two all-postal ballots in the recent election, as opposed to four. Now they are more or less disregarding everything that the Electoral Commission is doing. Why not just abolish it?
Lord FilkinMy Lords, I cannot think how the noble Baroness comes to make that assertion. The Electoral Commission was established as a result of an Act of Parliament passed by this House and another place for the very good reason that it is extremely important that there is a body of standing and independence able to advise on electoral matters. The key issue, which we have discussed almost ad nauseam, is that on some matters the Electoral Commission makes recommendations. It is then the job of this House and another place to take a decision on those matters. On the issue of the four regional pilots, we were of the view—and eventually this House concurred that it was desirable to undertake four regional pilots. I am very glad that we did so, given the success of that process.
Lord SkelmersdaleMy Lords, is the Minister aware that the opening sentence of his original Answer was anything but Delphic? He said that the reason for such Statements was, "to keep the House informed". Is he further aware that in Tuesday's Hansard, there were three Written Statements, the first two of which were duplicates, informing the House of items of which we had already been made aware in the Green Minute?
Lord FilkinMy Lords, one is damned if one does and damned if one does not on such issues. I stand four-square behind my Answer. The issue of electoral pilots was of considerable interest to the House and it was absolutely right and proper that, as soon as we had clear results from the returning officers, that information was put before the House. I have not yet

261
been asked this, but the headline figure in those four regional pilots was that the vote doubled as a consequence of the all-postal ballots.
Lord Shutt of GreetlandMy Lords, which is more important: that we have a referendum to decide whether to have regional government in England; or that we have another experiment in postal voting?
Lord FilkinMy Lords, the noble Lord posits a false dichotomy. It is important that we give the public the opportunity to decide whether they want regional government in this country. I am amazed to receive any indication from members of that party that they think that that is an undesirable choice. In so doing, those processes must be carried out with the standards and integrity in electoral matters of which this country is proud.
Lord RichardMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that Members on the other side are advancing the novel proposition that the Government are somehow guilty of something unexpressed and rather inchoate: giving too much information to the House too early? Will the Government firmly reject that proposition? Will my noble friend also reject the proposition of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, which is that if you set up an independent commission and it does not do what you want, you disband it? I hope that my noble friend will reject that too.
Lord FilkinMy Lords, I have no difficulty in concurring with my noble friend on both points. In my experience, it is right that the Government give an account to the House. It is also my experience that sometimes one has to tell the House the same thing more than once before it is necessarily fully heard.
Baroness HanhamMy Lords, if the Government are happy to pre-empt the report of the Electoral Commission, will the Minister say why they are also happy to pre-empt the investigations currently under way across all four regions for fraud?
Lord FilkinMy Lords, it is utterly not so on both counts. How can such statements be made in that way? What I said quite clearly in that respect was that, as is well known, the Government take the view that, in principle, it is desirable that the regional referendums are conducted on an all-postal basis. That is for good reason, because they have doubled the turnout in the recent elections. That matters to any of us who are democrats at heart. We also said that we would not proceed if there was a clear recommendation that it was unsafe to do so. I draw the attention of the noble Baroness to the relevant extracts from Hansard in that respect.
As for allegations of fraud and impropriety, the Government's position is that we want the police to investigate any serious allegations of impropriety with the utmost vigour and vigilance. I also draw the noble
262
Baroness's attention to the statement by Sir Howard Bernstein, the regional returning officer for the northwest. He said that research shows that,
"the scale of allegations of fraud and malpractice is broadly similar to previous years. While the nature of the allegations has changed this year, the scale has not increased—if anything, it has lessened".
That is not the Government's statement; it is the statement of the regional returning officer for the north-west and of the Greater Manchester Police. I am further told that the other three regional returning officers concur with that perspective.
Lord Woolmer of LeedsMy Lords, is it not extraordinary that no one on the Benches Opposite has welcomed the fact that over 3 million more people voted at those elections? Is that not something to be warmly welcomed on all sides? Does the Minister recognise that there is support for individual voter registration on all sides of the House? That step will be an additional and welcome safeguard against the understandable fears and concerns about possible fraud. That must be said in the context of the very welcome, enormous increase in voters. That must be good for democracy.
Lord FilkinMy Lords, the noble Lord's second point is correct. As to his first point, I recollect—because we addressed this matter on several occasions when we were debating electoral pilots—that I chanced my arm slightly and suggested that if one was optimistic, there could be as many as 2 million extra people voting from the 14 million electors in those four regions. The figure was nearly 3 million. The increase in votes cast in the European elections in 2004 in those four regions, compared to the votes cast in 1999, was over 100 per cent more. We must take this issue seriously if we are concerned about the democratic health of our society, just as we must take seriously any allegations or reality of electoral malpractice, and we must seek to eradicate that at the same time.
Lord GreavesMy Lords, I certainly welcome the increase in the number of people who voted, particularly those who voted for me. I declare that I was a candidate, an agent and a sub-agent in those elections. Does the Minister understand that there were a number of different reasons why turn-out increased, and that turnout increased throughout the country? It even increased in places that did not hold postal voting pilots, but not quite as much in those places. Therefore, he cannot attribute all the increase, or even attribute a majority of the increase, to postal voting.
Is it not time that the Government stopped spinning and started listening to what happened in those elections? It was an administrative and democratic shambles in many places. If he will not listen to people like me, perhaps he will listen to the Asian lady voter in Keighley in Bradford, West Yorkshire, who said after the elections, "Every year, my husband tells me

263
how to vote, and every year I go to the polling station and vote for who I want to vote for, not for who my husband tells me to vote for. That has now changed".
Lord FilkinYes, my Lords, we will listen. That is what any responsible government would do. As to the noble Lord's first point, in terms of the increase in voting generally, the increase in voting outside the four regions was roughly 50 per cent; the increase in the four pilot regions was over 100 per cent. If you net the one off the other, you get a picture of about a 50 per cent increase in voting in the four pilot regions, discounting other factors that boosted the turn-out nationally. That is similar to the previous experience on the increase in turnout attributed to postal voting in the 100 or so pilots that have taken place in local government.
As to the Asian lady, we should all be concerned at that situation. However, we should be further concerned that her plight has been worsened by the insistence of this House, against the advice of the Government and the Electoral Commission, that the postal ballot had to be witnessed by someone. She had to get her cross on her ballot witnessed, most probably by a member of her family.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority
3.14 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Rochesterasked Her Majesty's Government:

What benefits there will be for those undergoing in vitro fertilisation treatment, and for the children born as a result, in the proposed changes to the regulatory framework of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner)My Lords, the review of the Department of Health arm's-length bodies is still under way. An announcement on the implications for the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and other bodies will be made before the summer Recess. The Government are committed to ensuring that patients will continue to receive safe, high quality, assisted reproduction treatment services. That remains a key priority.
The Lord Bishop of RochesterMy Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. Does he agree that the human embryo has special moral status, and that therefore the regulation of its use in treatment and in research must be kept together?
Lord WarnerMy Lords, at the moment we are looking at arm's-length bodies overall. We have also announced that there will be a review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. We have
264
taken no action so far that in any way suggests that we are deviating from the line suggested by the right reverend Prelate.

Iran: Uranium Enrichment
3.16 p.m.
Lord Corbett of Castle ValeMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I remind the House that I chair the British Committee for Iran Freedom.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, what is their response to the decision of the Iranian Government to revoke their pledge of October 2003 to freeze uranium enrichment work.
Baroness CrawleyMy Lords, Her Majesty's Government are disturbed by Iran's announcement of its intention to resume the manufacture and assembly of centrifuges for uranium enrichment, and urge Iran to reverse its decision.
Lord Corbett of Castle ValeMy Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. Is it not clear that the unelected leaders of the theocratic Iranian regime have deliberately lied to our Government and to other governments about their nuclear weapons programme, and that there is a gap wider than the Persian Gulf between what the mullahs say and what they actually do? Will the Government now ask the International Atomic Energy Agency to report Iran's defiance of its treaty obligations to the UN Security Council?
Baroness CrawleyMy Lords, referral to the UN Security Council is always a mechanism available to the IAEA, but there are no plans to do so at present. I understand the strength of my noble friend's feeling on this important issue. However, I do not believe that the suggestion of referral is the best way forward. The process of constructive engagement with Iran has benefited the international community. We now have a much clearer idea of the extent of Iran's nuclear programme. It remains more appropriate to continue to engage with Iran in the context of the IAEA than to provoke a confrontation, when the prospects for action at the Security Council are unclear to say the least.
Lord Alton of LiverpoolMy Lords, what light can the Minister shed on the recent reports that nuclear materials leaked at the new Tehran International Airport, that it was closed one day after the formal opening, and that those materials had been flown in from North Korea? Does she place any credibility on the statements by the Iranian authorities that there is no connection between the development of the domestic nuclear programme and the desire for nuclear weapons?
Baroness CrawleyMy Lords, in answer to the first point. I understand that the new Tehran airport was

265
closed within hours of its opening as a result of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps claiming that the involvement of western companies in the operation of the airport was a threat to national security. I am not aware of any basis for the report that the noble Lord has just given, but I will look into it and write to him.
On the issue of credibility, the noble Lord will know that the director-general of the IAEA, Mohamed El Baradei, said at the last board meeting that it is essential for the integrity and credibility of the inspection process that we are able to bring these issues to a close within the next few months.
Lord AveburyMy Lords, would the noble Baroness agree that Iran's decision to resume manufacturing centrifuge components and enriching uranium indicates that it is on the strategic path to developing a nuclear weapons capability, and that the threat by some Iranian leaders to denounce the non-proliferation treaty is confirmation of that intention? Would the noble Baroness not agree that while, obviously, constructive dialogue is better than confrontation, there comes a point when this matter is so serious that it is above Mr El Baradei's pay grade? If she is not willing to refer to the Security Council, does she have some other fallback plan in mind?
Baroness CrawleyMy Lords, I do not agree that this decision shows that Iran is inevitably on the path to developing nuclear weapons. However, I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that the decision of the Iranian Government to resume uranium enrichment activity sends out all the wrong signals to the international community, affecting its confidence. We want that decision reversed. While continuing our policy of constructive engagement, we fully support the highly critical resolution of the IAEA and Mr El Baradei.
Lord Hannay of ChiswickMy Lords, does not the Minister feel that if we are to get a satisfactory outcome to this very tangled tale, we will probably need more sticks and more carrots before we get through? Are the Government not thinking about both more sticks and more carrots? Does the Minister not agree that one of the problems is that the threshold of referral from the IAEA to the Security Council is too difficult to cross because it requires an actual breach of the non-proliferation treaty to be established? Would it not be far better if the Security Council could be brought in on these discussions in a less confrontational way?
Baroness CrawleyMy Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, will know, we are in a process with the IAEA in which Mr El Baradei wants to see action and to see the Iranians keep their side of the bargain in the next few months.
Lord Clarke of HampsteadMy Lords, the thought of the mullahs' regime having control of nuclear weapons is terrifying. Will my noble friend consider
266
using constructive dialogue to address the question of the committee that has been established in tribute to the martyrs of the global Islamic movement? That committee has announced a martyrdom operation and claims that 10,000 have been recruited to take up suicide bomber places in various parts of the region. Does she agree that in our constructive dialogue with Iran we should raise such questions? It is not just a threat to Israel, which is the target of the martyrdom operation, but to the whole region.
Baroness CrawleyMy Lords, I very much agree with my noble friend. We have long-standing concerns that Iran supports, for instance, Palestinian rejectionist and terrorist groups. We have made these concerns very clear to Iranian leaders.
Baroness RawlingsMy Lords, what progress has been made on setting a deadline date by which inspectors have to be satisfied before referring the case to the United Nations? What assessment have Her Majesty's Government made of the new conservative parliament in Iran, and its readiness, supposedly, to co-operate on the nuclear issue?
Baroness CrawleyMy Lords, I think that I answered the noble Baroness's first question in an earlier answer. We believe that satisfactory progress towards the desired result is more important than establishing artificial deadlines. However, I quoted director-general El Baradei of the IAEA, when he said in his introductory statement to the last board meeting in June:
"It is essential for the integrity and credibility of the inspection process that we are able to bring these issues to a close within the next few months, and provide the international community with the assurances it urgently seeks regarding Iran's nuclear activities".

Ipswich Market Bill
3.24 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
3.25 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos)My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach set down for today shall be limited to two hours and that in the name of the Lord Jenkin of Roding to three hours.—(Baroness Amos.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business of the House: Standing Order 47
Baroness AmosMy Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

267
Moved, That Standing Order 47 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to allow the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill to be taken through all its remaining stages on Monday 5 July.—(Baroness Amos.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NATO Summit and Special European Council
3.26 p.m.
Baroness AmosMy Lords, I would like to repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a Statement on the NATO summit in Istanbul and also briefly report on the special European Council in Brussels last night.
"I thank the new NATO Secretary General for his chairmanship of the NATO summit and the President and Prime Minister of Turkey for hosting it. I am placing copies of the summit declaration in the Library of the House.
"We were joined in Istanbul by NATO's seven new members from central Europe. They bring a renewed perspective to the alliance. Their recent history of repression makes their attachment to security, freedom and democracy that much keener. We were also joined by NATO's partners: Russia, Ukraine, and others from across eastern Europe and central Asia.
"We endorsed capabilities targets to ensure we make the best use of NATO forces. We supported the further reform of NATO's structures to adapt the alliance to the new threats we face. We agreed to end the NATO mission in Bosnia, SFOR, at the end of the year and committed to a successful handover to a European Union force.
"However, the two main issues on the NATO agenda were Iraq and Afghanistan. The summit opened just as the new Iraqi Interim Government assumed full authority and sovereignty in Iraq.
"Politically, Iraq now has a broad-based and representative Government; a timetable and a process for Iraq's first democratic elections; a new constitution guaranteeing basic freedoms and the rule of law; a devolved system of government—almost all towns now have municipal councils and those that have been elected are largely secular; and guaranteed protection of minority rights. This is in place of a dictatorship that brutalised the people and ransacked the country.
"Economically, Iraq now has an open economy with an independent central bank; a real budgetary process; a new and stable currency. A start has been made to re-build Iraq's hugely damaged and underinvested-in infrastructure—a process which will now continue under the guidance of the new Iraqi Government. This is in place of an economy
268
where a country rich in resources had, under Saddam, 60 per cent of its population dependent on food vouchers.
"Britain can be proud, as a country, of the part we and in particular our magnificent Armed Forces played in bringing this about. We also express our deep condolences to the family of Fusilier Gordon Gentle and to all those who have lost their lives in this struggle.
"We should pay tribute, too, to the many British public servants, policemen and women and volunteers, led so ably by David Richmond, the UK Special Representative, who played crucial roles in helping the Iraqi people rebuild their lives, doing so under difficult and stressful conditions. Her Majesty the Queen has graciously agreed that their extraordinary contribution should be recognised with the award of a special civilian medal.
"But there is one overwhelming central challenge that remains in Iraq: security. Former Saddam supporters and, increasingly, terrorists from outside of Iraq linked to Al'Qaeda see this progress in Iraq and its potential and hate all that it represents. They are therefore killing as many innocent people as they can, trying to destroy oil and power supplies and to create chaos, so that the path to stability and democracy for Iraq is blocked.
"At the NATO summit in Istanbul, the Iraqi Government requested NATO's help with the training of the new Iraqi security forces. NATO agreed it. The crucial task is now to put in place the training, leadership and equipment to give Iraqi police, civil defence and armed forces the capability to take on the terrorists and beat them.
"The determination of the new Iraqi Government is inspirational. But the challenge, especially around Baghdad, is formidable. None the less, I hope by the end of July the Iraqi Government and the multinational force will agree and publish plans to ensure, over time, that this capability exists.
"There is nothing more important to the stability of Iraq or that of the wider region. Britain, the United States and the rest of the former coalition will remain dedicated to helping the Iraqi people in this task. In addition, NATO as a whole will urgently consider further proposals to support the nascent Iraqi security institutions in response to Prime Minister Allawi's request.
"In respect of Afghanistan, President Karzai gave a typically forceful presentation both on the progress made in that country over the last two years and on the huge challenges that remain to be overcome. President Karzai said that over 5 million Afghans have now registered to vote in the September elections: 3.5 million refugees have now returned to Afghanistan; and 3 million girls are in school. Living standards are rising and the economy is growing by 20 per cent a year.
"But, again, terrorists, with the same intent as in Iraq, stand in the way. NATO agreed to expand ISAF's role outside Kabul, with provincial reconstruction teams to help build Afghan force

269
capability. Some of those teams are already set up in the north. The UK is providing two. The next stage will be to establish similar teams in the rest of the country.
"In addition, we agreed a package of support for the upcoming elections in Afghanistan, including a role for the NATO Response Force. Finally on Afghanistan, we now have an agreed process of stability in the command of ISAF for the years ahead. We have offered to provide the UK-led Allied Rapid Reaction Corps, one of NATO's high-readiness headquarters, to lead ISAF in 2006.
"The role which NATO is playing in Afghanistan and the new role it is taking on in Iraq reflect the new security challenges we face. Our adversary is no longer the Soviet Union, but terrorism and unstable states, which deal in chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and the possibility of the two coming together.
"Both Iraq and Afghanistan face the same struggle for democracy and freedom. Both were used as terrorist bases and both were horrific examples of repression organised and promoted by their governments while their people were deprived of even the most basic dignity and human rights. Both now have the hope of a new dawn but are confronted by the remnants of the past they seek to escape.
"Let us be quite plain about what is at stake. If we succeed, the Iraqi and Afghan people prosper; their states become valued partners in the international community; and the propaganda of the terrorists that our purpose is to wage war on or dominate Muslims is exposed for the evil nonsense it is. Should we fail, those countries would sink back into degradation, threaten their neighbours and the world, and become again a haven for terrorism.
"The terrorism we face is not confined now to any one continent, let alone any one country. From Saudi Arabia to the cities of Europe, it is there—active and planning. Since 11 September 2001 in New York we have known its potency. So what now happens in Iraq and Afghanistan affects us here, as it does every nation, supportive or not of the actions we have taken.
"NATO's focus on these issues shows at least a start to understanding this threat and its implications. But I worry that our response is still not sufficient to the scale of the challenge we face. I repeat what I said at the NATO plenary session: this threat cannot be defeated by security means alone. It needs us to focus on the causes of it.
"Progress on the Israeli-Palestinian issue remains a vital strategic necessity; as does the recognition that our ultimate security lies in the spread of our values—freedom, democracy and the rule of law. The more we can assist in the development of these values in the wider Middle East, in partnership with reform-minded governments and people, the better our long-term prospects of defeating this threat will be.
270
"But the battle is here and now in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even for those who passionately disagreed with our decision to go to war, the issues are now clear, the side we should be on without doubt, and the cause manifestly one worth winning. Succeeding in it would be a fitting way to reinvigorate the trans-Atlantic alliance and heal its divisions.
"Finally, on the way back from Istanbul, I attended a special European Council. It agreed the Portuguese Prime Minister as the new Commission President. He is an excellent choice: committed to economic reform, committed to the trans-Atlantic alliance and committed to a European Union of nation states. It was a good finale to a brilliant Irish presidency of Europe."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.35 p.m.
Lord StrathclydeMy Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. Perhaps I may say at the outset how much we welcome the appointment of Mr Barroso as the new Commission President, especially if, as is claimed, it marks a break from the outdated Franco-German centralising tendencies. We trust that his performance will match the promise. I also hope that, unlike the outgoing President, Mr Prodi, he will give full attention to EU affairs and not use Brussels as a platform for his own domestic political campaigns.
On Iraq, I join the Prime Minister in sending our sincerest condolences to the family of Fusilier Gordon Gentle. He and his fellow soldiers serve in a just cause. Those who murdered him must be confronted with unflinching resolve. The best way to defeat them permanently is for Iraq to be established among the family of democratic nations and become a beacon for a new way forward in the Middle East. So I join the noble Baroness in welcoming wholeheartedly the transfer of sovereignty in Iraq and wish the Interim Government well in the considerable challenges that lie ahead.
Security remains a critical issue in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Prime Minister said today that the Iraqi Government exercise political control over any operation, but that coalition forces would not respond to any inappropriate order. Practically, how are those statements to be reconciled by commanders on the ground?
With the Recess only three weeks away, does the noble Baroness envisage any increase in British troop deployment before then? And will Parliament be recalled before any further significant deployment after the Recess begins? Can she also tell the House if there will be any troop deployment from non-NATO members, especially from Arab states?
I welcome NATO's decision, despite the rather churlish attitude of France, to
"offer assistance to the Government of Iraq with the training of its security forces".

271
Can the noble Baroness tell us the likely numbers involved, including the UK contribution? What is being done to improve the security of those involved in reconstruction work in Iraq, including electricity and oil? Following the appearance of Saddam Hussein in court today, can the noble Baroness assure the House that a potential death penalty for mass murder will not prevent Britain agreeing to the unqualified transfer of General Ali and others to Iraq?
The Statement referred to additional troops for Afghanistan. What, once again, is the UK contribution? Is it not deeply worrying that too many NATO countries have failed to take seriously enough the need for security in stabilising Afghanistan and hence the need for military resources? Is not a strong presence in Afghanistan the kind of operation in which a post-Cold War NATO must now come into its own?
I therefore very much welcome the ongoing NATO commitment to enlargement. I noted paragraph 41 of the Istanbul communiqué stating the importance of the Black Sea to European security. Do the Government therefore understand Russian sensitivities in Moldova and Georgia? Does the noble Baroness know when it is likely that Russian troops will leave Moldova?
At what point, in the view of the British Government, does the evolution of an EU military capability represent a threat to the future role of NATO?
Does the noble Baroness join me in saluting President Bush's visionary speech on relations between the EU and Turkey? We on this side have long argued for the embracing of Turkey against foolish foot-dragging by other EU nations. Is it not essential that this great Muslim nation, a key NATO member and an established secular democracy, is treated with dignity and seriousness as an essential partner in building stability in eastern Europe and in the Middle East?
Finally, the EU-US summit discussed Sudan. What specific action was agreed to avert tragedy in Darfur? And why is there no mention in any of these communiqués of the tragedy in Zimbabwe? There was time, quite rightly, for Sudan, but not for Zimbabwe. Can the noble Baroness shed any light on that decision? I raise this again because I know of the noble Baroness's interest in this region.
Has she had an opportunity to look at the EU website on Zimbabwe? It reads, "Recent events—no news available", and goes on to state:
"This page is still under construction. Sorry for the inconvenience".
The destruction of Zimbabwe by Mugabe goes on and half a million exiles are suffering more than just inconvenience. Does not this pathetic website, which compares with 50 pages on EU relations with Bhutan, aptly show the utter weakness of the EU on Zimbabwe? So what is the Government's response to its failure to raise Zimbabwe in every forum—EU, US-EU and at the United Nations? Once again the opportunity was there last weekend and once again it was lost.
3.42 p.m.
Lord McNallyMy Lords, I share with both Front Benches in the expressions of grief at the death of Fusilier Gordon Gentle and of all British personnel who have given their lives in this conflict. At the close of the Statement the Prime Minister said:
"Even for those who passionately disagreed with our decision to go to war, the issues are now clear, the side we should be on without doubt, and the cause manifestly one worth winning".
I suppose that means Members on these Benches in particular, because we were passionately in disagreement about this war. We support the desire to see democracy and civil liberties in both Afghanistan and Iraq, but what still worries us is whether, both in the United States and in the mind of the Prime Minister, the lessons have been learnt and there is sufficient humility to ensure that the future is less error-ridden than the past.
One has only to look at the piece by Bronwen Maddox in the Times today where she talks of the announcement of the handover of power in Iraq as a "stunt" which marked the moment that an alliance died:
"It was a showy, historic moment, but one in which Nato had played no part. It was a decision taken quickly and secretly by the US and the Iraqi government, exactly the kind of feat that Nato cannot manage".
That is the real worry about much of the tone of the Prime Minister's Statement. For Ernest Bevin and the other founding fathers of NATO, to see 26 European countries gathering in Istanbul, having come together without the major war that was feared after the Second World War, was an historic achievement. But it is worth the Prime Minister pondering the fact that Bevin and the other founding fathers did not build NATO in isolation. They put in place around it a whole framework of international co-operation and international law based on the Charter of Human Rights and on the United Nations.
We hear much today, particularly from the new Right in the United States, of theories of a new imperialism and a new American century. Unless that is cleared out of the way and there is a return to co-operation through the international bodies we have created, many of the aspirations that were so eloquently put in Istanbul are doomed to failure.
It is all very well to talk about Afghanistan and Iraq, but Afghanistan shows all the signs of a disastrous switch of attention that left the job half done in that country. One has to wonder whether there is the political will and the machinery in place to deliver what is needed. Turning to Iraq, one has to question whether free elections can be held without security and, indeed, whether they can be held without electricity, sewerage and water supplies. Some sense of normality must be restored. If the very fact of registering to vote can cause someone to be assassinated, it is hardly likely that there will be free and fair elections. Nor is it likely that there will be respect for

273
an independent government if the United States retains in Iraq its largest embassy in the world. We have to look at this not only in terms of rhetoric, but also at the reality, and wonder whether there is the will to see it through.
I turn to a practical matter. Given all these declarations, I wonder whether the comprehensive spending review, to be announced on 12 July, will take on board the new commitments. Will our Armed Forces have the resources to meet these extended commitments?
I share with the noble Lord expressions of good will so far as Turkey is concerned, and for its ultimate membership of the EU. As for Israel/Palestine, to my mind the region is not just a vital strategic necessity, it is the core problem which must be addressed. One wonders whether the issue has now been put on the back burner until after the American presidential election, or whether Her Majesty's Government have any plans and proposals either on their own or in conjunction with the European Union to carry matters forward?
Finally, on the EU itself, we of course welcome the appointment of Mr Barroso and we congratulate the Irish on what was a model presidency. All we ask now from the Prime Minister, and in particular the Chancellor downwards, is that we maintain a robust consistency in our European policy so that those who pay lip service to our membership of the EU, but nothing more, are faced down. We must have a government who really are going to lead in Europe and allow Europe to play the role it should in the wider security issues discussed in Istanbul.
3.48 p.m.
Baroness AmosMy Lords, I am sure that the whole House joins in the condolences which have been expressed this afternoon, and in the tributes to our Armed Forces.
On the question of troop deployments put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, he may recall that the Secretary of State for Defence announced routine force level adjustments on 27 May and 17 June, bringing UK forces in Iraq up to 9,200. No other decision has been taken. With regard to non-NATO troops making a contribution in Iraq, a list is available of those countries currently contributing troops. However, I am not aware of any Arab states making specific troop contributions.
On the issue of reconstruction and security, I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that security has to be our number one concern, not only in respect of the workers on the ground who are engaged in working to reconstruct Iraq in partnership with the Iraqis themselves, but also in bringing normality to the lives of the people of Iraq, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. It is also important to ensure that the essential infrastructure is protected.
274
Noble Lords will be aware that some 74,000 Iraqis form part of the facilities protection force, in addition to those working as police officers patrolling the streets.
As to our contribution in Afghanistan, an issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, there are currently 314 UK troops serving with ISAF in Kabul. Our contribution will increase by around 260 in the next few days when our PRTs in Mazar-e-Sharif and Maymanah and the forward support base in Mazar transfer to ISAF authority. But this will not increase the overall number of UK troops in Afghanistan. We expect HQ ARRC to be deployed to Afghanistan sometime in 2006, but it is too early to say how many troops will be involved in that.
As to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, on Moldova, there is a stand-off at present so we do not know when the Russians will pull out. On the wider issue, the NATO-Russia Council is a forum in which we can discuss common security concerns with Russia. This allows us to be aware of particular Russian sensitivities.
On the issue of the EU and Turkey, the noble Lord will know that the United Kingdom has been at the forefront of the push for Turkey to join the European Union. This is because we believe it is important that we are seen to be much more inclusive in terms of the divide between east and west and between religions.
As to Darfur and Zimbabwe, the EU has led the sanctions against Zimbabwe. I am surprised that the website does not identify that and I shall look into the matter. There is a major humanitarian crisis in Darfur, which we have sought to avert. We have not managed to do so and it is now a priority, not only for the UK but for others in the European Union.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, referred to the context in which NATO was formed. In particular, he pointed out the importance of the entire multilateral system. I entirely agree. The noble Lord knows of the Government's commitment to multilateralism. We seek to work through the UN, NATO, the WTO, the World Bank and other organisations. Given the increasing difficulties that we face as a global community, particularly from terrorism, these multilateral bodies will become even more significant.
I do not agree that attention was switched from Afghanistan. The noble Lord is aware that we worked very hard to ensure that that did not happen. There has been an ongoing dialogue with the Government of Afghanistan. We have given development assistance in addition to our assistance through ISAF. We are working with the Afghanistan Government to put in place the public service, for example, particularly in relation to financial accountability. We need to continue that interest. There is no doubt that the security situation in Afghanistan and the fact that we have not been able to establish a stable and secure environment in certain parts of the country has hindered the longer-term reconstruction process. That is why we recognise that it is important to work to establish security in Iraq.

275
It would take an extremely brave woman to pre-empt any announcement on the comprehensive spending review. I am not that brave. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, will have to wait.
As regards the Middle East, we shall continue to support the ongoing initiatives. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, will know that at Istanbul a voluntary initiative on the Middle East was agreed. This will build on the wider G8 Middle East initiative.
3.55 p.m.
Lord Lamont of LerwickMy Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement, but, with great respect, is there not a huge element of propaganda in it?
First, would not a more realistic Statement on Afghanistan have made a passing reference to the fact that poppy production is now higher than it was before the war—more money for terrorism; more drugs?
Secondly, would not a more realistic Statement on Iraq have quite rightly referred not only to the loss of life of British soldiers but also to the 15,000 Iraqi lives lost in an optional war that has left the world a more dangerous place?
Thirdly, would not a more realistic approach also have admitted that a judgment on democracy in Iraq can be made only over a period of five, 10 or 15 years? Did the Minister notice the statement made by Sir Jeremy Greenstock last week in London, on page 1 of the FT on Saturday, that the idea of a western-style democracy in Iraq is impossible and that there are huge obstacles?
Baroness AmosMy Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, because, if one looks at Afghanistan and the issue of drugs, a point raised by the noble Lord, one sees that this country leads in that area. It takes years to ensure that alternatives are provided into which individuals who make a great deal of money from poppy production can transfer their interest. We have been working to embed the importance of that kind of long-term sustainability into those individuals in Afghanistan. It will not happen overnight—I acknowledge that—but I do not share the noble Lord's pessimism.
As regards Iraq, power generation is now averaging around 4,000 megawatts. Progress has not been as rapid as we had hoped, but that is primarily as a result of sabotage and other security problems. We have to recognise that there are people who do not want an independent, democratic Iraq to succeed.
Lord JuddMy Lords, does my noble friend agree that if we are to win hearts and minds in Iraq it is important fulsomely to put on record our acknowledgement of the supreme sacrifice made by thousands of Iraqis in a war over which they had no influence?
Turning to the future, does not my noble friend agree that two issues need to be absolutely clear? First, following the United Nations authorisation of the way forward, it is not only a matter of a role for the United Nations in Iraq but of accountability to the United

276
Nations for all that follows as a result of the implementation of that resolution? Secondly, does she agree that in the all-important forthcoming conference to consider the constitutional future, it will be essential to throw the net as wide as possible and to involve people with whom it might be quite difficult to talk and with whom we have had great problems in the past? If the net is not thrown wide it will be virtually impossible to have the necessary degree of stakeholding by a sufficient cross-section of the Iraqi people to ensure success.
Baroness AmosMy Lords, my noble friend is right: we have to recognise the sacrifices that have been made by individuals in moving Iraq from a situation where it was led by a violent dictator, through the current situation, where there is a degree of instability—particularly in respect of security—and elements who wish to ensure that the country does not succeed, to a process where the people of Iraq have full control of their own country and resources.
As to accountability, my noble friend is right: UNSCR 1546 sets out very clearly what is required politically in Iraq. The role of the UN in relation to that will be absolutely critical in working with the transitional Iraqi Government and throwing the net as wide as possible. The importance of ensuring that women are a key part of that process is an issue that has been raised many times in the House.
Baroness NorthoverMy Lords, bearing in mind today's explosions in Afghanistan, is the noble Baroness confident that with the level of commitment which has been pledged by NATO, we will get anywhere near the level of security that will be needed in Afghanistan, as other noble Lords have said, if there are to be elections and if the drug warlords are to be defeated? At present, the level is about a quarter of that which was committed to Kosovo, for example.
Could the Minister say why there is merely half a sentence on Israel/Palestine in the Statement? What does that indicate in terms of the priorities of those at the NATO meeting? What specific measures will be taken on the conflict in the Middle East which, as my noble friend Lord McNally has pointed out, is at the core of the problems in the Middle East?
Baroness AmosMy Lords, on the noble Baroness's final point, the Statement made it absolutely clear at the beginning that it would focus on Iraq and Afghanistan, as those had been the central issues discussed at the meeting. That is not to say that other issues were not discussed—however, the Statement made it clear that Iraq and Afghanistan would be the focus. The noble Baroness may wish to look at the communiqué of the meeting; it makes mention of the Istanbul Middle East initiative, which builds on the wider G8 initiative. I am quite happy to write to the noble Baroness on that.
On security in Afghanistan, the noble Baroness is quite right. In certain parts of Afghanistan it has been very difficult to reach the level of security that would enable the broader development and reconstruction effort to take hold. That is precisely why we have taken the slightly different approach of establishing

277
provincial reconstruction teams, a mix of civilian and military. What has been announced following the NATO summit is the addition of four PRTs which will help to establish security in different parts of the country.
Lord Craig of RadleyMy Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. In it, the Prime Minister said:
"I worry that our response is still not sufficient to the scale of the challenge we face".
I wonder what new initiative Her Majesty's Government have in mind to give a lead to others if there is not to be an increase in the operational deployment of our Armed Forces, which are already very heavily committed in Iraq and Afghanistan. What do Her Majesty's Government have it in mind to do?
Baroness AmosMy Lords, following the announcement in Istanbul, we will do two things: first, we shall contribute a new provincial reconstruction team in Afghanistan. Secondly, we have offered our leadership in terms of NATO capabilities in Afghanistan from 2006.
Lord BiffenMy Lords, I wonder whether I could put to the noble Baroness a further question about the elections in Afghanistan. Does she accept, as I do, the description given by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, of the current situation in Afghanistan, which makes the prospect of elections freely fought, as we would understand in the West, wholly remote, thus sustaining the point made by my noble friend Lord Lamont? Can she confirm that the package of support—to use her words—that is to be given for the elections in Afghanistan will include provision for independent monitors who can report on the extent to which this election is a reality and an illusion?
Baroness AmosMy Lords, NATO plans to deploy extra troops to bolster security in the run-up to the Afghan elections this year, including the possible deployment of elements of the NATO response force. We are already looking at how NATO can further assist the Afghan Government and will be encouraging allies to commit troops and resources for the next phase of ISAF expansion.
It would be wrong to assume that the security situation in Afghanistan is such that it means that these elections, which are due to be carried out in September this year, will not be able to go ahead. We have been engaged in discussions with the interim government in Afghanistan over many months, as has the UN. With respect to the noble Lord's point about deploying observers, I am sure that the UN will ensure that that happens.
Lord Astor of HeverMy Lords, the Lord President of the Council did not answer my noble friend's question about the possibility of Parliament being
278
recalled in the event of additional British deployment to Iraq after the House has risen. Can she now respond to that?
Baroness AmosMy Lords, there is not a question to answer. I said in relation to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that this is being kept under review. There is no such decision, so it is not a question that I am able to answer.
The Earl of SandwichMy Lords, I warmly welcome the renewed focus on Afghanistan. as many people involved in Afghanistan aid and reconstruction will. But does the noble Baroness agree that this is only half the story, or less than half the story? She has spoken of the reconstruction teams. They are of course helpful. but the numbers are very small in comparison with the coalition forces which are fighting along the Pakistan border and include some of our own special forces. We very rarely hear any statement which takes into account what the coalition forces are doing. Since there is a lot of concern in the House, could the noble Baroness undertake to give a fuller statement at some future stage, and perhaps a briefing for noble Lords, on the true nature of our security support for Afghanistan?
Baroness AmosMy Lords, I am quite happy to supply a briefing for noble Lords on the security situation in Afghanistan. Noble Lords will know that the Department for International Development puts on its website regular updates about development, but if it would be helpful to do the same for security aspects, I undertake to do so and to put a copy in the Library of the House.
Lord Hannay of ChiswickMy Lords, does the Lord President of the Council agree with me that the outburst of attempts by some member states to persuade the new president-elect of the Commission to allocate certain portfolios to certain nationals is premature, improper and liable to be counter-productive? Will the Government resist any temptation to join in this game?
Does the noble Baroness agree that with regard to Afghanistan, a postponement of the elections would be the worst possible thing in the circumstances? It would show that the men of violence are capable of frustrating the will of the international community. There was a perfectly good precedent in Cambodia, where one-third of the country was prevented by the Khmer Rouge from participating in the United Nations-led elections but the Security Council went ahead, and it was right to do so. Although the position is far from perfect in Cambodia, it is certainly a lot better than it would have been if the elections had been pulled.
Baroness AmosMy Lords, I am sure that the new president is a skilled enough political operator to know that allocating portfolios and choosing the individuals to fill them will have to be done in detailed discussions—very detailed, I am sure—with member states.
The noble Lord,Lord Hannay, is quite right. None of us wants to see the postponement of elections in Afghanistan. I am well aware, from discussions I have had with President Karzai and members of the interim government in Afghanistan, that they do not want to see that happen either. They are very clear about the importance of these elections for securing Afghanistan's future.

Civil Service
4.9 p.m.
Lord Griffiths of Fforestfachrose to call attention to the size of the Civil Service and the case for an independent service; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to introduce this debate on the Civil Service, and, in particular, its size and its independence from undue party political pressure and control.
Let me make it absolutely clear at the outset that this debate is not meant to be a blanket attack from a Conservative point of view on either the Civil Service or, more generally, the public sector. To raise issues regarding the size and independence of the Civil Service is not to argue for a minimalist state or to suggest that government does little but harm. Conservatives are not libertarians. Effective government is critical for the functioning of our economy and for the efficient delivery of public services. For this to happen, it is important that we have a Civil Service made up of talented individuals committed to public service.
We are fortunate that we have such a service in this country. This year celebrates the 150th anniversary of the report of those two Treasury civil servants, Northcote and Trevelyan, which set out the case for a permanent Civil Service based on merit, free of patronage and politically impartial. Since that time, we have seen the development of a public service ethos and character in the Civil Service in this country which has emphasised integrity, honesty, merit, impartiality, probity and a true belief in public service.
Sir Andrew Turnbull, the present head of the Civil Service, is therefore fully justified in describing it as a national asset. It has the power to improve the strength of our economy and to raise the quality of life. I would applaud the work of civil servants during my five and a half years in Number 10. They really lived what they proclaimed.
I shall focus on two issues in this debate. Before I do so, I must declare two interests: first, as the head of the Prime Minister's Policy Unit and special adviser at 10 Downing Street for five and a half years from 1985 to 1990; and secondly, and more recently, as chairman of a company which supplies property-related services to, among others, the public sector and one large government department.
The first issue is size. Under successive Conservative governments, the number of civil servants was reduced from roughly 750,000 to 500,000. The momentum to reduce numbers continued even with the new
280
Government, so that, by 1999, the number was just under 477,000. Then things started to change. By October 2003, the number of civil servants rose by around 35,000 on a full-time equivalent basis and 60,000 part time and full time. With that, there was a 42 per cent increase in costs during that period. Last year, costs increased by around 10 per cent.
I am delighted to say that the Government have now accepted that that party is over. According to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, more than 42,000 Civil Service jobs are to go by 2008; 10,000 jobs are to go from merging the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise; 30,000 jobs are to go at the DWP. The Department for Education and Skills is to cut its headquarter staff by 30 per cent and the Department of Health is to make a cut of nearly 40 per cent. Those are staggering figures. It is not a party political point, but one cannot help feeling that they are a considerable indictment on the way in which the Government have failed to control costs and allowed staff numbers to rise over the past four years.
The driving force for change has been the recent efficiency review led by Sir Peter Gershon. Its goal is a Civil Service which is small, less departmental, more flexible, more innovative and making more use of specialist skills. According to press reports, as a result of departmental mergers, better procurement across government, shared back office services in human resources and finance, and a greater use of IT, the job cuts could amount to 80,000. Will they be realised? I have three reservations.
First, in the private sector, effecting change requires expensive investment. For the Civil Service to realise savings of £15 billion to £20 billion per year, the Government are reported to have set aside a sum of just £300 million to make sure that happens. We know that one major factor in achieving savings is the introduction of information technology. Anyone with experience of this area, however, knows that embarking on reform of IT and predicting IT costs is a treacherous business. Is the Minister satisfied that that figure is really sufficient to achieve those huge savings?
Secondly, although Civil Service jobs are to be cut, public sector employment will not necessarily fall. Cutting Civil Service jobs is a way of freeing up resources to use in the front-line provision of public services. The theory is that people will move from the back office to the classroom, the hospital ward and the care facility. That is excellent theory, but the reality is that as the brake is slammed on in one part of the public sector, the accelerator will be pressed in another. The danger is that we will reduce bureaucracy in the Department of Health, but increase bureaucracy in the regions and in the NHS trusts. Similarly, we might reduce bureaucracy in the Department for Education and Skills, but increase it in local education authorities and the new regulatory bodies. What assurance can the Minister give that we will achieve net cuts?
Thirdly, the Prime Minister, in launching radical change in the Civil Service, talked about,
"less unproductive interference in the day-to-day management of public service".

281
Again, that is a wonderful sentiment, but for this Government, such a statement is almost an oxymoron. New initiatives are the very DNA of new Labour. We have seen literally hundreds of new initiatives in education and health since 1997. We know that new initiatives mean new targets, new quangos and new structures.
The only way we can ensure that the public is better served is not just by cutting in one place and adding in another, but also by restructuring the public services with greater choice for parents and patients, greater operating freedom for producers and less interference from the centre.
I applaud initiatives of the Government such as foundation hospitals, private health facilities being used in the NHS and state schools being run by private sector operators, but instead of being granted real freedom to respond to local needs, they still find themselves part of centrally managed bureaucracies and quangos. The challenge, therefore, is not just to produce a leaner Civil Service and a leaner public sector, but also to ensure at the same time that structural changes take place which ensure that the provision of public services genuinely responds to the needs of parents and patients.
The second issue to which I would like to draw your Lordships' attention is the merits of an independent Civil Service. In my Motion, I have used the word "independent" in relation to the Civil Service. I fully realise that, under our constitution, the Civil Service can never be independent of the government of the day. Civil servants are employed by the Crown and take orders from Ministers as Ministers of the Crown. They owe loyalty to the government of the day, but they do not owe a loyalty to the political party to which members of the Government belong. In that sense, they are independent of party politics. In order to ensure their impartiality, they should not be required, therefore, to take orders from political appointees, but they are required to take orders from Ministers in implementing the manifesto on which an election was won. That is a subtle but important distinction. The charge against the present Government is that they have ridden roughshod over this territory and violated that fine boundary which has existed in practice, but which is not set out in detail anywhere.
In raising the issue of independence, I recognise the value of the adage that people in glasshouses should not throw stones. I fully acknowledge that a failure to meet standards, whether in personal life or in financial matters, by certain individuals in previous Conservative governments, which culminated in that expression "sleaze", means that we on these Benches should be careful before levelling criticism at others. Despite those flaws, to the best of my knowledge, previous Conservative governments were never accused of politicising the Civil Service. The question "Is he one of us?" related to a can-do spirit and an openness to grapple with change, but not to whether civil servants could be relied on slavishly to support a party line. I worked with many civil servants, some of whom, I suspect, would have found it impossible to vote for the Conservative
282
Party. However, they showed a professionalism and a fairness in implementing policy which was second to none.
At the heart of the issue of independence is the charge about the misuse of the position of special advisers—first, about the fact that their numbers have more than doubled, from 38 in 1997 to 81 at the latest count; secondly, and more importantly, due to the fact that there was an increase in No. 10 from eight in 1997 to 27 today; thirdly, about the increasing use of special advisers to make public and private statements to the media on behalf of the Government, which we would never have dared to do in my day; and finally, because of the fact that in No. 10 two special advisers were in 1997 given "executive powers" so that they could give orders to civil servants. For that to happen, the Civil Service Order in Council had to be amended, something which was not subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
The Committee on Standards in Public Life commented that:
"The result is that the posts seem to mark a departure from the role for which special advisers have normally been appointed".
Sir Richard Wilson—now the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, whom I am delighted to see is taking part in this debate—as head of the Civil Service explained that the effect of those powers was to give,
"the right to discuss things with civil servants, and to ask civil servants to take things on without debating whether or not a boundary had been crossed".
It was because of this that in recent years the most senior civil servants—the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, Sir Andrew Turnbull and Sir Nigel Wicks—have all called for a Civil Service Act to define more clearly the boundaries between the work of civil servants and that of political appointees.
The Government's response has been puzzling. They have repeatedly promised to introduce a Civil Service Bill to entrench the core values of the Civil Service, place limits on the activities of special advisers and set out the responsibilities of the Civil Service Commission, which would mean that this area would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. They made that commitment when in opposition, before 1997, confirmed it in July 1998 and July 2000 and again in 2001, and repeated it again in January this year in another place. Yet the Government have still not in fact introduced a Bill.
I shall comment briefly on my own views of those charges. I found that at the apex of British government, in the Cabinet Office and No. 10, the system worked well when the role of each entity—the No. 10 private office, the policy unit, the press office, the political office and the Cabinet Office—was well defined, even though not written down, and when the relevant players were prepared to exercise the necessary self-discipline to make it work. If the role of any part became unclear or if certain individuals refused to play by the rules, as some did, the result was inevitably conflict, confusion, disgruntled Ministers and bad government.
I believe that that is precisely what we have seen in recent years. Dramatically to increase the number of special advisers at No. 10, including two with executive

283
powers, is an attempt, perhaps unintended, to change at a fundamental level the nature of the British constitution. It is to inject into the Prime Minister's office some of the powers of a presidential office. The US system has much to commend it, but we in the UK could go down that route only under a different constitution. Short of that, because the boundaries have been violated, we have strayed into a hybrid situation, in which the independence of the Civil Service is being called into question and in which, if it continues, it will be increasingly difficult to preserve the public service ethos of the Civil Service and recruit the most talented people.
We need change. My own view is that special advisers have an important role to play in good government; that one or at most two special advisers in government departments can help Ministers carry out their responsibilities more effectively; and that the Prime Minister must have the freedom to choose the way his office is structured, but that he or she must accept the constraints of our constitution. Having 27 special advisers in No. 10 is, in my judgment, absolutely outrageous, and in my experience would have meant mayhem. The number should be restricted to eight or, at most, 10. The position of special advisers with "executive powers" should be abolished, and there should be a Civil Service Bill along the lines I have mentioned.
Let me conclude by saying that the public service ethos of our Civil Service is an outgrowth of our particular, but in many ways ill-defined, constitution. We tamper with it at our peril. We want to ensure a lean Civil Service fit for purpose, but above all we want to preserve its independence and impartiality. It is precisely this that the Government have put at risk, which makes the demand therefore for a Civil Service Bill that more urgent. I beg to move for Papers.
4.24 p.m.
Lord Wilson of DintonMy Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on his initiative in arranging this debate. I am not sure whether this is a conflict of interests, but I declare that he and I worked alongside each other when he was head of the policy unit in No. 10 and I was head of the domestic secretariat. We both know from our own experience that special advisers and career civil servants can have a very constructive relationship.
The noble Lord rightly made the point that the size of the Civil Service reduced by nearly 40 per cent between 1976 and 1999. It reached a low point of 460,000 in April 1999. Since then, it has risen again to more than 500,000—I do not know the exact figure—and now we are told that the pendulum is swinging the other way. We have not seen the Gershon report, but we must assume that it is there. The focus appears to be on numbers.
I hope that those who are engaged in the exercise are paying attention to the lessons learned from previous drives to reduce the size of the Civil Service. It is an error to concentrate too heavily on numbers rather than expenditure. The Thatcher government in the early 1980s initially concentrated on manpower controls and a freeze
284
on recruitment. The experience was not particularly successful and, after a while, they developed a more sophisticated regime based on the control of running costs. Over time, it brought about the substantial decline described by the noble Lord.
Controls on numbers are unsatisfactory because they rapidly become a haggle, in which every kind of subterfuge and device gets deployed. People start taking credit for staff numbers reducing when jobs were already going to be lost. People use expensive consultants rather than their own staff, because they do not count against the manpower ceiling, and they time the employment of part-time and casual staff so that it is not reflected in the actual numbers. It becomes a game of meeting numbers rather than managing well. That is a lesson that we can demonstrate clearly.
It is striking that between 1993 and 1997, the then Chancellor, Kenneth Clarke, was very successful in cutting Civil Service numbers, with a certain cheerful brutality that was little noted at the time except by those of us affected by it. Every year, he reduced the running costs of departments by freezing them in cash terms, reducing them by a margin—something like 2.5 per cent—for efficiency, and leaving departments to get on with it. The result was that the head count for the Civil Service quietly declined by more than 100,000 between 1992 and 1998. Then, as the noble Lord said, the squeeze was relaxed and the curve began to climb again.
A squeeze on numbers must be accompanied by an intelligent look at the work that needs to be done. If one uses fewer resources, one needs also to take a sensible look at what those resources are deployed to do. In short, the process needs to be managed intelligently and humanely; if one just frightens the horses, one gets the wrong results and one distorts management.
I turn to the question of an independent Civil Service. I hesitate a little over the word "independent". As the noble Lord acknowledged, it is not entirely satisfactory. The Labour Party manifesto of 2001 said that our Civil Service is well renowned for its independence; I would prefer it to be well renowned for its political impartiality and its integrity. The word "independence" carries a hint that the Civil Service is a separate estate, which it is not.
It is a cardinal characteristic of the Civil Service that its staff are selected on merit, through fair and open competition, in accordance with the rules laid down by the Civil Service commissioners. I am glad to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, is here today. Its staff are also politically impartial. Civil servants are expected to conduct themselves in a way that deserves and retains the confidence not only of current Ministers but also those whom they may be required to serve in future. That is bedrock.
The only civil servants exempt from this requirement are special advisers. They are exempt from the general requirement to be objective and impartial but under the Civil Service Order in Council their role is confined to giving advice only. This applies to all special advisers, as it has done for some years, except for up to three working in No. 10, who may have executive powers.

285
It is common ground among everyone familiar with special advisers that they perform a useful role and that their relationship with career civil servants can be constructive and positive. It is also common ground that the number of special advisers allowed to a Cabinet Minister should be small: at most one or two. That is the position in the present Ministerial Code and was the position for many years under previous governments. I think it is well established. As the noble Lord said, the expansion has been in No. 10 and, to a lesser degree, in the Treasury.
My own view, which I have explained in the House before and on other occasions, is that we have reached the point where we need a Civil Service Act which, among other things, would bring the role of special advisers on to the statute book and more directly under the scrutiny of Parliament. Parliament has a role to play in this, for the reasons given by the noble Lord. We explored this in the Second Reading of the excellent Bill drafted by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. I will not go over the ground again.
I would like to address the issue of special advisers in No. 10 having executive powers. We need to ask ourselves why they need, or may need, executive powers. The Wicks committee, in its admirable ninth report, Defining the Boundaries within the Executive: Ministers, Special Advisers and the permanent Civil Service, identified a number of things that those who hold executive powers should not be able to do. They should not have responsibility for the appraisal, reward, discipline or promotion of civil servants, nor should they be able to give instructions to civil servants outside the Prime Minister's office. I wholeheartedly agree with the Wicks committee and I would add recruitment to the list. I do not think that holders of executive power should be able to recruit permanent civil servants.
So, if special advisers with executive powers are to be allowed, what should they be able to do? According to the Wicks committee, they might authorise the spending of government money chargeable to the Prime Minister's office. I am not clear that that is in fact an important aspect of the work carried out by those special advisers who have had these powers so far. It would be interesting to know if they have ever actually authorised expenditure. Secondly, according to the Wicks committee, executive powers allow them to play a role in the line management of civil servants. Thirdly, they allow them to have charge of, or direction over, the work of Government Information and Communications Service members in the Prime Minister's office.
This is the heart of the matter. I suspect that it boils down to a wish to allow one or two special advisers to coordinate activities in No. 10 alongside the principal private secretary: to chair meetings; to direct people about the work they should do; to direct communications with the media; and generally to help run No. 10. There is a risk in all this. The risk, however theoretical, is that, once formalised, these executive powers could be used to put career civil servants in No. 10 into a difficult position over
286
maintaining political impartiality. I am not saying that this has happened. I am merely saying that the potential exists.
I believe that it ought normally to be possible, given the wealth of talent in the Civil Service, to find people who can provide Ministers with the quality of support that they want in No. 10 from within the ranks of the Civil Service without having to resort to special advisers with executive powers. Such civil servants have been found very often in the past. But Prime Ministers differ. I recognise that No. 10 is special in the way that the two great streams of politics and government come together there. It gives the work of No. 10 a special quality. I also recognise that from time to time there have been Prime Ministers who wanted to have one or two close confidantes to help them to run No. 10 and the government; I refer, for example, to Disraeli and Corry, to Harold Macmillan and John Wyndham and to the small group around Harold Wilson.
It may be that there should be some limited flexibility to allow executive powers in the Civil Service Bill, but on conditions. The post of principal private secretary must not be undermined. It has a constitutional significance and plays a key role in making sure that the executive powers are not abused. The creation of such posts must be subject to some form of approval by Parliament at the beginning of each Parliament, as must the total number of special advisers deployed across the whole of government. Here, as elsewhere, I see Parliament and the Civil Service Commissioners having a key role in ensuring that the value of the Civil Service as a national asset is preserved.
4.34 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of TwysdenMy Lords, I also congratulate my noble friend on having arranged this very timely debate. I agreed with everything that he said and will try not to say too much of it again. We all look forward to two maiden speeches.
In these circumstances, I propose. rather curiously, to begin my few remarks with a reference to a speech made in March by the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, at the Second Reading of the Executive Powers and Civil Service Bill. I am delighted to see him in his place. He said that a great many people who serve in the Civil Service, even in these cynical days, believe that:
"The opportunity to take a part in the defence of our country or to play a part in its achievements is one of the noblest of aims".—[Official Report, 5/3/04; col. 895.]
I am inclined to think that very many people who serve in the Civil Service and who serve all of us so very admirably hold to that very proper belief. Long may that continue, but how long will it continue?
The answer to that question will be influenced very considerably by whether a sufficient supply of recruits to Her Majesty's Home Civil Service who are thus motivated will remain. It will depend upon how we treat that service now. I say "now" because of how the public perceive the Civil Service now. I turn to the speech made during the discussion of the Bill of the

287
noble Lord, Lord Lester, by the noble Lord who has just sat down, who was the former head of the Civil Service. He said:
"There is a wide perception that the Civil Service has become politicised. I regret that perception very much. In some ways, it is confusing, because the term is unclear and means different things to different people. Whether one believes it or not, it is a perception which has now to be addressed".
The noble Lord, Lord Wilson, had spoken earlier of those features of the Civil Service that must not change. I agree with him. He listed them:
"selection on merit, integrity, political impartiality, giving its best advice, and a commitment to public service".
He went on to say:
"At a time of rapid change, Parliament and the public are entitled to be reassured that those characteristics … indeed remain unchanged".—[Official Report, 5/3/04; col. 917.]
I cannot think of any possible meaning of the term "politicisation" that does not undermine each and every one of those characteristics. Yet it is surely those very characteristics that are attractive to the type of recruit who we need for the service.
I do not think that one can sensibly ascribe the decline in public confidence and in the public perception of the Civil Service to any single factor. I think there are several factors. Noble Lords can, no doubt, think of different ones. I think that if any political party is in government for more than two successive Parliaments and one is an official at a certain level, it must be only too natural to fear that in order to get on it might be wise at least to hint at holding congenial opinions. That idea must never be given any encouragement at all by Ministers or by anyone else but I reckon that it can exist.
Along with my noble friend, I am in no doubt that the factor contributing most to the decline in public perception has been the rise of the special adviser, which has been made even more manifest in recent years. I thought that there were 73, or possibly 77, of them. I took that from the most recent research that I looked at, but my noble friend tells us that there are 81. In any event, it is more than twice what it was in 1997. It is not their cost that I mind so much, £5 million or more though it is; it is their burgeoning function. As we have been told by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, their function now extends far beyond the function of giving advice only, specified in an Order in Council in 1995, which was amended two or three years later, as we have been reminded, to allow up to three officials in the Prime Minister's office to have executive powers. For that the Government must take responsibility.
Some of these functions may well be necessary. I am inclined to believe that some of them are; that seems almost to be common ground. It may very well be impractical to list fully all the things that they can properly do, but one can set out qualities and characteristics. However, what is absent is something that I think would be perfectly practicable: a clear and definitive formulation in statutory form of what they cannot do and must not do. Without that, I think that the boundaries will always remain debateable, that what
288
one might call "adviser creep" will flourish, and that suspicious and adverse perceptions will, accordingly, abound.
I think that that was clearly recognised by the Committee on Standards in Public Life in its ninth report, already referred to, which was published last April. It recommended that,
"a clear statement of what special advisers cannot do",
should be set out in primary legislation. For that list the committee adopted the views given to it, in his evidence, by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, as he now is. He set out a series of qualities, which I will not, in the short time available, recite. The noble Lord made the point that it should be in primary legislation.
How did the Government respond? A few months later, in September, they said that the issue of what special advisers can and cannot do is best dealt with in a code of conduct rather than on the face of a Bill. I interpose simply to suggest to your Lordships that these matters are far too important to be left to a code of conduct. The Government said:
"They should be able to convey to officials ministers' views, instructions and work priorities, commission internal analyses and papers, and hold meetings with officials to discuss the advice being put to ministers".
It is fair to say at this point that, in December, in the face of protests, the Prime Minister, in the words of the head of the Civil Service,
"having reflected on the wording",
deleted the "instructions" bit. That is rather an unusual way of alluding to a massive constitutional innovation, one might have thought, and rather a shocking one as well; but there we are.
As Sir Nigel Wicks asked in a speech at Portcullis House on 29 October,
"how is the hard-pressed middle-ranking official in a department to know when a special adviser conveys to officials Ministers' views, instructions, or work priorities",
that,
"these are indeed the Minister's own views, instructions and work priorities—not those of the special adviser"?
I come to the conclusion. What we accordingly need is, as my noble friend said, a Civil Service Act. It would protect the idea and the ideal of the impartial service to government by means of a clear exposition of the status and duties of civil servants, including special advisers. In March we were promised a draft Bill, and it might even be before the summer Recess! We do not need one. We have had consultations galore, at least for the past seven years and arguably for the past 150. We need a substantive Bill and we need it now.
4.43 p.m.
Lord GardenMy Lords, I thank your Lordships for the warmth of the welcome that I have experienced since joining your Lordships' House. It has been an extraordinarily pleasant experience to be introduced into the sometimes singular ways of this great institution. The staff at every level have made it their business to help, and I congratulate them all on what seems to me a very modern approach to induction training. The freshers' fair, an innovation yesterday in

289
the Moses Room, was an excellent way of meeting everyone and learning about what happens. So any faults in the procedure of the House will be mine alone, given the quality and, indeed, quantity of guidance that I have received.
I have been fortunate to have been advising the Liberal Democrat Party on foreign and defence policy since my retirement from the Royal Air Force eight years ago. That has often brought me into contact with the work of your Lordships' House. I have been much helped also by serving a fairly long apprenticeship as the research assistant to my noble friend Lord Roper. The debates and questions in my area of interest have always been a treasure trove of information from the most well informed sources and I look forward to opportunities to contribute to those debates in future.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach, for the opportunity to make my maiden speech on a subject that is dear to my heart—the Civil Service. I have worked with members of the Civil Service at every level, both when I was in the Air Force and subsequently since I retired. I think that we have a tendency to focus too much just on the policy makers who live down the road in Whitehall and to forget that, as other noble Lords have said, the Civil Service comprises more than half a million people—public servants operating not just at home but around the world in the service of the nation. In the Statement this afternoon, the Lord President told us about the dedication not only of the Armed Forces but of the British public servants in Iraq. That is a good example of what the Civil Service is about. It encompasses a wide range of activities.
I have always been impressed by civil servants' dedication and—a word we have heard time and again this afternoon—integrity. This debate is an opportunity to pay tribute to these men and women who continue to work in the best traditions of the public service.
In order to attract recruits of the right calibre at all levels, Civil Service pay and conditions must broadly follow what is happening in the rest of the world in the commercial sector. As that causes the continual problem of rising personnel costs that outstrip inflation, we continually face pressure to reduce numbers. While industry can square that circle by using technology to increase productivity, it is not as easy as that for many parts of the public service where what counts is the numbers on the ground. The noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, suggested some interesting ways of getting round that, but, as he said, money is what ultimately counts.
As a result, successive governments of all political colours have looked constantly for ways of cutting the size and cost of the Civil Service. Twenty five years ago we had more than 300,000 civil servants in the defence field, but that has now been reduced to about 90,000. The reduction to less than one third of the original number has proportionately been much greater than the cuts in the Armed Forces in the same time, and many of the tasks that the Armed Forces had to perform were transferred across to their Civil Service colleagues.
290
I believe that we need to take great care in how we handle the future of the Civil Service so that we do not appear in our rhetoric to undervalue its contribution to the nation. It is understandable that the remorseless pressure to contain public spending will focus on the elimination of unnecessary costs. However, in the rhetoric of cutting bureaucracy we need to remember that the bureaucrats are there because the Government have brought their posts into existence. Each individual civil servant rightly has career aspirations and a sense of pride in their job.
In the field of national security, which interests me, we have seen a new transfer of the burden from military hands to the Civil Service. The most recent defence White Paper, Command Paper 6041, published last December, stated:
"The safety and security of the population of the UK is the responsibility of the Home Office and similar bodies and devolved Administrations".
So the Civil Service is in the front line in these new and difficult times for security. I shall look forward to examining their role when we soon consider the long awaited Civil Contingencies Bill.
There is one area of the policy-making Civil Service that has been of concern to me over a number of years. The higher reaches of Whitehall have traditionally contained some of the best intellects in the country—and I recognise a number of your Lordships who fit that description. I have always found it an extraordinarily stimulating experience to work with my Civil Service colleagues during my various times in Whitehall. Yet at a time when technology has an ever greater impact on policy, we continue to see few at the top of the policy-making career ladder with a scientific training. I wrote a book 15 years ago about the difficulties of making optimum decisions in defence policy. I do not think that things have changed much over that 15 years. I concluded that we might do a little better if some of the policy-makers had a reasonable grounding in science.
Professor David King, the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser, warned in June 2001 that:
"The tremendous capacity of science is not being used to assist government and policy-makers in the best way".
Sir Andrew Turnbull, in his open letter to all staff on the Civil Service website, says:
"Technology will make a huge impact on the services we provide to the public".
Today, of the 19 Permanent Secretaries in Whitehall, only one records a first degree in a scientific discipline. In deference to the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach, I record that nine of the Permanent Secretaries—that is, nearly half—have qualifications which include economics. However, I do not think it is worth starting a debate on whether economics is a science or an art.
We have a Civil Service that is under great pressure, both in tasks and resources. We need to be able to recruit people willing to devote themselves to the development and delivery of good government. Today's Civil Service is striving hard to set an example as an employer that welcomes diversity and is truly

291
representative of wider society. We should be particularly proud of the record of integrity throughout the Civil Service.
I believe that we need to cherish the qualities that make our Civil Service, but that does not mean that it is immune to change. Keeping the loyalty, dedication and integrity of these public servants must be done, while at the same time broadening the range of expertise at the highest levels.
4.51 p.m.
Lord Dean of HarptreeMy Lords, on behalf of the whole House it is my privilege to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Garden, on his very authoritative maiden speech. I hope that he will not consider it impertinent that congratulations come from someone who was a mere Army captain in World War II. The noble Lord comes here with a great record in our armed services, of which we are justly proud. I know that I speak for the whole House when I say how much we look forward to many future contributions from the noble Lord.
I should like to add my thanks to my noble friend Lord Griffiths for introducing such an important and topical subject today. I begin by making two general points. First, as I see it, there are two key elements in this debate. One concerns the relations between Ministers and civil servants, which must be close, impartial—I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, in that regard—and based on trust. The other point, which I believe is equally important, is that every Minister must be a member of either the Commons or the Lords.
I wish to expand briefly on those two points. Civil servants are the professionals and the experts. Ministers are amateurs who need a good political nose. Civil servants advise, Ministers decide. If Ministers get it wrong too often, they very quickly find themselves confined to the Back Benches. I remember very well when I was first made a Minister in the Department of Health and Social Security in 1970 when the Conservative Party was not expected to win the election. I was amazed by the amount of work that was done by officials on the Conservative manifesto and on Conservative speeches. That made for a smooth transition from one government to another, provided some element of continuity and, above all, prevented, I hope, junior Ministers like me making silly mistakes through ignorance or over enthusiasm.
The second point, which I think is equally important, is that all Ministers should be members of one or other House. This applies in particular to the House of Commons where Ministers are elected like every other MP and have constituents to look after. They are subject to the gusts of emotion that can sweep through the House of Commons out of a clear blue sky. They are, therefore, in a very good position to take the pulse of Parliament and people. Civil servants, of course, are not involved in that, and nor should they be, but Ministers must be. The link with Parliament keeps Ministers on their toes. It also imposes on the Civil Service an obligation not to advise policies to Ministers that they know Parliament will not accept.
292
We must take account of those two key elements when we are discussing these matters. It enables us to keep the relationships in parliamentary government in good repair.
In the time that is available to me I want to refer to one other aspect, which has already been referred to by my noble friend Lord Griffiths and the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, and that is the tension which is now developing between Ministers and the Civil Service. I am not making a party point: this has happened under Conservative governments recently as it has under Labour governments. However, it emphasises the need, which has already been stated, for a Civil Service Act. This has been advocated for years with great authority in both Houses of Parliament. It has also been advocated in the Wicks committee report, Defining the Boundaries within the Executive.
It is sad that the Government have always appeared lukewarm when answering debates on this subject. I am so glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, on the Government Front Bench. He has responded to debates on this subject, as he always does, with great courtesy. However, he will be conscious of the fact that his answers have not been met with great enthusiasm in any part of the House. I do not blame the noble Lord for that; he is batting on a very sticky wicket, and, unfortunately, his captain has always selected the worst bat he can find in the pavilion to send him in with. We do not blame the noble Lord personally at all. However, it is good to note that he will answer yet another debate on this important subject.
I have time only to mention very briefly one other issue that I believe has been raised in all the speeches so far; namely, the position of special advisers. They have more than doubled in number in 10 years under both governments. I hold the old-fashioned view that the best political adviser to a Minister is the Minister himself. However, that is an old-fashioned view. We now have special advisers and we have to live with them. Their functions and their powers should be much more clearly defined by statute passed by Parliament not by a code of conduct over which Parliament has little or no control. That was, of course, one of the key recommendations of the Wicks committee. I believe, as does the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, that it is disturbing that in some cases special advisers should have executive powers to direct civil servants. That is a very disturbing and sinister development.
We have been promised a draft Civil Service Bill this Session. That, of course, is better than nothing but, as we are getting towards the end of this Parliament, it almost certainly means there will be no Bill on the statute book in this Parliament. I suggest that that reveals an odd sense of priorities when one considers the time and effort that your Lordships' House is giving at the present moment to other issues.
Lord TriesmanMy Lords, I am not making any reference to the previous speech or the exceptional speech that preceded it, but if we stuck to eight minutes we would finish the debate on time.
5 p.m.
Baroness HenigMy Lords, I speak in the debate with some apprehension and no little anxiety. I am, however, grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, for providing me with this opportunity. Like the noble Lord, Lord Garden, I have been greatly encouraged in the past two weeks by the considerable kindness and support extended to me by all your Lordships and the staff of the House, for which I am extremely grateful. A new Member cannot fail to draw comfort from the strong collegiality displayed by the Members of this House; in return, I promise to observe the guiding conventions that my contribution be short and non-contentious.
There is a third convention not so explicitly defined by the House, but well known to all parents—that we should not embarrass our children in public. Suffice it to say that my younger son is considerably relieved that his mother has at last been allocated a secure home in sheltered accommodation and out of harm's way.
The issues which have surfaced in the debate are of considerable interest to me, as I have spent more than 30 years teaching modern history and British foreign policy at Lancaster University. I recall many a stimulating tutorial discussing with students relationships between Prime Ministers and their senior advisers, the advent and impact of special and political advisers in the 1920s, and opposition demands for an end to waste and the reduction of bureaucracy—objectives which have sometimes assumed considerably lower priority when opposition leaders have found themselves in government. Over the years, governments of whatever hue have promised streamlining and efficiencies. Actually achieving them has proved more problematic, as we may find when Gershon's review is revealed.
It may interest your Lordships to know that, as a new student at London University, my interest in history and understanding of modern political theory was greatly enhanced by a tutor who was then at the start of an illustrious academic career, and has since become an influential and respected Member of this House. It has to be admitted that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, failed to turn me into an enthusiast for the intricacies of Tudor and Stuart history or an expert on the English Civil War, but as my college tutor for three years he provided encouragement and inspiration and helped to launch me on my academic career, for which I have always been grateful. He is unwell at the moment, and I am sure that all Members join me in wishing him a speedy recovery.
Noble LordsHear, hear!
Baroness HenigMy Lords, over the past 20 years I have also served as a magistrate, a Lancashire county councillor and chair of the Lancashire Police Authority. Since 1997, I have chaired the national Association of Police Authorities. In that capacity, I have had the pleasure of working with a range of very able civil servants and government advisers to help to draw up new policies in areas such as community
294
safety, police reform and race and diversity training. I have then had the singular experience, at local level, of endeavouring to implement and deliver those policies.
It is with the benefit of that dual experience that I endorse the views of Sir Andrew Turnbull, the head of the Civil Service, to make what I hope will be a non-controversial point. He observed last year that the most important challenge facing the Civil Service, and its greatest priority, was to become more customer-focused and skilled in service delivery. People are demanding more personalised public services and a better quality of provision, and the Government's public service reforms are aimed at responding to those demands.
Senior civil servants are rightly renowned for their high level of policy analysis, and for the succinct yet compelling argumentation of the briefs that they produce. But what of their practical experience? How well do they understand the problems of those on the front line charged with delivering services? Can they work effectively with partners across the public and private sectors at central and local level? Do they have appropriate management and interpersonal skills, and the ability to help to transform our public services and make them more responsive and more efficient? I agree with Sir Andrew that that is indeed the greatest priority and challenge currently facing the Civil Service.
For me, there is a second very important priority. I welcome the recent initiatives which, through open competition, have brought a number of talented and highly skilled practitioners from the voluntary and private sectors into the Civil Service, and begun to devolve decision-making and resources to frontline services. We now see more diversity in senior and middle ranks in the Civil Service. However, much more still needs to be done to promote the Civil Service as an attractive career option for people from all walks of life, and as a service in which diversity—in terms of both academic background, as the noble Lord, Lord Garden, suggested, and gender and ethnicity—is welcomed and fully reflected at the most senior levels. I hope that it will not be regarded as too controversial if I quote a successful businesswoman who once said:
"The ceiling isn't glass; it's a very dense layer of men".
Convention prevents me on this occasion engaging with the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, and other speakers about the relative merits of the different priorities and issues that they highlighted. I hope that that convention will not hold me back from engaging fully in future debates on more controversial issues. I conclude by observing that reforming governments of the past hundred years have always presented complex challenges to their senior civil servants. A succession of highly talented and able officials—many of whom I am delighted to see as distinguished Members of this House, including the noble Lord, Lord Wilson—have worked closely with Ministers and their advisers to deliver significant and lasting change. They have achieved that without in any way affecting the impartiality or integrity which will assuredly continue to be a distinguishing hallmark of our Civil Service.
5.7 p.m.
Baroness Perry of SouthwarkMy Lords, it is with very great pleasure that I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, on a speech that was elegant, eloquent and delivered with a great deal of humour. The House looks forward very much to the contribution that she will be able to make, from not only her long academic experience—it is delightful to have someone who has experience of modern European history to contribute to the House's debates—but her long record of public service with the police authorities.
I thank my noble friend Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach very much for giving us an opportunity to talk about the Civil Service. For too many in the general British public, civil servants are seen either as the cunning and rather malevolent Sir Humphrey or, perhaps in more direct experience for many of them, the not-particularly loved frontline servants in the social security offices, jobcentres and, indeed, income tax offices. That is a very distorted picture of what the Civil Service is about.
I speak from 17 years of having been a member of a particular category of civil servant; namely, the professional advisers in the Civil Service, as one of Her Majesty's inspectors in the department for education. I spent the last 12 of my 17 years working alongside—in the same corridor and in next-door rooms—the administrators of the department, joining them in the same meetings and working with them to help to produce briefings for Ministers, contributing to White Papers, and so on.
Although I, after 17 years, was one of the not-so-common members of the Civil Service who went over the wall into other employment, one of the first things that struck me was how many of my administrative colleagues saw their commitment to public service as civil servants literally as a lifetime commitment. It was not in any way a passing bit of a career, but a very positive choice that many of them made as young graduates and saw as lasting an entire lifetime. I saw them come in during the 1970s and 1980s, and they were undoubtedly the brightest and best of their generation, wholly willing and eager to propose new ideas and initiatives. They were not at all of the stick-in-the-mud and rather tedious "Yes Minister" picture that is often given.
They were, quite rightly, absolutely loyal to their Ministers and it has been said that it was impossible for them constitutionally ever to speak in public against Ministers' policies. Nevertheless, they had the immense privilege, denied to many of the general public, of being able to argue with Ministers in private, and I assure noble Lords that they frequently did so. As has been said, they fiercely defended the political independence that they enjoyed and if any politician attempted to interfere or influence them on political grounds they were stoutly put in their place.
296
I was saddened to hear the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, who is no longer in his place, in a recent debate on other matters describe a civil servant as,
"one who dances to another man's tune".—[Official Report, 14/6/04; col. 510.]
I found that extremely offensive. That does not apply to the civil servants whom I knew; they were proudly impartial and had their own strong convictions and ideas. It seemed to me that there was a well understood dividing line between the initiatives that they were prepared to bring to politicians—within the limits of the policy laid down by Ministers. My experience is that Ministers want ideas; they know the general direction in which they wish to move and rely on their civil servants and professional advisers—as in the department for education, where Ministers relied heavily on Her Majesty's inspectors for the innovative ideas that would enable them to turn those broad policy objectives into reality and into a form which could be implemented.
I wish briefly to pay tribute to the whole special class of professionals in the Civil Service. It is not said often enough for the general public's understanding that there is a huge range of professionals: lawyers, economists, accountants, architects, doctors, senior doctors, nurses and, as we know in the tragic case of Dr David Kelly, in the intelligence services. They are professionals who bring their independent professional advice, value and judgment to Ministers and to politicians. In a certain way they enjoy an independence which even their administrative colleagues would occasionally envy. But without such professional advice from that range of professionals to shape and to guide government policies, those government policies would be immensely less acceptable and certainly would be infinitely less workable or capable of implementation.
Good government relies on the expertise and day-to-day knowledge of its professional advisers and its administrative advisers. My experience suggests that it is weak Ministers who offer suspicion of their civil servants. It is foolish Ministers who ignore the advice of their professional advisers or their Civil Service advisers.
I should like to return to the subject of my own service in Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools. It was founded in 1839 and radically altered by the creation of Ofsted in 1992. In those more than 150 years its role changed from one generation to another. In the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s its role had settled in to a pattern which was much valued by successive Secretaries of State of both major parties in offering advice informed by the massive evidence of observation in thousands of classrooms, lecture rooms, labs and workshops throughout the country.
HMIs are appointed by the Queen in Council and enjoy a degree of independence which arises from their huge backlog of evidence from those observations in classrooms. On many occasions around a Secretary of State's table I have heard HMI be able to set Ministers on a slightly different course by saying, "But, Minister, we have seen 10,000 cases of such and such and this is what the evidence shows". Although the creation of

297
Ofsted has resulted in radical changes, not least the present use of hundreds of part-time inspectors who have not had the benefit of, one might say, indoctrination into good Civil Service procedures and practice and into the delicacies of the Civil Service role, vis-à-vis the politicians.
Nevertheless, there are still full-time HMIs in Ofsted with considerable room to influence the public through the reports of their inspections and through their public pronouncements. I regret that they no longer conduct their wide-scale inspections of aspects of education policy that were so influential in the 1980s and 1990s, but I echo only what was said by the authors of a well-known book on HMI. They completed that book with the words:
"As education becomes increasingly politicised, the independent professional voice of HMI will be needed more than ever".
I hope that it will be.
5.16 p.m.
Lord LipseyMy Lords, I join in the general congratulation of the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, for calling this debate. As I know him, I know that he will not mind if I devote my few remarks to the areas in which I do not wholly agree with him, rather than to those in which I do.
My first point concerns independence as a whole. In this place we are prone to the "Ain't everything getting worse?" school of thought, but that can blind us to the fact that in some ways the Civil Service is more, not less, independent now than it was in the past. I shall give the House just two examples. Can anyone doubt that under the Food Standards Agency the practical independence of that admirable body is far in advance of what it was under the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF)? It was often independent of the Government of the day but never of the National Farmers' Union. That independence was a huge step forward for practical Civil Service independence.
Another example of which I am more a victim than anything else is the Nolan principles which are applied now to appointments. In my day Ministers would often appoint their chums. I was sitting in the bar here the other day lamenting the fact that it is now easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a Labour supporter—certainly a Labour supporter in this House—to be given a good public appointment, even if that person is admirably qualified, because Ministers are so nervous of being accused of interfering with Civil Service independence. I could multiply such examples, but it is not all getting worse.
The second point that I must address as a representative of the "National Union of Ex-Special Advisers", who are represented on all three party Benches this afternoon, is the notion that there has been some terrible decline in the independence of the Civil Service because we now have some 90 special advisers in Whitehall. I agree that there are more special advisers in Whitehall than there were in the
298
previous government after the departure of the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths. But that is not surprising. A government who are highly activist—some of us sometimes think hyper-activist—are bound to require more special advisers than a government who are reduced to splashing about in the malodorous juices of their own misery. That is wholly appropriate. Compared with the core of the senior Civil Service the number of special advisers is really not great enough to have the power that is ascribed to them.
However, there is a danger because every time that we stand up to say how powerful the special advisers are, without realising it we are actually undermining the permanent Civil Service. I shall not name the organisation, but the other day I saw a letter to a Minister from an organisation in which I am involved. The letter was over a matter which was principally for civil service administrators. But the letter had been copied to the two special advisers at the department—not to the civil servants responsible, not to the people at whom it should have been aimed, but to the special advisers. I expect that we hired some public affairs consultant who told us that that was the thing to do.
That is a serious concern—or it should be. That is when things start bypassing the proper functions of the special adviser and the career civil servant and get into a different channel. In the light of my experience, I hope that in my dealings with Whitehall I can distinguish between the two and put things into the right channel for the right action. That might help to deal with the problem.
My third and final point concerns size and to a lesser extent quality. Shortly before coming into the Chamber today, I noticed that the Government were advertising for an official to take charge of Sure Start. I can think of no more important position in the world than heading up Sure Start, but the salary was less than a slight City acquaintance of mine is paying his secretary. There is bound to be an erosion of quality. I noticed that Clive Hawkswood—many of us will know him as an admirable DCMS official; the very model of a modern mandarin, open and communicative, still totally loyal and enthusiastic has moved to a private sector post. I have not asked him why, but I cannot help thinking that if his career had been rapidly advanced to the right height, as I wish it had been, he might not be leaving. But there is a danger. If you continue to underpay people, you will experience that loss. If you continue to underrate people, you will experience that loss, which has been most insidious.
I was so disappointed when my Government—the Government I support—came to power. I thought that some of the previous government downgrading of Civil Service work would stop. I was disappointed soon to find that Ministers were issuing the same kind of criticisms about the civil servants not working hard enough, not obeying orders and so forth, as had been prominent in the previous government. The present Government are the "Yes, Minister" generation coming to power and sniffing out causes for suspicion where none exist. I regret it and believe that it is bad for the quality of the Civil Service.

299
Finally, as regards size, I agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson. Indeed, I would go further. I recently wrote a book on the Treasury, examining the changes in its senior structure. Coming to it as an objective outsider, it seemed clear to me that it had gone from too swollen a structure to too lean a structure. Given the weight of its policy preoccupations and the issues with which it had to deal at a top level, not enough top, experienced people were being kept. I saw good, honest, intelligent officials shunted into early retirement to save a bob or two and I felt that a cost was being paid for that.
It is so easy to get a cheap round of applause by saying, "Let's cut the Civil Service". It is so easy to do it without regard to functions, or fitness for purpose, or any of its strengths. It is totally depressing and enervating to watch the two great parties of state in a competition saying, "Oh, mine's going to be smaller than yours. Mine is smaller than yours". We really need to be more adult about these things. The country has a job it expects its Civil Service to do and it must be staffed appropriately for that job. I hope that if nothing else comes out of the debate, that message, which has been echoed around the Chamber, will filter through.
5.23 p.m.
Baroness PrasharMy Lords, I, too, would like to thank my noble friend Lord Griffiths for initiating this debate. I am grateful to have this opportunity to contribute to it. In so doing, I must start by declaring an interest. I am the First Civil Service Commissioner, charged with upholding the core values of the Civil Service; namely, integrity, honesty, impartiality, objectivity and selection on merit. I will therefore confine my contribution to the second part of my noble friend's Motion.
As your Lordships have already heard, it is the 150th anniversary of the Northcote-Trevelyan report on the organisation of the Civil Service. Those reforms established an impartial Civil Service with recruitment and promotion on merit and did away with patronage. The objective of the reforms was to ensure an effective Civil Service, fit for purpose and respected by the public.
We have succeeded in them. I regularly see a stream of visitors from a number of countries who regard us as a model of good practice, but when seeing them I often wonder whether we here truly value what we have. It is very easy to take for granted something that is so well established and not pay much attention to maintaining and, particularly at a time of great change, reinforcing the values which have made the Civil Service such an admired institution. I believe that there is a danger of complacency, or even benign neglect.
We all recognise that since the Northcote-Trevelyan reforms the context within which the Civil Service operates has changed: public expectations have risen; scrutiny and accountability have become sharper, and technology and globalisation pose new challenges. Of course the Civil Service needs to change and evolve and there must always be the capacity to change and adapt.
300
As we all know, the Civil Service has never stood still. In the past 25 years, we have witnessed significant changes and are continuing to do so. They were first initiated by my noble friend Lord Wilson and are being continued by Sir Andrew Turnbull.
With such an emphasis on the focus, approach and structure of the Civil Service, it is equally important that principles such as political impartiality are resolutely maintained. The effectiveness of the Civil Service, whatever its organisation and size, is built on those enduring values. But in my view, those values are under-noticed, under-regarded and sometimes taken for granted. We pay little attention to them.
This is not a new phenomenon. At a time of any major change in the early 1990s, the then Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee stated:
"The Civil Service is a national asset transferred from one administration to the next in accordance with the wishes of the electorate. Its efficiency and effectiveness as the instrument of successive governments and the delivery of services to the nation as a whole should, therefore, be a matter of fundamental concern to politicians of all parties".
Yes, it should be a matter of fundamental concern and, I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, not a political football for politicians to kick around.
We have already heard that the Civil Service is a national asset and the government of the day hold it in trust on behalf of the nation. Values which have been the bedrock of the Civil Service must therefore be upheld by Ministers, civil servants and politicians. It is incumbent upon Ministers, their special and political advisers and civil servants, to respect and uphold those values particularly enshrined in the Civil Service Code which sets out the values and boundaries that underpin the work of the Civil Service. I say that because as a regulator—it is my job to monitor their implementation—I take the view that it is important that these values are owned by the institution itself—that they are part of its DNA.
The Civil Service is not independent of the government of the day. Its job is to serve the government of the day with loyalty and commitment, irrespective of personal political views. In that sense, it is politically impartial. But this is of course a two-way relationship. Civil servants serve the government of the day to the best of their ability. On the other hand, Ministers have a duty to give fair consideration and due weight to their advice and not use them for party-political purposes.
There are some evident risks in that relationship which must be watched and need constant attention, particularly at a time when the Civil Service is under tremendous pressure to adapt to new ways of doing business. We are seeing a substantial number of appointments to the senior Civil Service being filled by open competition.
Of course, we need new blood and new skills that are vital in the modern Civil Service, and getting the best people available is imperative. However, we must also ensure that they understand the values that protect the impartiality of the service; in other words, values need constant attention.

301
In my view, that was the main thrust of the ninth report of the Wicks committee, which has been mentioned, which stated:
"We believe that two measures can help provide public assurance that core values are upheld while at the same time ensuring that the Civil Service is fit for purpose. These are:

to put the Civil Service on a statutory footing…

to reinforce the independent scrutiny of maintenance of the core values of the Civil Service".

I think that both are important. We want to ensure that the culture of impartiality is promoted, and that we do not solely rely on the Act, although we need the Act in terms of parliamentary scrutiny.
All the evidence is that the Civil Service Code is not being actively promoted. It is not well known and sometimes not even fully understood. I say that because I go to the Civil Service College to give talks and I am always astounded by the lack of knowledge about the Civil Service Code. In my view, the promotion of the Civil Service Code during induction and thereafter as part of regular training is indispensable if it is to become embedded in the Civil Service culture and it should become a living reality with Civil Service departments taking a lead. It would therefore be helpful to hear from the Minister what progress, if any, has been made in implementing the Wicks committee recommendations on the promotion of the Civil Service Code.
As to the Civil Service Act, repeated calls have been made over a number of years and a number of noble Lords have said that the pace of change is extremely slow. It would be helpful to have some idea of the timetable and also to hear some comments on what I suggested at Second Reading on the Private Member's Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Lester; namely, that we need a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider the Bill. It would be helpful to hear the Minister's response on that.
When I do my work I am constantly reminded of a saying that the British acquire their institutions by accident and lose them in a fit of absentmindedness. If we do not take action, we may wake up one morning and find that the values have weakened to a point of no return.
5.32 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne HillMy Lords, the whole House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach, for having introduced this timely debate on a subject of real public importance about a national asset essential to good governance. I too have a particular interest as former special adviser to the then Home Secretary, Roy Jenkins, and because of my Civil Service Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, gave a most thoughtful speech, with much of which I entirely agree. We have also had the advantage of two excellent maiden speeches: charming, witty and truly practical by my noble and almost gallant friend Lord Garden,
302
and by the noble Baroness, Lady Henig. They will add their expertise, authority and sense of humour to the debates in this House.
The debate has also been enriched by contributions from a former Cabinet Secretary, the present First Civil Service Commissioner, a former Attorney-General and another former special adviser with form, the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey.
For the past couple of decades, fundamental questions have been raised, not only by politicians but also by civil servants about their profession and its place within our constitutional system of parliamentary government. The work of the Commons Select Committee on Public Administration chaired by Tony Wright MP has made an important contribution. This debate will contribute further to public discussion about what the Civil Service is for, and about its relationship with Ministers, Parliament, the courts, the media and our fellow citizens.
I want to raise one small point before I continue. The noble Baroness, Lady Henig, mentioned diversity but there is one aspect of diversity that the Disability Rights Commission asked me to raise and I do so. The commission is concerned that with any reduction in the numbers in the Civil Service, the Government need to give a public commitment that the number of disabled people employed will not be adversely affected. I hope that that can be responded to today.
The Civil Service has no constitutional personality or responsibility separate from the government of the day. It is there to serve the Government collectively and individually. It is a non-political and disciplined career service. Ministers determine policy and it is the duty of civil servants to give Ministers honest and impartial advice without fear or favour, whether or not the advice accords with the Minister's view.
That idea of a permanent, disciplined civil service recruited on merit and owing complete loyalty to its masters is older than the Northcote-Trevelyan reforms. Those reforms were first attempted in British India. It was that system which was translated from British India to Britain during Queen Victoria's reign and it is essentially that system, with its virtues and weaknesses, which survives today.
A century and a half later, the role of government has been transformed. It is not satisfactory for the Civil Service to continue to be regulated under the Royal prerogative. Every noble Lord who has spoken has recognised that Parliament rather than the executive should define the rights and duties of the Civil Service. We need a Civil Service Act. A constitutional monarchy should be matched by a constitutional Civil Service. The duties of civil servants should not be owed exclusively to their Ministers as though they were employees of a chartered East India Company. They and their Ministers should owe duties to Parliament under the Civil Service Act and under powers delegated to Ministers by Parliament itself.
That is not a new idea. Indeed, in 1854, the Northcote-Trevelyan report recommended something similar. But until now no government have been willing to do so, rejoicing in the fact that power is delightful and absolute

303
power is absolutely delightful. But during the past decade the case for legislation has been widely accepted, notably by the Committee on Standards in Public Life. One of its chairmen, Sir Nigel Wicks, has rightly observed that the introduction of legislation to regulate the relationship between Ministers. civil servants, special advisers and Parliament could help to restore some of the public trust in central government and public office holders that has been lost in recent years.
There have been concerns about increasing numbers and the intrusive role of special advisers leading to the politicisation of the Civil Service. I agree with a great deal of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, and shall return briefly to it. The evidence revealed during the Hutton inquiry about the workings of the Civil Service gave rise to widespread public concern about the current position. The annual report of the Wicks committee published in 2004 noted that a number of the issues raised during the Hutton inquiry were presaged in a general way in the recommendations it had made in its ninth report. It is worth recalling what those recommendations were: first, clarity and parliamentary approval, through a Civil Service Act, of the appropriate boundaries between Ministers, special advisers and civil servants; secondly, a clear statement of what special advisers cannot do set out in primary legislation, and thirdly, the need for powers to be given to the Civil Service Commissioners to investigate on their own initiative concerns raised about possible breaches of the Civil Service Code.
During a debate on the Hutton inquiry my noble friend Lord McNally stated:
"The lessons from Hutton are very clear. Never again should a political appointee, and especially the Government's political propaganda chief, be so closely involved in the workings of our secret services. The role and powers given to Alastair Campbell when the Government came into power in 1997 were fraught with dangers for the political neutrality of the Civil Service and the integrity of the information services".—[Official Report, 4/2/04; col. 778.]
I agree.
The time is overripe to put the Civil Service on a statutory footing so that we can be sure we have a politically neutral Civil Service, appointed on merit, without political interference or control by politically partisan special advisers.
The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, in his important contribution, implied that there needs to be a sufficient core of special advisers with sufficient ability to command the confidence of the regular Civil Service, so as to start an effective ministerial policy unit in government departments as well as in the Prime Minister's Office. I agree with him. When I was recruited by Roy Jenkins to the Home Office in 1974, I was not recruited as a political chocolate soldier; I was recruited because he thought I had a particular skill in the civil law area that was lacking in the Home Office to deal with discrimination law. I cannot of course blow my own trumpet; that would be absurd and inappropriate. But it is true that the skill that I was meant to have was not a skill that the Home Office civil servants had at the time.
304
So the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, is right to say that you have to be careful that you are able to give the occasional blood transfusion to a government department, which may become arthritic or staid in its ways. It is a good thing to have some exchange between outside and inside professionals. That is why it is dangerous to attack the notion of special advisers in a populist way.
Having said that, civil servants believing that special advisers have too much influence will demoralise the service and it will tend to lead to politicisation. It is in the public interest, as the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, said, that the Civil Service itself should be a main source of innovation, able to command the confidence of its Ministers and to execute their policies. I believe that no special adviser, even in No. 10, should be able to exercise executive powers over civil servants. During my two and a half years in the Home Office, it would have been completely unthinkable for me to have done so or to have sought to do so, or indeed to have spoken to the media as some kind of spokesman for the Home Secretary. It definitely demoralises civil servants if they think there is that kind of influence.
Every special adviser should be under duties in a statute. I hope that when the Government at last publish their draft Bill, they will support the suggestion made repeatedly by our first-class First Civil Service Commissioner, the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, that a Joint Select Committee be set up to consider that draft and the draft of Tony Wright's public administration committee, and my own admirably concise little Bill. Such a committee would have the benefit of Members of this House who have such great experience as former Ministers, civil servants and special advisers.
5.43 p.m.
Lord StrathclydeMy Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach for initiating this important debate. I join all noble Lords who have congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Garden, and the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, on two outstanding maiden speeches. We look forward very much to hearing them on other occasions. They spoke passionately today and with the depth of experience that they bring to this House.
It is left to my noble friend Lord Griffiths to enable us to debate the Civil Service because no such debate has ever taken place on a government-sponsored Civil Service Bill. There are conflicting views on such a Bill—but the wounding experiences of recent years have probably made it inevitable. So I can confirm to my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden that my right honourable friend Mr Howard has said that he will introduce a Bill as one of the first actions of the next Conservative government: to limit numbers of political advisers; to reinforce the Civil Service code of conduct; and to make it unlawful for anyone other than a Minister or a more senior civil servant to instruct officials.
It is widely recognised that the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, has his Bill and on this issue he is absolutely right: we have had more government promises on the

305
Civil Service than—dare I say it?—Penelope's suitors heard in all 20 years of Ulysses' absence at the wars. We cannot let things drift further.
I served in four different government departments. In each I was served by a clearly impartial service; indeed, one department gave me perfect Cabinet committee folders providing me with the cast-iron case against the rock solid arguments prepared for me in my preceding department. With little exaggeration Peter Hennessey has said:
"a politically disinterested civil service with core values of integrity, propriety, objectivity and appointment on merit, able to transfer loyalty and expertise from one elected government to the next, was 'the greatest gift of the 19th century to the 20th'".
Thanks to that we have never had the prolonged and painful translation of power that dislocates government in some European countries and those modelled on the US system.
My noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree said he remembered the start of the Conservative government in 1979; and I well recall the end of the last Conservative government. I also remember—vividly and without a shred of resentment—the enthusiasm with which many senior civil servants then looked forward to the challenge of serving a new government, tackling new problems in new ways, but, most importantly, with the same loyalty. It was, I think, a gross error of judgment on new Labour's part that the same civil servants who clapped in new Ministers in May 1997 found themselves sidelined six months later, while a new model army of special advisers and on-message strategic communicators crowded into each Cabinet Minister's kitchen.
I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, who said that it was a good thing that because of the Nolan rules Labour supporting Peers could no longer get public service jobs. You could have fooled me—when I look at the Benches opposite at Question Time. It is that lack of trust in the Civil Service that has hobbled this Government.
I believe that new Labour never fully understood the central ethic of the Civil Service or the unique and irreplaceable place of convention in British national life. If it had, it would not have purged the information service or doubled numbers of special advisers or trebled their salaries, or given power to political hacks such as Mr Alastair Campbell to bully and boss civil servants around.
The essential spirit of the Civil Service survives. So long as it is led by men such as the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, it will do so. But the impact of new Labour has been greatly damaging to perceptions of the integrity of government as a whole. It is a terrible commentary on new Labour that it could take something of such undoubted integrity as our secret ballot and voting system and undermine trust in that too. Equally, it is a reproach to new Labour that it has not always shown trust and has undermined trust in administration. Was it right for civil servants to be sucked so closely into battles as politically charged as the case of Dr Kelly? I doubt it. The
306
Government have too often blurred lines that should be clearly drawn. That is a culture the next government will have to reverse.
We also need an end to double standards on official secrets. Ministers and advisers bypass Parliament and hand official secrets to the "Today" programme with impunity, but a whistle-blower who uncovers a glaring scandal rightly requiring the resignation of a Minister finds himself and his wife victimised. Will the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, tell us how many leak inquiries we have had since 1997 into impending government announcements being given out to the "Today" programme, and on how many occasions was the leaker identified?
No government have been more partial than this in their use of power and patronage; and none as ruthless in upholding impartiality when a Sixsmith or a Kelly crosses their path. Now the heat is apparently on a former special adviser who portrays the relationship between Mr Blair and Mr Brown as akin to the one between Captain Hook and the crocodile. Ludicrous—as if the Prime Minister ever hears a clock ticking when he sees Gordon Brown. But it was not a civil servant who wrote this book, it was a special adviser. He writes a book not economical enough with the truth and Sir Andrew Turnbull—the Cabinet Secretary, no less—has to try to rewrite it. Some 16 years ago in Australia, one Turnbull was fighting to get Spycatcher published; now today in Britain another Turnbull is fighting to stop "Browncatcher".
Few governments have been as open to ridicule on this subject as this one, but the issue of encroachment on the impartiality of the Civil Service introduced to us today by my noble friend is deadly serious. So, too, is the growing size of the Civil Service. The Government are addicted to control, bureaucracy, targetry, quangos, boards for this, and plans for that. They are for ever building haystacks of databases and regulation in which, frequently, lethal needles are hidden and lost.
They are also incapable of holding to any steady policy course. Consider the lurches on asylum; the constant reorganisations of the health service; the flip-flops on tax credits; Bill after Bill before your Lordships' House made up and altered as they go along. The centralising philosophy inevitably leads to a growth in the numbers in the public service. The inconsistency of ministerial guidance—government by tactics not strategy—puts an enormous strain on the public service, which I, for one, marvel that it has been able to sustain.
The Gershon report, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Griffiths and many others, has exposed the scale of the waste of resources perpetrated by this Government in the past seven years. That has been caused by the constantly changing and centralising policies. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, compared it to a competition between two political parties—I do not think that it is that. I think that it is a recognition of the frustration that people feel, not just in business, but working in the public service; teachers in schools, doctors and nurses in the health service, people who

307
work in local authorities who are deeply frustrated and concerned by the growth of a bureaucracy and a culture of box-ticking that makes them unable to do their jobs.
Gershon estimates, and the Treasury is said to agree, that up to 80,000 public servants are not needed. If that is so, at a rough, average cost per head of some £30,000 a year, this Government are spending £2.5 billion a year that they do not need to spend. That is perhaps £10 billion down the river since the last election. How many hospitals, how many schools, how many widows' mites taken away in tax and chucked down the drain? I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, whose speech I enjoyed and who has done so much for the reputation of the Civil Service, that I did not say what I have just said in order to vilify dedicated public servants. I am simply saying that the public service can be thinned.
My noble friend Lord Griffiths and the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, told us how the last Conservative government reduced the scale of centralised administration. The next Conservative government will do the same. But as we do so, we will build on the integrity, the probity and the impartiality of the central Civil Service. We will affirm in legislation how we value that, and we will give those who serve Ministers a far clearer, more effective and consistent lead than this Government have ever done.
5.53 p.m.
Lord Bassam of BrightonMy Lords, I have greatly enjoyed this afternoon's debate, and I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, for instigating it. It has been wide-ranging, stimulating and of great interest. It has been adorned graciously by two excellent maiden speeches. The speech made by the noble and nearly gallant Lord, Lord Garden, was full of interesting thoughts and ideas, and I was most impressed by his pleas for diversity, which was a theme of the debate, and by his encouragement that the Civil Service should be open to the challenges of change. Those views were based on his experience.
I also greatly enjoyed listening to my noble friend Lady Henig, who I have known for many years. I pay tribute to her not only for her comments today, but for her long and tireless work as a county councillor and as the lead councillor for the national Association of Police Authorities; and for her wit, which she displayed to us today and which I am sure she will display on many other occasions in your Lordships' House. Both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will bring their vast experience to the benefit of us all.
It is not often that we have a debate about a subject in which people plead their previous experience in the way in which they have today. I counted at least three special advisers and at least one very excellent professional adviser, in the noble Baroness, Lady Perry. We benefited greatly from the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, and his insights into the way in which the Civil Service works. We heard ex-Ministers confessing their pasts and drawing our attention to one
308
of the most important features of public life in this country—the Civil Service, with its independence, impartiality and strong commitment to the public service ethic.
The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, diligent as ever in her role as the First Civil Service Commissioner, was right to remind us that it is a national asset and we should at our peril enter the territory of benign neglect. That would be a great tragedy indeed. I was pleased to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree. His emphasis on the importance of the adaptability of the Civil Service was not mistaken. That theme was recurrent during the debate.
As always, I greatly enjoyed listening to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and his rumbustious attack on government policy. I expected no less from him. It is not a description that I recognise of the way in which this Government have worked with the Civil Service over the past seven years, but it was uniquely his own, and he gave an important commitment that a Conservative government in the future might introduce a Civil Service Bill. I will come to that later in my comments.
The Government's approach in general to the Civil Service is this: we believe that it should be fit for purpose, as described by many Members of your Lordships' House in this debate, and that it must have the right skills and experience to do its job. For that reason, we have concentrated on a reform programme that goes hand in hand with maintaining and reinforcing what many would recognise today as the traditional Civil Service values of integrity, impartiality and appointment on merit. Those go back to Northcote-Trevelyan. Both of those are integral to the Government's approach. A recent World Bank survey gave the UK a 97.7 percentile rating for "government effectiveness", which is a tribute to the Civil Service, ranking us alongside the best that the OECD has to offer. The UK Civil Service has at its core a strong set of values, as I have said, of impartiality, integrity and honesty. Those values were praised from all sides of your Lordships' House this afternoon.
We are world leaders on this front, and many countries look to us, as the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, said, for leadership and as an example. We are talking about a high-performing organisation, not one that is failing. I share the view that was expressed by many that we should not talk down the achievement of our Civil Service; it would be a dangerous course if we did. Nevertheless, the Civil Service has faced considerable pressure to change over recent years. I can identify two causes for that.
First, as the world changes, the Civil Service must move too. Globalisation, technological innovation and migration all throw up new challenges and additional demands. The Civil Service must be in a position to adapt and respond quickly to that. That point was echoed neatly by my noble friend Lady Henig.
Secondly, we also have rising public expectations. The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, was right when he talked about changes in the way in which people

309
approach public service and their interest in and demand for choice. That is now part of the common currency of debate as we approach the next general election. Citizens are demanding better from public services. The Government have responded by substantially increasing investment in the public sector and by laying out ambitious plans for reform so that public services are centred on customers' needs. The Civil Service is playing a lead role in delivering that fundamental change.
For that reason, the Government place a great deal of emphasis on Civil Service reform. The Prime Minister has directly engaged in this agenda, and gave his views on it in a speech just a week ago. The recently established Civil Service reform programme board, chaired by Sir Andrew Turnbull, the head of the Home Civil Service, reports directly to the Prime Minister. The board will monitor progress on each element of the reform programme and will press for improvements where performance is lacking.
There are three basic elements to the reform programme: people; departments; and the centre. First, the people element: tomorrow's civil servants must be more flexible, more effective and more professional—a point which the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, made. Effective leadership is critical if the service is to meet the demands of the future. We have taken a number of initiatives to improve leadership capacity. We have improved our leadership training; we have introduced a high potential development scheme to develop those identified as having the potential to reach the very top. We have introduced new expectations for continual improvement in the performance of senior civil servants, and staff who deliver results on the ground will be rewarded while those not making the grade will have to address the causes of that. We have introduced a new norm of four-year postings for senior civil servants to ensure that people stay long enough to deliver priorities but not so long that they become stale and complacent.
We need to move away from the myth that the talented generalist can fill any role in the Civil Service—a model that has perhaps been of lesser relevance down the years. Now, we need a more concerted approach to professionalising the whole of the service. This includes services such as finance, IT, human resources and project management. Policy development and delivery also need expert skills. We want to open up the Civil Service to talent from outside, while also providing better training and development opportunities and different and better career paths for those already in the service.
The second element of the reform is fit-for-purpose departments. In this, the noble Lords, Lord Griffiths and Lord Lipsey, made important points. We need to ensure that what we have for the future is fit for purpose. Each department is being asked to think about how it needs to change as an organisation in order to deliver high quality public services.
The Prime Minister is working directly with a number of departments to develop five-year strategies to build a clearer understanding of their strategic
310
purpose and of their priority objectives. Departments have also been thinking about the type and location of the workforce they need to deliver their objectives.
Increasingly, we should see departments pushing resources out to the front line, while creating smaller, more strategic, headquarters. Each department's priorities for change are set out in the performance partnership agreement between it and the centre.
This brings me to the importance of an effective centre of government. This is where the third and final Civil Service reform work stream comes in. The center—Her Majesty's Treasury, the Cabinet Office and No. 10—needs to be resourced to support departmental change, as well as to challenge and drive that change forward. To ensure that departments have access to the best tools to deliver their business, the centre is developing centres of excellence. These will provide a driving force for these essential professional disciplines and will be a source of support to them. They reflect the core corporate functions each department needs. The centres of excellence are: strategy; people management; marketing and communications; IT; delivery and performance monitoring; procurement; project management; financial management; and efficiency.
It would be wrong if I did not talk more about efficiency and the efficiency review. The Government are committed to improving public sector efficiency. Where we can find them, we want to release resources, as all governments do, for further investment in public services. To this end, Sir Peter Gershon has carried out a review to identify efficiencies in public spending. That review will no doubt be most helpful.
Building on the substantial investment agreed in the 2002 spending review, the review identified scope for efficiencies in the public sector's back office functions, as well as developing recommendations to increase the time professionals in the front line have available to serve the public directly. Sir Peter's review recommended an ambitious target to deliver efficiencies of 2.5 per cent a year over the three years of the 2004 spending review period. Meeting this target would deliver efficiency gains equivalent to £20 billion a year by 2007–08. The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, was right to say this was challenging. But it is the job of government to be challenging, and to adopt and accept and take up those challenges. That is what we wish to see.
Departments that have worked with Sir Peter and other stakeholders to develop efficiency programmes will be announced as part of the spending review. After these announcements have been made, John Oughton, chief executive of the Office of Government Commerce, will take responsibility for ensuring effective implementation and delivery of efficiencies by departments.
Complementing the efficiency review, Sir Michael Lyons has also led a study into the scope for relocating a substantial number of public sector activities from London and the south-east of England to other parts of the United Kingdom. That report has identified up to 20,000 jobs that could be taken out of the south-east for wider dispersal as a first tranche. The Government have accepted Sir Michael's report as a sound basis for future dispersal of public sector activity away from London.

311
Much of our debate focused on the independence of the Civil Service and what it meant. The Government are determined to maintain the political impartiality and integrity of the Civil Service. That is the view that we have taken consistently since coming to office. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said, in publishing the Government's response to the ninth report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life:
"A strong, effective, politically impartial civil service is a great national asset".
As the House knows, in response to the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the Government committed themselves to publishing a draft Civil Service Bill for consultation. Nearly all those who took part in the debate called for that. We are grateful to the Select Committee on Public Administration for its draft Bill. Together with the work undertaken by the Committee on Standards in Public Life and by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who has produced his own Bill, it has provided helpful source material for our work.
Drafting of the government Bill and the consultation papers is under way, with the objective of publishing our proposals for consultation during this parliamentary Session. Given the work that is going on, I shall not be drawn today to respond with a detailed analysis of the likely content of the legislation. The Government are mindful, however, that both Houses will take a close interest in the draft Bill. The Government accept that it concerns an important constitutional issue, and there will be full consultation with both Houses, as well as with the Civil Service and others with an interest. However, detailed decisions about the form of that consultation have yet to be taken. I have heard what has been said on that matter today.
Many of those who participated in the debate drew attention to the position of special advisers and expressed views on their role. We have heard such criticism before, but I remind the House that there is substantial agreement, some of which was expressed in the debate today, about the valuable role that special advisers can play. In its evidence to the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the First Division Association said:
"The FDA has made the point in our evidence and separately that the special adviser system is a good one; it is an asset ... special advisers are an asset to the civil service; they are an asset to Ministers".
The independent review of government communications made similar points. We hold that view, as did the ninth report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life.
Of course, it is important that special advisers observe the highest standards of conduct. I remind the House that the Government introduced a model contract for special advisers, which sets out clear, transparent terms and conditions for their employment, and a code of conduct for special advisers that the Select Committee on Public Administration described in 2001 as,
"a clear statement of the role of advisers and a helpful strengthening of the protection provided to the neutrality of civil servants".
312
Our track record on that is a strong one. No doubt, views will be expressed on the matter in the future, and we will have more discussion and debate.
In the past two centuries, there have been at least three major reforms of our Civil Service: the NorthcoteTrevelyan report; the Haldane report in 1918; and the Fulton report in 1968. Each was, by any reckoning, a major milestone in the history of the Civil Service, but there has never been a Civil Service Bill. As the present Cabinet Secretary, Sir Andrew Turnbull, said earlier this year, we have lived without one for 150 years. We accept the case for a Civil Service Bill, and we are taking our time to bring forward legislation that will be fit for purpose.
I repeat my opening remarks: the Government place the highest importance on maintaining a strong, politically impartial Civil Service that is fit for purpose and equipped to deliver. For the reasons that I have given, the Government place great emphasis on Civil Service reform, but, as we take the work forward, no one should be in any doubt about our commitment to uphold the highest standards of propriety in our conduct of government.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Griffiths of FforestfachMy Lords, all that remains for me to do is to thank everyone who has taken part in this debate. There have been a huge number of speeches, but they have all been by heavyweight speakers. I congratulate the two people who have given maiden speeches. I have known the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, for more than 40 years, as my wife had the privilege of being in the same sixth-form class as her in school, but I had never met her or heard her speak until today. The noble Lord, Lord Garden, gave a most authoritative speech. The humour and intellectual curiosity of both speeches were terrific.
As I listened, I thought what a privilege it is for this House to have new Members with such experience of public service and such lively minds. On behalf of everyone in the House, I say to the new Members that we look forward very much to hearing them in future. I thank also the Minister for his response to this Motion and, in particular, for his defence and upholding of the values of the Civil Service and its independence. I am especially grateful for the fact that the Government have now got to the stage of drafting something that we will see during this Session. That is great news. Across all parties and all Benches, I think that we would all applaud them for that. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Farrington of RibbletonMy Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, will forgive me. In the previous debate, the Minister did not get his full time to reply. Perhaps I may point out to noble Lords that in the debate standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, there is one minute to spare. Any other time will be taken from the Minister.

Energy Supply
6.12 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Rodingrose to call attention to the future energy supply of the United Kingdom; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord saidMy Lords, energy supply is an extremely complex subject. I am gratified by the number of noble Lords who have expressed a wish to speak in the debate. In my speech, I intend to concentrate on just three issues; namely, to discuss what is undoubtedly the deepening anxiety about the security of the United Kingdom's future energy supplies.
I want then to explore what I see as a very big hole in the Government's policies; namely, the conflict between the White Paper's professed pursuit of security of supply and that same White Paper's targets for cutting greenhouse gases. Finally, I shall draw attention to the growing awareness that a major part of the solution to both those problems lies with the nuclear industry. Of course, that is not the only part, and I strongly commend an article in today's Financial Times by the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Madingley. It is not so much, as the White Paper says at paragraph 4.68, that,
"future new nuclear build might be necessary".
The real question for today's debate is whether and when the Government will recognise that it will be necessary.
I turn now to a couple of fundamental facts. First, for the first time in our history the UK will, in a very few years, cease to be self-sufficient in overall energy. As our own continental shelf runs down, as our elderly coal-fired power stations are faced with stringent new EU emissions targets, as existing nuclear reactors reach the end of their lives and are closed, it is the Government's policy to fill the gap with a combination of renewables, energy efficiency and a rapidly increasing supply of imported gas.
By 2020, it is reckoned that 90 per cent of our gas will come from abroad—much of it over great distances—from unstable regions and through vulnerable pipelines. We will also need to import more and more oil. Recent events in Saudi Arabia must give grounds for anxiety on that score.
Secondly, few now seriously challenge the case for fighting global warming by cutting greenhouse gases. One only needs to see the recent pictures of meltwater cascading off the vast Arctic ice sheet to understand that that dramatically underlines that this is an imperative. On that, the White Paper seems to get it right. It is against that background of a rising energy gap, to be met by imports and the imperative of cutting greenhouse gases, that policy must be judged.
With regard to security of supply, I shall start by looking at the short term; say, the next two to three years. It seems to be the accepted wisdom of the DTI, Ofgem and National Grid Transco that, given any but the most extreme winter conditions, there would be sufficient margins for gas and electricity supply and
314
transmission to meet likely demand. I have spoken to a great number of people and for many of them that has appeared to be unduly complacent.
In relation to gas, last week's EU Select Committee report—at paragraphs 105 and 106, page 38—states:
"It is clear, therefore, that the demand/supply balance required to meet ... winter demand over the next two years ... will be tight ... A severe winter could cause serious concern".
When we expressed concern to the Minister about coverage for the next two winters, Mr Timms replied:
"My answer would be that the capacity we need is not yet in the bag but I am confident it will be in the bag in time for those demands arising over the next two winters".
I see the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer of Leeds, in his place. It is not surprising that, on introducing his report to the press, he said that his committee was "unconvinced".
More alarming still was the disclosure that a terrorist attack on either of the two terminals at St Fergus in Scotland or at Bacton in Norfolk,
"could produce a national emergency for which the Government would have to assume immediate responsibility".
Ministers have only just received this report. I shall therefore leave it there, except to add that complacency in the face of that judgment seems to be singularly out of place.
In the longer term, electricity generating capacity gives the real cause for concern. Renewables will make a small contribution. Energy efficiency may help over time, but there will have to be a substantial investment in new generating capacity to replace power stations that are closed. The Government's response is that,
"markets will fill the gap".
But what is that market? It is the essentially short-term market that is regulated by Ofgem under NETA—new electricity trading arrangements—which, soon, under the Energy Bill, is to become BETTA.
Here, I must refer back to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, in a very important debate that we had in January. He expressed great apologies for being unable to take part in today's debate. In a powerful critique of this policy, he said:
"Ofgem seeks to devise market controls that are essentially short-term, and DTI, through a wealth of advisory bodies, seeks to peer into the future.
"In a long-term and capital-intensive industry, that does not provide a satisfactory framework for development".—[Official Report, 7/1/04; col. 212.]
The noble Lord continued by describing the situation as a "worrying one". But to many of those who have studied the problem that is a considerable understatement.
Yes, a market based on short-term prices and short-term costs can influence and, indeed, has influenced short-term investment decisions. For instance, rising prices led to de-mothballing plant in order to bring it back into service. But that takes only six to nine months. This system of short-term regulation cannot promote long-term investment decisions. The timescale for those decisions may well be 10 or 15 years before reaching production.

315
So I would argue that the present system of regulation is deeply flawed. Unless decisions are taken soon to change it, I have a real fear that in the medium term, and still more in the longer term, we may find ourselves—in the current phrase—unable to keep the lights on. I have spoken to a number of those who invest and who finance investment in major projects such as new generating capacity, and they tell me that the uncertainties inherent in the present short-term regulatory system make it very difficult to embark on long-term investment projects. I look forward to hearing an answer from the Minister addressing this problem—as we did not get one on 7 January—because it is very acute.
I turn next to greenhouse gases. Ministers make much of the policy of investment in renewables to achieve their White Paper CO2 targets. But even if those targets are met—and there are many both inside and outside the industry who seriously doubt that—they will do no more than replace the loss of CO2-free generation over the same period, especially, of course, from the retirement of carbon-free nuclear reactors. In other words, the CO2 targets are a sham; they cannot possibly be met, at least during the first quarter of this century.
Ministers seem determined to ignore this, as instanced by the exchanges at Question Time two weeks ago on 15 June. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, is not in his place to defend himself, because there was an extraordinary exchange. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, asked whether the Minister agreed with the statement from the report, Tilting at Windmills, that,
"because of the cost of providing additional stand-by generating capacity, it is unlikely that wind power will ever account for more than 20% of electricity generation through the National Grid. That being the case, its development can make no substantial contribution to a reduction in carbon emissions from power generation".
In answering, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, said:
"My Lords, I thought that that was one of the more useless statements. A little mathematics applied to that will tell us that if it provides 20 per cent of the generating capacity it will deal with 20 per cent of the generating capacity problem".—[Official Report, 15/6/04; col. 617-18.]
That was nonsense. The noble Lord made no attempt to answer the question put by his noble friend Lord Williams. The Minister totally confused the targets for CO2 reduction with the targets for renewables. During the passage of the Energy Bill, we have seen that over and over again. These are two separate issues and they need to be addressed separately.
Perhaps I may say that the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, used the occasion yet again to rubbish a well respected report by an acknowledged expert, and I have to say that one of the least attractive characteristics of this present Government is their open contempt for any views which do not happen to fit their own.
I come to my last point: how can the UK achieve its double objectives—keeping the lights on while at the same time cutting greenhouse gases? Over the past two years there have been a number of well researched and
316
authoritative reports from respected sources arguing that the only way to do this will be to build new nuclear power stations. They include the Royal Society, the Royal Academy of Engineering, the Institution of Civil Engineers, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Wood Mackenzie and, most recently, the David Hume Institute. They are supported by acknowledged experts such as Professor Ian Fells, Professor Sir Alec Broers, Professor M A Laughton, and, let it be said, by the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Sir David King. All those reports have been ignored by the Government.
But there must be one recent comment that the Government cannot ignore. I come to Professor James Lovelock, the well known and highly respected Green campaigner. Writing in the Independent five weeks ago, he stated uncompromisingly that,
"only one immediately available source [of electricity] does not cause global warming and that is nuclear energy".
He went on to say:
"Opposition to nuclear energy is based on irrational fear fed by Hollywood-style fiction, the Green lobbies and the media".
Further on in the article he said:
"I find it sad and ironic that the UK, which leads the world in the quality of its Earth and climate scientists, rejects their warnings and advice, and prefers to listen to the Greens. But I am a Green and I entreat my friends in the movement to drop their wrongheaded objection to nuclear energy".
James Lovelock is not just a straw in the wind, he is a mighty gust of realism and common sense, bravely articulating what more and more people are coming to recognise: climate change is the enemy, not nuclear power.
It is now apparent that in this country opinion is moving in this direction, but it is also moving in many other countries. Nuclear plants are now being built in China, Korea, Taiwan and India. Nearer home, Finland and France have ordered new nuclear plants, and Sweden is expected to announce something soon. Even in anti-nuclear Canada, there are reports of moves to commission new nuclear plant. So what is preventing us doing the same over here?
There is the argument about radioactive waste, although I have to say at this point that the real waste has been the waste of time on the part of the Government. They have wasted seven years in shillyshallying, and only just under a year ago did they finally get around to appointing the Advisory Committee on Radioactive Waste Management. I have a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who recognised that this has been a very long-delayed process. However, he went on to say that,
"The committee is not expected to produce its report until towards the end of 2006".
That is over two years from now. This further delay is wholly unacceptable. The House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology is to conduct a swift inquiry into this matter, and I hope that we will question this extremely dilatory timetable.
Then there is the argument about cost. This entirely ignores all the latest information on both the costs of new build and what have been dramatic improvements in the outputs from nuclear plant. As it happens, only

317
yesterday the All-Party Group on Nuclear Energy met and we were given the figures. The eight most recent nuclear plants were built to schedule and within cost estimates. World efficiencies have increased from below 60 per cent to over 90 per cent, and that includes Sizewell B. The figures from the Royal Academy of Engineering show that nuclear power, including decommissioning costs, were comparable with those of gas-fired combined cycle turbines.
So we are left with the Government's doctrinaire opposition to nuclear power, and at the moment that is the real obstacle. But if we are to keep the lights on and, at the same time, make a genuine attack on global warming, Ministers must swallow their outdated prejudices. In quoting from the Government White Paper, it is no longer the case that,
"future new nuclear build might be necessary".
It has to be that new nuclear build "will" be necessary, and it is not a moment too soon to start. I beg to move for Papers.
6.28 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne DomerMy Lords, the Motion this afternoon calls attention to the future energy supply of the United Kingdom but, whatever choice we make, it will not affect only this country. This is now a worldwide issue. We have come to understand that climate change is a global matter and we need worldwide solutions to ensure that the change in our climate is minimal.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said that there is an irrational fear of the development of nuclear power. I hope to address in my remarks the fact that it is not an irrational fear, but a rational one. Were the noble Lord to be right—that nuclear power could be generated entirely free of radioactive waste that we could not address; free from accidents that would not happen; and free from terrorism, which is a new threat—I would agree that the future might indeed be nuclear. But I believe that we are far from reaching that happy state, if it were ever to be reached.
The noble Lord listed the countries in which nuclear plants are currently being built. Unless we solve the three issues of waste, accident and terrorism, this country will have an even more fundamental duty to show clearly what alternatives there are to nuclear power and how they may be achieved.
It is in this area that the Government have made a large mistake. Although I support their drive to develop wind power, they seem to have put all their eggs into one basket and are not developing other forms of renewable energy, which would probably be far more productive in the long run. They seem to be concentrating on developing wind power, both offshore and on land.
Wind power has a part to play in relation to renewable energy, but I find it a depressing spectacle in your Lordships' House when Question Time descends into a low-level debate about wind power and its effect on the landscape. It is of course a serious issue but, with respect to noble Lords, I feel that we come down to the lowest common denominator when debating the
318
subject. For that reason, I especially welcome today's debate; I hope that we will examine the issue in more depth. I look forward to hearing from noble Lords who have more experience in this field than I have. Certainly the energy question is worthy of far more serious and considered debate than we have given it.
If we believe that future energy production needs to be sustainable—I know that is a much over-used word and I shall try to define it—we must be clear where the solutions currently on offer fail. "Sustainability" includes environmental considerations. That means that we need energy which produces minimal climate change; so we are looking for something which produces low or no carbon emissions. The environmental considerations also include waste that cannot be dealt with. I do not believe that we have moved on very far from the Nirex report, which highlighted many of the reasons why waste cannot be dealt with. I shall return to this issue later.
There also has to be economic sustainability, so the energy must come at a price which is acceptable to society. However, I suggest that cheap electricity is not cheap when the cost of its production is offloaded in the form of environmental hazards, health hazards or an appalling, unsustainable imports bill.
It is interesting that energy is the area of life where—if your Lordships will excuse the pun—people feel most disempowered. They know that climate change is a threat but they feel that there is very little they can do about it at the moment apart from purchasing energy-saving light bulbs and possibly switching to suppliers of green electricity, some of which are good, some not so green.
The Government need to address much more fundamentally the way in which people can begin to change their lifestyles. Although the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, mentioned in passing that people might take advantage of energy-saving products, there has been no lead from the Government in encouraging investment in design and technology. To me, it seems quite simple. For example, televisions remain on standby; computers remain on standby. Such appliances could be designed to turn off entirely if they are not being used. We have all heard that the nation leaving its televisions on standby overnight is equal to the output of one of the power stations proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. If that is true, why is this kind of design initiative not a requirement? Lifestyle changes are more difficult but can be achieved.
The old-style solution to our desire for a temperate climate is to have air conditioning in summer and heating in winter. But there are innovative new systems—some of which the Government have had a hand in designing—that circulate air around a building, heating from ground pumps in winter and cooling from the same pumps in summer. So it is possible, but the information is not filtering through to the general population.
I do not believe that we can follow the bad example of Italy by building more and more power stations. I believe it was announced today that Italy is to build

319
24 new fossil fuel power stations, undermining EU efforts to cut carbon emissions. Can the Minister comment on how the Government feel about that?
There is a role for government in encouraging the harnessing of new technologies and design. In evidence recently given to the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, the DTI official, Ms Durkin, said:
"I would like to say to the Committee that if we are to reach the 2020 aspiration"—
of cutting carbon emissions—
"we really need to diversify. We will not be looking to reach the 2020 mark target aspiration just on wind. We will be seeking to diversify".
Seeking simply is not good enough. We need to be moving faster.
The academic world is certainly pulling its weight. There are very interesting studies being carried out at the moment. Sussex University is reviewing the technical, regulatory and institutional changes needed to enable the large-scale uptake of micro-generation and the implications for the relationships between energy consumers, energy companies and housing providers. That is exactly the kind of empowerment of the population to which I referred.
Stafford University is examining the development of community-oriented energy initiatives within national policy and the private sector. The failure to engage communities is the reason for the political exploitation of the wind power issue; communities are not attached to their wind turbines in the way they should be. I believe that that is a fundamental failure of the Government.
During the passage of the Energy Bill I called on the Government to do more to up their game on energy advice to households, but very little has happened. They have introduced the Clear Skies initiative, but the eligibility criteria that an applicant has to meet mean that so many people fall outside the net that it beggars belief. An applicant must be the owner of the property. So no one who rents a property—even if they will be renting it for their lifetime—can do anything about it. The applicant must not dwell in a mobile home. While we are upgrading the rights of mobile home owners in the forthcoming Housing Bill, I hope the DTI will consider including mobile home owners in the list of those eligible for grants.
Let me return to the nuclear issue. As I said, as far as I can see, we have not really moved on from the Nirex inquiry in 1996. That inquiry established that we do not have the science to keep nuclear waste isolated from human communities for the hundreds of thousands of years needed. We can expect a vast increase of 500,000 tonnes of radioactive nuclear waste to have accumulated by the end of this century from existing nuclear power stations alone. That is before the new stations mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, have been built.
The waste problem still has not been solved. We have only recently established—indeed, the Bill has not yet finished its passage through Parliament—the agency tasked with addressing the issue. So it is far too soon to talk of building new nuclear power stations.
320
As to the problem of accidents, the Environment Agency has been taking BNFL to task for various failures over time. There is a deadline of 31 July 2004 for BNFL to review its pipeline design. Can the Minister say whether that review is on track and whether it will be reported? It was an Environment Agency requirement that followed on from a number of failures that I shall not list now.
It is very hard to overcome human error. Those who met the party of schoolchildren from Chernobyl in your Lordships' House last week will have had a stark reminder of where error and design fault can lead. They lead to a much bigger catastrophe in the case of nuclear than in any other form of energy production.
Finally, the potential for nuclear, in all its forms, to be a target for terrorist attacks hardly bears thinking about, but thought about it must be if noble Lords are talking about building new nuclear power stations.
I do not support the noble Lord's proposition that we must have new nuclear power stations. I task the Government with thinking about how to use design and innovation to bring about the sort of change we need.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Gray of ContinMy Lords, I join with others in thanking my noble friend Lord. Jenkin of Roding for providing us with the opportunity to discuss the very important question of energy supply and also for giving us such a comprehensive and interesting review of events leading up to the present situation.
In the past, we have been fortunate in having an abundance of fossil fuels, but as they become depleted it is necessary to find alternatives to coal and gas, which have played such an important part in providing our power generation. However, importing oil and gas is a very different matter. As we discovered before we had access to North Sea oil and gas, interruption of supplies in the past were numerous—the Suez crisis, the Iranian revolution, the Arab oil embargo. In the future, we are liable to have problems in Iraq and in Saudi Arabia, and one hopes they will be minor. Who knows? Certainly there can be no guarantee of an uninterrupted supply.
Electricity is of paramount importance to our future prosperity—indeed, to our very existence—given that practically every aspect of daily life is dominated by the ability to switch on power. Without that facility, everything stops. Up until now, a highly efficient and satisfactory system has evolved, first through the use of coal and, more recently., with increasing use of oil, gas and nuclear power—the cleanest of all power generators, which provides approximately 25 per cent of our requirements.
Since privatisation, £15 billion has been invested in our gas network, which has provided almost 30 per cent of all its consumption, to generate electricity. A further £16 billion has been invested in the distribution and transmission networks of the electricity industry. But by 2020 we shall depend to a very large extent on imported gas. In the opinion of Professor Gittus, of

321
Lloyds of London Insurance Market, another three-day week would be more likely in the United Kingdom than in any of the other G8 countries.
All in all, we have evolved a highly efficient system of power generation which it is imperative that we maintain. Therefore, a new satisfactory system must be devised to ensure that there is an easy transfer from one source of generation to another. Professor Gittus suggests a security of supply obligation, analogous to the renewables obligation, to ensure that our electricity is generated by reliable means.
The Government have elected to replace the shortfall caused by the phasing out of coal, the depletion of our own resources of oil and gas and the approach of the end of the life of our existing nuclear reactors by a huge increase in the use of renewables—that is, wind, wave and solar power, with the main emphasis on wind power—along with dependence on imported oil and gas, a combination which is vulnerable to a host of problems and imponderables. The Government have stated that they have not ruled out the use of nuclear power at some future time, but they appear to put every conceivable obstacle in the way of such a route being followed.
I shall return to the advantages of the nuclear solution shortly, but first let us look at the folly of the course on which the Government have embarked. I make no apology if I reiterate some of the points that have already been made by my noble friend Lord Jenkin. In the political world in which we live, we all know that you have to say things over and over again before anybody really takes notice.
By 2020, only 16 years from now, we shall have depleted our oil and gas reserves. Long before then, we shall be dependent on large quantities of gas and oil imported from eastern Europe, the Middle East and Africa, any one of which could be cut off for political reasons or terrorist activities. Norway may provide temporary relief, but at what price, and at the mercy of whatever depletion policy the Norwegians favour at that time? The Government have completely overlooked the fact that renewables are wholly dependent on weather conditions being favourable to enable them to produce power. Here I come to the association with the environment.
In order to meet our Kyoto commitment, we must reduce our CO2, emissions. The penalties of not doing so are alarming in the extreme. In a most interesting article in the Independent newspaper of 24 May this year, Michael McCarthy quotes Professor James Lovelock—my noble friend has already referred to this—the celebrated green guru, to the effect that there is simply not enough time for renewable energy to take the place of coal, gas and oil-fired power stations, whose waste carbon dioxide is causing the atmosphere to warm. He is particularly concerned about the melting of the Greenland ice sheet, which will raise global sea levels substantially, and the episode of extreme heat in western central Europe last August, accepted by many scientists as unprecedented and a direct result of global warming. These, he says, are ominous global warnings that climate change is speeding, but many people are still in ignorance
322
of this. He is rightly critical of the United States Government for having failed to give their climate scientists the support they needed.
Furthermore, Professor Lovelock says that only a massive expansion of nuclear power which produces no CO2 can now check a runaway warming which would raise sea levels disastrously around the world, cause climatic turbulence and make agriculture unviable over large areas.
In an interesting talk that I attended recently, Mr John Ritch, the director general of the World Nuclear Association, said that nuclear power was not just an option but an imperative. Some of his arguments were similar to those used by Professor Lovelock. He felt that no energy strategy was realistic without nuclear, and he said that in the next 50 years, more energy will be required by the world than all that has been used to date in order to avoid a global crisis of monumental proportions. This cannot be delivered without nuclear power.
Of course, Professor Lovelock and Mr Ritch are by no means alone in their belief in nuclear power. We have only to cast our eyes across the Channel to see what has been achieved in France, where the Prime Minister has already announced the Government's intention to commence the building of a new European pressurised water reactor later this year. This is part of a 30-year energy plan that will ensure the future of the French nuclear industry which already provides more than 70 per cent of France's electricity. Electricité de France wants to press ahead because more than half of its nuclear stations are due to retire by 2020. France is keen to follow Finland's example in building the first EPR.
Therefore, I do not argue that renewables do not have a place in the generation of power, but I do argue that the Government are being extremely unwise in the task that they have set for them. It is an impossible task. Furthermore, there is considerable doubt whether there are not cheaper and more effective methods of achieving that target. There are nearly 450 nuclear reactors either in operation or under construction in the world. Fifty years ago, Britain was at the forefront of nuclear development; today, France and Japan have taken over that role.
Today, many of our most successful reactors are coming to the end of their lives. One such is the Chapelcross Magnox reactor, which has operated reliably and safely for 46 years. The local trade unions are lobbying the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh and the United Kingdom Government here to replace the reactor with Nuclear-Chapelcross 2. They say that it could be covered by the existing site licence and that it would enjoy the support of the whole of the local community. Indeed, sites are not a problem. The existing site licences could easily be continued if the Government indicated that they would consider the replacement of nuclear with nuclear if applications were made for new reactors.
A recent assessment by the Royal Academy of Engineering on the cost of generating electricity showed that after taking account of probable increases

323
in the price of gas and the effects of carbon trading, nuclear would be the lowest cost option, but it is doubtful if this Government have the bottle to follow that course. The Government must rethink their overall nuclear policy and reconsider the huge potential of new nuclear reactors of modern design if the most serious energy crisis of all time is to be avoided.
6.52 p.m.
Lord TaverneMy Lords, I shall speak about one narrow but important issue: radiation and safety. The advantages of nuclear power are clear and have been powerfully expounded by the noble Lords, Lord Jenkin of Roding and Lord Gray. It is a clean source of energy and does not emit greenhouse gases. The main opposition to nuclear power, as my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer has articulated, is based on fears about its safety. People are frightened about the risk of accidents and the dangers of radiation emanating from nuclear power stations and from nuclear waste. Those fears are profoundly misplaced. I am sorry to say that I very much disagree with my noble friend, for whose views I normally have the greatest respect.
Present-day policies for radiation safety are based on the so-called "linear no-threshold" assumption. That is the assumption that any amount of radiation is harmful; that any dose, even the lowest, may cause cancer and genetic harm; and that the risk of harm increases proportionately with the dose. On that basis, it follows that we should avoid any exposure at all. As a result, the standards for radiation protection have become ever tighter and the maximum exposure dose declared to be safe by the International Commission for Radiological Protection has been constantly lowered.
The standard measurement of radiation levels, as all of your Lordships are no doubt keenly aware, is set in millisieverts per year. In the 1920s, the maximum dose that was regarded as safe was 700 millisieverts; by 1941, it was reduced to 70 millisieverts; by the 1990s, it became 20 millisieverts for occupationally exposed people and one millisievert for the general population. The maximum dose now proposed is between 0.3 and 0.01 millisieverts.
Unfortunately, those standards are not based on evidence. The evidence shows that the effect of radiation on human health is not linear but a J-curve when dose is plotted against effect. Exposure starts by being beneficial at low doses and becomes harmful only at higher doses. That effect is known as hormesis. A low dose of ionising radiation seems to stimulate DNA repair and appears to enhance the immune system, thereby providing a measure of protection against cancer. In fact, the beneficial effects of low doses of radiation in treating cancer have been known for some time and are confirmed by a mass of evidence, particularly in Japan. All the evidence contradicts the linear no-threshold assumption.
A similar hormesis effect is found in many other cases and some of the examples will be well known to your Lordships. A bit of sunshine does you good; too
324
much may cause cancer. Small doses of aspirin have a variety of beneficial effects, but too much will kill you. The same is said to be true of red wine and it also appears to apply to arsenic, cadmium, dioxins and pesticide residues, but that is another story.
Epidemiological evidence strongly confirms hormesis. Your Lordships will recall the prediction that there would be terrible after-effects from the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki on the survivors and their children. That was universally believed. Similarly, it was widely predicted that the incidence of cancer would greatly increase and that there would be massive genetic damage to future generations as a result of the Chernobyl disaster. The latter changed people's perception of the danger of nuclear energy all over the world. It is constantly cited as an illustration of the unparalleled threat to health from nuclear disasters.
Yet those doom-laden predictions have been proved false. What are the facts? Extensive Japanese studies of the life expectancy of survivors of the atom bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, who suffered relatively low amounts of radiation, show that their life expectancy turned out to be higher than those of the control group. No unusual genetic defects have been found in their children.
The horrific accident at Chernobyl was about as bad an accident to a nuclear power station as it is possible to imagine. Tragically, it led to 28 deaths among rescue workers, who were exposed to very high doses of radiation. However, in areas near Chernobyl, the extra amount of radiation to which people were exposed in the nine years following the accident was slight: an increase of 0.8 to 1.4 millisieverts per year. In the Ukrainian town of Pripyat, which is now a ghost town after its complete evacuation, the average amount of persistent radiation found in May 2001 was five times lower than the level in Grand Central Station in New York.
Similarly, a follow-up study of Japanese fishermen who suffered from contamination of plutonium after the nuclear tests at Bikini found, 25 years later, that none of them had died of cancer. In fact, there is very strong evidence that people exposed to low doses of radiation by amounts which are still 100 times or more greater than the minimum recommended actually benefit. The incidence of thyroid cancer among children under 15 exposed to fall-out from Chernobyl was many times lower than the normal incidence of thyroid cancer among Finnish children. The death rate from leukaemia of nuclear industry workers in Canada is 68 per cent lower than the average. Workers in nuclear shipyards and other nuclear establishments in the United States and other countries have been found to have substantially lower death rates from cancer in general than the average and very much lower ones from leukaemia. Further, a mass of evidence shows that people who live in areas which are unusually high in natural radiation—in Japan, China, India and the United States—have significantly lower death rates from cancer than the average.

325
My sources, I should mention, are an article from Dr Jaworowski, a former chairman of the United Nations scientific committee on the effects of atomic radiation, in a recent book of essays entitled Environment and Health; a paper on radiation hormesis by Professor Mortazavi from Kyoto University, which comprehensively reviews the scientific literature; and another comprehensive Canadian study by Jerry Cuttler on the beneficial effects of ionising radiation. There is a mass of papers that confirm that evidence.
Those facts—and I challenge anyone to cite evidence that contradicts them—destroy many of the conventional objections to nuclear power. They also show that the regulations seeking to enforce present, let alone proposed, minimum standards not only cost billions of pounds but actually do more harm than good. But it is deemed politically incorrect to point out that the linear no-threshold thesis is not based on evidence.
Perhaps it is time that we looked more closely at the phenomenon of hormesis and, in particular, at the successful Japanese experience of using low-dose radiation in the treatment of cancer patients. Above all, in approaching the question of nuclear power, we must be intellectually rigorous. We should have regard to evidence, evidence and evidence, and not allow evidence to be brushed aside by political correctness, ignorance or prejudice, nor allow policy to be dictated by pressure groups influenced by dogma instead of evidence.
7.1 p.m.
Lord GreavesMy Lords, I am afraid that I cannot challenge or analyse in detail the contribution just made by my noble friend as he is clearly an expert in these matters and I am not. I would merely say that, while I do not share his enthusiasm for nuclear power, I nevertheless have great respect for his contributions on these matters, which certainly made us all think.
I shall address a fairly narrow but increasingly important aspect of energy—the question of wind power and wind farms. I start by stating my own prejudices on this matter. As someone who spends a lot of time in the uplands of this country, partly because I live in the Pennines and partly because I go to other uplands in the United Kingdom as often as I can for recreational purposes, I do not like wind farms. I believe that they are an intrusion in our upland landscapes and that we should accept them only when there is really no alternative.
It is a classic case of us all wanting to be as green as possible and as environmentally aware and committed as possible but of there being no easy answers. If the only way in which to tackle global warming, climate change and the enormous global as well as local environmental problems that climate change will no doubt cause is to cover areas of wilderness in Wales, northern England, the Lake District and Scotland with power stations and new industrial landscapes, some of us will find ourselves with very difficult issues and choices.
326
I do not believe that the environmental lobby and the green lobby have really got to grips with the implications of such choices. It is all too easy to stand up and be a green campaigner; it is much more difficult to have to decide exactly what one is going to do.
I am provided with some information by the British Mountaineering Council, which is working with the Mountaineering Council of Scotland. It tells me that there are currently 419 applications for new wind farms in Scotland, for obvious reasons. Some are small scale, and some are for up to 500 individual units or windmills, some of which are very large indeed—up to 500 feet high. There are clearly huge conflicts in wilderness areas such as those between the future of those areas as conservation areas, ecological areas or environmental areas and their future as tourism areas. Their economies will increasingly depend on tourism—on people such as myself going there for a weekend or a week—but we may be destroying the very landscapes that people go there to enjoy.
The president of the Mountaineering Council of Scotland, John Mackenzie—the Earl of Cromartie—believes that that is the single biggest threat to the Scottish mountain environment. We clearly have a conflict in this regard. In both Scotland, under different legislation and with devolved powers, and in England and Wales under the CROW Act, we are as societies opening up our wilderness areas and encouraging and allowing people to use them as walkers, climbers, and people interested in wildlife. Some people just want to go and look at it. There is clearly a conflict between taking that direction on the one hand, which is clearly a key government policy, and building wind farms all over the place on the other. How do we resolve that matter? That is one of the major problems that we have to face.
I live in the heart of the Pennines, and I can sit in my house and look at Pendle Hill across the valley. It may well be that because I live in an area like that, surrounded by moors, people will turn round and say that I am just a nimby. Well, I am not just a nimby, because what I want in terms of preservation of our wild places, open landscapes, moorlands and hills for the area in which I live in the Pennines I want also for mid-Wales. Nearly half—I believe it is 45 per cent—of existing wind farm developments or the existing number of wind turbines are in the area of mid-Wales, which some years ago was being considered as a possible fourth national park. For various reasons, it was turned down and, because it is not a national park and does not have that protection, it is open to that kind of development.
I am very conscious in the part of the world where I live that we have industrial valleys, which because they contained coal measures under the ground were subject to Victorian industrialisation. That created what I consider to be some delightful towns and industrial villages, but it also created huge numbers of environmental problems. Until the clean air legislation, the air was not fit to breathe in those valleys. There were huge amounts of industrial pollution, poor housing conditions, and areas of wasteland and dereliction caused by the old industry.

327
All that has been subject to huge efforts to clear it up, and to turn those communities into places which are fit to live in, in the modern world. Yet what the people in those towns always had were the surrounding hills. They could escape from the pollution in the valleys, the squalid housing conditions and even from their jobs and go out on to the hills, where they were free. I am reminded of the famous words of "The Manchester Rambler" song:
"I may be a wage slave on Monday, But I am a free man on Sunday".
The moors on to which the people of Manchester escaped, the adjacent Pennines and the area around Oldham and Saddleworth, which the Minister may know, are not in national parks and are therefore under considerable threat of very substantial wind farm development. That may involve turbines that are much larger than the ones that exist at the moment, and in much larger quantity. It is no surprise that an organisation called the Saddleworth Moors Action Group was one of the bodies that recently convened a national conference. The first national wind farm protest group conference took place in Saddleworth, in the Lancashire or Yorkshire Pennines—whichever we think it is.
The wind farms that are being proposed are not farms by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. They are industrial areas. They are power stations. It is the industrialisation of wilderness areas. Of course, it may be that some of the areas proposed for wind farms are not this kind of upland wilderness but are coastal areas or areas that have landscape benefits in other ways. But the areas I am particularly concerned about are on the hills.
A huge wind farm development—27 turbines up to 370 feet high—has been proposed near Tebay, which noble Lords will know if they drive up the M6 through the Lune Gorge. The Shap Fells and the Howgill Fells, which are some of my favourite hills, simply do not possess the protection that they would have if they were somewhere else. If those hills were in the Yorkshire Dales or in the south of England, they would have protection because of the quality of their landscapes. The reason that they do not have protection is because they are next to the Lake District and the boundary of the Lake District National Park had to be drawn somewhere.
These areas were thought to be not quite as grand as the fells of the Lake District, so they were missed out. Yet, if this wind farm were to be built in that area, it would be visible from the summits of a large number of the lakeland fells. We are talking of building wind turbines that are higher than Blackpool Tower. When I stand on the summit of Pendle Hill—a place I go to, unlike Blackpool Tower—on a fine day I can see Blackpool Tower, which is 50 miles away. What is being proposed for many of these areas is not just a Blackpool Tower but a forest of Blackpool Towers. We must be very careful indeed about where we site them, if we must have them, and about the processes by which that is agreed.
It would be very easy to say, "Here are the national parks, here are the areas of outstanding natural beauty, let's build large forests of wind farms in circles
328
around these protected landscapes". But what is the purpose of a protected landscape on one side of the border if the landscape on the other side of the border has been destroyed?
I have a quote from the Observer of 6 October 2003. Sir Martin Holdgate was formerly head of the Swiss-based International Union for the Conservation of Nature and chairman of the Renewable Energy Advisory Group, which the Government set up in 1992. He seems to encapsulate the situation:
"The trouble with wind farms is that they have a huge spatial footprint for a piddling little bit of electricity. You would need 800 turbines to replace the output of a coal-fired power station".
I think that these statistics are fairly well known.
We have a real problem. We have a problem of conflicts between different aims and environmental objectives and a serious conflict of government policy. I believe that the opposition to wind farms is now developing a critical mass and that the Government will find it very difficult indeed to achieve the targets that they are putting forward on the basis of wind energy. I wish them the very best of luck in their targets for renewable energy. I do not believe that they will achieve them through onshore wind farms.
7.13 p.m.
Viscount UllswaterMy Lords, my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding should be congratulated on introducing this important debate this afternoon as the future supply of energy is likely to affect us all. The energy supply of the UK is changing rapidly from being based mainly on coal, nuclear and home-sourced gas, as my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding has reminded us, to a future of reliance on mainly imported gas, with the aspiration of 20 per cent provided by renewables by the year 2020. Professor David Simpson, in a paper recently published by the David Hume Institute based in Edinburgh, identified the problems for the future. He stated that gas is projected to fuel,
"some 68–75% of all electricity generated by 2020, of which ... 90% is expected to be imported ... Gas import requirements will exceed current pipeline capacity before 2010: major investment in gas interconnectors will therefore be needed simply to satisfy the present level of demand. At least six major connectors would be needed by 2020 to handle imports of gas at the levels projected by the DTI".
So uncertainty as to whether there will be the capacity to import so much of our requirements is added to the unreliability of importing the gas from Russia, Libya, and Kazakhstan.
At present there are no plans to build more nuclear stations, although the Government maintain that they are keeping the nuclear option open, whatever that might mean. It is a fact that by 2020 almost all of the nuclear plants, which today produce about 23 per cent of our electricity needs, will have shut down. Without steps taken now to ensure that new nuclear capacity is commissioned, we are looking at the end of the nuclear age in this country. My noble friend Lord Gray of Contin pointed out that the UK used to be in the lead in the nuclear industry. Now we are, sadly, lagging way behind.

329
The rundown of nuclear energy also means that even if 20 per cent of our electricity needs are met by renewables in 2020 there will be no saving in CO2 emissions. The one will just replace the other. If that is repeating what my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding has said, then it deserves to be repeated until the lesson is learnt. Savings will have to be made elsewhere in the generating sector and will more likely have to be made in the transport sector if we are to adhere to our Kyoto commitment. Will the Minister give us his estimate of how long it would take, if the studies were started today, to commission a new nuclear power station?
So what about renewables? Are the Government serious in their belief that renewable technologies of hydro, wind, biomass and solar energy can achieve the targets of 10 per cent by 2010 and 15 per cent by 2015 and the aspiration target of 20 per cent by 2020? At the present time, only 2.8 per cent of electricity production is accounted for by renewable energy. The gap between that figure and 10 per cent would require the installation of about 8 gigawatts of wind power capacity in the next six years, half of which might be onshore and half offshore. By the end of last year, just 640 megawatts of wind power capacity had been installed, of which less than 50 megawatts are offshore. I would be surprised if half that wind power capacity will be installed by 2010.
We also have to ask the question whether we want all these wind farms, with their wind turbines, over our countryside. Whereas a group of wind turbines off the coast, some kilometres out to sea, might be a source of some fascination, the situation is much more controversial onshore. It is an inescapable fact that wind energy is inefficient. Even the latest Government figures admit that it is only 26 per cent efficient and is available only at certain times of the day or week. We are replacing the reliability of the base load nuclear stations with intermittent supply from wind energy.
The Government also make a great play on sustainable development and handing on to our children a better world than the one we inherited. Are they seriously telling us that covering some of the more remote areas of the countryside with spinning windmills will enhance our appreciation of the countryside? No; the damage will be permanent. Not only will there be the wind turbines themselves; there will also be the infrastructure of pylons connecting to the grid which will further despoil our mountains and valleys. The unpredictability or fickleness of wind does not qualify as a sustainable energy.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that the effect on tourism will be adverse. People tend to seek out the wilderness areas to get away from the stress of city life and to get closer to the natural world. It is the scale of the structures which makes them so out of place with the natural features of the countryside. The Scottish Executive has recently reconfirmed its commitment to renewable energy and now gives a target of 40 per cent generation in Scotland by 2020. There is an outstanding proposal for a 600 megawatt wind farm on the Island of Lewis—poor Lewis, with its remote and wild landscape.
330
So what should be done? Offshore wind energy, although much more expensive to produce, could help the Government with their green credentials, and there are some remote areas and applications, remote from the grid, that could be served by wind turbines. Nuclear power is the only available emission-free alternative energy source that could to any significant extent substitute for carbon fuels. Unlike wind power, it does not need large tracts of land and can be expanded to meet almost any conceivable demand. Even the Swiss have accepted nuclear generation following a public referendum, and there are studies for new stations to come on line by 2025, to replace older stations which generate some 36 per cent of Swiss electricity. We need that enlightened approach here and for the Government to listen to the people.
I would say that everyone I meet is most concerned about wind energy. It is not right that the ODPM should ride roughshod over local opinion with planning guidelines or statements that pursue a technology that is at best questionable and, in the eyes of many, downright wrong. What we require is a strategic approach to the production of electricity for the future, which cannot be achieved by importing gas. Nuclear energy should form the base load of 25 per cent to 30 per cent of our energy requirements, which would satisfy our Kyoto commitment and provide safe clean energy for the next generation.
7.23 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and KellieMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, for giving us yet another opportunity to discuss the delivery of energy in the future ere the lights go out. I must declare an interest. I sell firewood and I receive grants through the Scottish forestry grants scheme. I should also say that I have no connection with Shetland and the company called Biopower, about which I will be speaking. I should also say that I am in favour of nuclear, but I am not going to speak about it.
I should like to talk about two subjects, on both of which the Minister may be able to respond positively. As I know he will be reluctant to sign a blank cheque, I will try to make my case now. I continue to be interested in remote areas policy and in biofuels.
The first subject is the provision of sub-sea interconnector cables to the Scottish mainland. I was interested to read recently that our north Atlantic neighbours in Iceland are considering the construction of an interconnector cable from Iceland to the British mainland, to enable them to sell us their surplus electricity. Their geothermal power stations are harnessing a very renewable energy. The cost of the Iceland-to-Scotland interconnector would apparently be around £500 million; that is, half a billion.
There is another proposal, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, referred, for large-scale onshore wind generation on the Island of Lewis, on Arnish Moor, an oceanic location. That would have considerable economic and social benefits, in my view, for the Outer Hebrides, in terms of both construction and long-term operation and maintenance. Clearly,

331
there is a need for an interconnector cable to the mainland. It might be wise for the Icelanders to bring their proposed interconnector ashore on Lewis.
I was most interested to read in this week's House Magazine an advertisement from the Shetland Islands Council with the banner headline,
"Viking's Energy can Light up the Nation".
We know that, 1,200 years ago, such a headline would have been a report of destructive activity. But now, looking forward, Shetlanders are planning to become the UK's renewable powerhouse—harnessing first their world class wind resource, and then their wave and tidal energy, the wet renewables.
Shetland is already planning for a 250 megawatt wind farm to be constructed by Scottish and Southern Energy. Now, Viking Energy Ltd, a community business, is planning a 300 megawatt wind farm. The site, at Burradale, above Lerwick, has a capacity/load factor of 51 per cent plus, a significant reading in world terms. The Islands council claims that 600 megawatts of installed capacity in Shetland will have the same output as 1,000 megawatts of installed capacity off the English coast, but with the ease of onshore maintenance.
The idea of Viking Energy Ltd as a community business is derived from the success that the people of Shetland have enjoyed in hosting Europe's largest oil and gas terminal at Sullum Voe over the past 25 years and the building up of an oil and gas endowment fund that is in many ways similar to the petroleum fund gathered together by the Norwegian Government which currently stands at £60 billion. The Shetlanders have learnt how to trade off negative impacts, visual and social, for long-lasting prosperity and well-being.
So my question for the Minister has to be this. Shetland is planning to help the United Kingdom with renewable power supplies. Will the United Kingdom Government assist Shetland by helping to provide the essential sub-sea interconnector? Perhaps I can ask the same question about the Lewis interconnector.
There is no doubt that the Shetland approach is unusual. The leadership is doing something for all the residents. I can only muse on the not too far-fetched analogy with the Viking era. When Hjaltland—that is, Viking Shetland—was mortgaged to the Scottish Crown and annexed by the Scots in 1469, the system of udal tenure provided that the skattold—the common grazing—was maintained by the larger landowners for the benefit of all the residents. The House will be disappointed to learn that the Scots quickly set about dismantling udal tenure and replacing it with their own feudal tenure. I suppose that I should declare the interest that I am a soon to be abolished feudal superior in central Scotland.
Leaving that aside, I turn to my second subject about which the House has heard from me before. I am in correspondence with Biopower, an umbrella organisation based in north Wales that makes diesel from used cooking oil. This biodiesel is more powerful than fossil diesel and, indeed, has excellent upper cylinder lubricant properties, and in the event of a diesel spill is biodegradable. It is an ironic fact that the
332
product, diesel, is better and more easily produced after use in a chip shop than before such use. The oil is filtered and even the 0.1 per cent which is filtered off the remnants of the chips and so on can be used as a heating fuel.
I want to raise the fact that some of the Biopower businesses are being treated rather strangely and unfairly by officers of the Environment Agency. Their biodiesel is being treated as a waste product despite the fact that the cooking oil which they collect has a second use, and a valuable one at that. What is more, this second use attracts an excise duty. The Environment Agency is demanding that Biopower businesses must register themselves as waste management sites—an expensive procedure and an unnecessary one in my view—as the used cooking oil is a commodity and is not hazardous to human health or the environment. Biopower is content to register as a waste carrier as this will satisfy the need for the chip shop owners etcetera to demonstrate that they are acting responsibly in disposing of their cooking oil by selling it to Biopower businesses as a commodity.
It seems that the Environment Agency is unable to see the difference between the traditional collectors of used cooking oil and the new collectors—Biopower. The old use of the used fat comprised collecting it and storing it for resale to animal feed companies as an additive. This has now been found to be hazardous to human health and a ban on this activity will come into effect in November 2004. The used vegetable oil was distinctly collected as a waste product and needed to be stored in a registered waste management site before onward disposal to the animal feed companies. So, I must ask the Minister this: the people who are creating biodiesel from used cooking oil are contributing to the acute need to find sustainable road fuels. Why is the Environment Agency working against that? Is the Minister content with the Environment Agency appearing to be working against the Government's stated aim of reducing the use of fossil fuels? Will the Minister please ask the Environment Agency to review its attitude towards this beneficial product?
In conclusion, the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, is as relevant and urgent as ever.
7.33 p.m.
Lord King of BridgwaterMy Lords, I join with other noble Lords in paying the warmest possible tribute to my noble friend Lord Jenkin for the speech that he made in opening this debate.
As I rose to my feet it occurred to me that it is 25 years since I made a speech on energy when I had the honour to be the shadow spokesman for energy along with my noble friend Lord Gray. At that time we had the valued support of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who tried to educate us regarding a better understanding of the minutiae or the intricacies of the coal industry.
I wish to speak because I profoundly agree with the analysis given by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and with the importance of this debate. My noble friend Lord Gray referred to a possible global crisis of

333
monumental proportions. Whether or not that is an exaggeration at this stage, I am in no doubt that we face an extremely serious situation. At the moment I see little evidence that the Government appreciate that or intend to act. This matter will not be resolved by a quick change of government or by a government introducing a new policy to put the matter right. Unless there is a bipartisan approach and an understanding of the gravity of the situation, the whole economy of our country is threatened with very serious consequences indeed. We are in a quite different and very serious situation. The lead times as regards putting it right are not in our favour.
I turn first to electricity generation. We know that the nuclear plants are ageing. We have an idea of the cost of the environmental protection that will be required regarding the coal plants. There is an urgent need to take decisions that can help to meet the very real risk that the lights will go out, to repeat the short and simple phrase used by my noble friend Lord Jenkin. The Government have been warned. I say with great respect to the noble Lord who will reply to the debate, who I believe does not have direct ministerial responsibility for this matter, that I hope he will do the House the courtesy of forwarding a copy of Hansard—the speeches that have already been made were of high quality although I make no comment on my own—to the Minister with responsibility for the matter that we are discussing. This is a matter of the gravest concern.
As regards electricity generation, I was impressed to note at a meeting yesterday concerning a nuclear plant the huge improvement that has occurred regarding reliability in budgeting for and delivery of new nuclear plants. I speak as a former Member of Parliament who represented the constituency in which Hinckley, Magnox A plant and Hinckley B, an AGR plant, were situated. I witnessed the tragedy of the lapsed planning permission regarding Hinckley C. I also witnessed the problems, difficulties and delays that occurred during the construction process and the inability to keep within budget. Most recent figures show—admittedly not in this country as we are not building any—that people in other countries seem to have identified ways in which nuclear plants can be built much quicker than formerly, to budget and on time. Those plants are delivering significantly enhanced performance that enables them to be much more competitive vis-à-vis alternative methods of generation.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, will recall that the energy policy to which we subscribed 25 years ago was called coconuke; that is, conservation, coal and nuclear. The dash for gas initiative arose at a time when the United Kingdom appeared to be so abundantly blessed with gas supplies that we did not have to worry. It seems to me that while problems obviously exist on the coal side, conservation and nuclear must be important elements in any energy mix. Established types of reactor now exist that can virtually be bought off the shelf. They should constitute the short-term solution. In the medium to longer term the high temperature reactors that are now being developed could be of considerable interest.
334
I turn to the wider issue of security of supply. First, I mention gas in that connection. In the amiable days when we had our own gas and imported a little from a friendly country such as Norway, we did not face anything like the kind of strategic concerns that are now emerging very rapidly. I refer to countries that 25 years ago we had never heard of as possible sources of gas, for example, Russia, Libya and Kazakhstan𲀔all countries which might face political pressures.
Wearing my other hat as a former defence Minister I remember sitting in President Havel's office when he was president of Czechoslovakia. He was handed a note to advise him that due to pipeline problems in Russia, the gas supply to Czechoslovakia would be turned down. It was a rather cold November evening and you could feel the chill in the room. That was a clear warning to me regarding this country depending entirely on distant regions for a secure supply which is transported through pipelines of enormous length, the contents of which are shared with many other countries. In such circumstances you have to be jolly sure that you have assessed the situation correctly. Also, we want to be jolly sure that we have a variety of sources against the risk that some might let us down.
On gas, we have the challenge that, incredibly in the reality of the timescale of government decision-making and implementation, in a short time we will be 90 per cent dependent. That is a really serious worry. On the oil side, we can look at the present situation, with the Norwegian strike, the problems in Venezuela, the issues in Saudi Arabia and the challenges in Iraq. The stability of world oil supplies and the failure of the major oil companies to replenish their reserves at the present rate of consumption are warning signals that the Government, and the world, need to recognise.
There is also the issue about competition of demand. The Select Committee made the point very clearly. Anyone watching the developments in China will know, as the committee's report states, that China has,
"a seemingly inexhaustible demand for energy and will be competing for piped Russian and central Asian gas as well as for global LNG supplies ... While the Committee was conducting this inquiry, the International Energy Agency announced a considerable upward revision of its estimates for global gas demand. This was largely the result of the extraordinary sustained rates of economic growth achieved by China and India".
The interesting report on energy in Euromonitor International states:
"China is expected to surpass Japan as the second largest world oil consumer within the next decade and reach a consumption level of 10.5 million bbl/d by 2020, making it a major factor in the world oil market ... Beijing must also find efficient suppliers to keep costs down. This means that China cannot do without Middle East production".
We will face competition. Car numbers in China went up from 6 million to 12 million in four years, with the latest forecasts saying that they are likely to quadruple within the next 15 years. That is a warning. I was at the Shell AGM two days ago, at which the group chief executive proudly announced Shell's present capital investment programme for China downstream. Its programme is for petrol stations in China equivalent to half the total number of Shell petrol stations in this

335
country. That is Shell's short-term investment programme. All those are indications of the growth in demand and the threats that we face.
We run another risk, which has been referred to by other noble Lords. It is the issue of terrorism. We have had attempted attacks—no one should have been surprised—on refineries in Iraq and pipelines in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia spends 8 billion dollars a year on security to try to protect its present oil installations. There are risks around the world. Shell has difficulties in Nigeria. My noble friend Lord Jenkin referred to the obvious risks that we could face to domestic installations. I do not want to rehearse them again; they are all too real and could be a major threat.
In that dangerous world, what can the Government do? They cannot guarantee the prevention of any terrorist attack, of course. However, in that circumstance, the one thing that seems absolutely essential is that there be some margin of safety in the provisions that are made for our country. That is why running close to the wire, whether in terms of electricity generation and sources of supply of oil or gas, is so serious. If there is too little safety margin, we make it a reality that the terrorist has the greatest possible chance to do serious damage to our economy, of perhaps a fundamental and distressing kind.
My purpose in breaking my 25-year silence is simply to say that the crisis is the gravest that we have faced. We have had an easy time on energy supply. We were able to tear up some of the old predictions on which way we should go about electricity generation, the availability of gas, and the seeming luxury of our own oil supplies. We are now moving into a much tougher world at a much more difficult time, with increasing world competition, demand, and risk of terrorism. I would like some evidence—I hope that we might get the first instance of it today—that the Government have woken up to the fact that the situation is not normal.
I end with the words of the Prime Minister, who said:
"It is a challenge of a different nature from anything the world has faced before".
He was talking about terrorism, but it applies to energy supplies and our energy situation as well.
7.46 p.m.
Lord ChorleyMy Lords, it has been both a well informed and rather sombre debate on a very big subject. I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, on the masterly way in which he introduced it. I agreed with everything that he had to say. Interestingly, almost all the speeches have been about either wind, the general impression on which is thumbs down, or nuclear, for which the thumbs are up. I regret to say that I shall be no exception, as I shall talk mostly about wind and nuclear.
The theme underlying many of the speeches, and indeed my remarks, is the need to reduce significantly our CO2 emissions over time. However, I emphasise that the policies have to be efficient and cost-effective. As that is my theme, I shall not pick up the powerful
336
points made by the noble Lord, Lord King, about gas, but I am sure that everything that he says is absolutely true. To allow ourselves to rely on gas from countries that we barely knew existed 20 years ago across the continent of Europe seems madness.
In the background is the overarching need at all times to have 100 per cent security of supply—that follows on from the points about gas pipelines—at competitive prices. That has to be the context against which we judge our policies and, in particular, the so-called renewables as against the alternatives. The energy White Paper, now 15 months old, was rather good in the chapter that dealt with security. It was comprehensive and wide-ranging, but it was only at the level of generalities. Its weakness was when it came down to specifics.
On the renewables front it seems that, so far as concerns the Government, the only show in town is wind power. Contrariwise, the nuclear option is effectively sidestepped. There is no discussion of the recent and important technical developments taking place. Other speakers have made the same points already. Indeed, the noble Lords, Lord Jenkin and Lord Gray, reminded us of the recent remarks of Professor Jim Lovelock on the matter, which give powerful support.
I want to make a few remarks about wind energy, but I do not want to go over the environmental objections of landscape and wildlife damage that were spoken about to great effect by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. However, I add an en passant note to the effect that those who say how pretty a cluster of wind turbines looks across the landscape have rarely ever seen modern 400-foot turbines, which are huge industrial structures. Even more so, they have not had to live with them or even near them. I agree that the climate in the green lobby, in organisations like the CPRE and the RSPB, is rapidly changing. That is a good thing, too.
I wish to talk about the economic objections to wind farms, which are various. The main objection is the high unit cost coupled with the lack of certainty of supply at the right time. Our usable winds are irregular and intermittent, which the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, told us about. It follows that the load factors are poor. I have a figure of 30 to 35 per cent, while some people put it lower. Hence, they need back-up, which is likely to be from a conventional CO2-emitting plant. The recent study by the Royal Academy of Engineering put the cost of back-up at a 65 per cent surcharge. There are also the difficulties of managing the grid when there is a wind supply of more than 10 per cent. I believe that the Danes are finding that this is becoming a problem.
The same study put the unit cost of modern onshore wind at 5.4 pence per kilowatt hour, including the backup. For offshore wind their figure is 7.2 pence per kwh. I contrast that with the normal unit cost rate for a combined cycle gas turbine, or CCGT, of about 2.2 pence per kwh. Interestingly, they put the cost of modern coal plant with the CO2 sequestration at about 5 pence—and I underline that. In other words, we could adapt our coal-fired stations and that would be fractionally cheaper than the true cost of wind power.

337
In the nature of things, wind generated electricity by turbines is highly dispersed. It has to be collected and grids have to be constructed. This will be costly and there will be transmission losses. For a huge wind farm in the Hebrides—the island of Lewis has been mentioned—just imagine the costs and transmission losses of transporting the electricity to the main population centres. But those additional costs are never quoted. They do not seem to come into the equation.
So the popular view of wind energy is that it produces no emissions, but a modern wind turbine uses large quantities of concrete in the making of its tower, which means large quantities of CO2, because concrete is cement and the fuel used to make it emits CO2. Moreover, the conventional back-up—presently CCGTs, would have to be kept running on a spinning reserve basis which itself would generate inefficient levels of CO2. One does speculate about the overall carbon balance of a modern wind turbine. How much carbon does it save over its 20 year life? Has anyone worked that out, because it would be very illuminating?
I have said quite enough about wind power. In the natural environment field the other sources of energy that are usually mentioned are wave, tidal barrages, and tidal flow or stream. My impression is that few knowledgeable people believe that either wave or barrages would be economic—and barrages usually come with a huge environmental cost. But in the tidal stream field it is my understanding that exciting technical progress is now being made and it comes without the environmental costs of barrages. Is this a Cinderella that is coming good? Could the Minister tell us? I apologise for not giving him notice of that question.
Finally, I should say something about nuclear power. I must say that it is inescapable that we have to start embracing the nuclear solution. This afternoon and on numerous other occasions real concern has been expressed at what one can only describe as the Government's pusillanimous attitude to nuclear. We now have a situation in which over the next decade or so our remaining nuclear stations will be decommissioned. In those circumstances it is difficult to see how we can hold our CO2 emission levels down, let alone meet our Kyoto target—whatever that is worth.
The Government seem to take no interest in the technical progress that has been going on steadily in other parts of the world. I shall not go over the ground covered by many speakers, but it seems apparent now that technical progress has been made relentlessly over the past 10 years and other countries are now ordering nuclear power stations—including Finland. which has been mentioned, as has France and so on. One is aware of the work being carried out in the USA, in particular at MIT, and the interesting development by Eskom, the Government electricity organisation in South Africa, in what is known as pebble-bed technology. The Royal Academy of Engineering report puts the current cost of nuclear power
338
including decommissioning at 2.3 pence per kwh. Although one might criticise the discount rate used on that and even if one adjusted for that nuclear is still the most economic source after gas.
I shall say no more, other than to express my regret and my real worry that unless we embrace modern technologies, including the issue of the disposal of high level waste, we will end up with the worst of all possible worlds. Would it not be better to make haste slowly and more thoughtfully? Would it not be better to use the implicit subsidy that we spend on wind power for real research and development? Whether that should, for example, be tidal stream, nuclear or photovoltaic for sparsely populated areas, I do not know. Or should that money be spent on research and development to tackle the more difficult problems of CO2 emissions for transport? What I am quite sure about is that wind is not the answer and nuclear, almost certainly, is—in the scale that will be necessary.
I conclude by quoting some wise words by a distinguished Danish writer. He said:
"We should remember that dealing with global warming is not about making expensive, symbolic efforts to cut emissions now. It should be about making sure that our children and grandchildren will stop using fossil fuels because we have provided them with better and cheaper alternatives".
7.58 p.m.
Lord EzraMy Lords, I should like to add my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, for introducing this debate with his customary vigour. I entirely agree with what he said about security of supply now being one of the major aspects of the energy scene, This has changed since the White Paper was published in February last year.
He pointed out that for the first time in its industrial history the UK will become dependent upon imports at a time when supply is under pressure and prices are rising. All the indications are that this situation could continue. That was referred to by many noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater—who reminded me of our earlier forays into energy policy—and the noble Lord, Lord Chorley.
I propose considering the implications of that situation for the supply of gas, oil and electricity respectively, bearing in mind our environmental objectives. I shall take gas first. We are likely to become net importers of gas from as soon as the end of next year. That is not some distance away; it will happen in about 18 months' time. As the noble Lord. Lord Gray, reminded us, by 2010 we could be importing 50 per cent of our gas requirements and 70 per cent by 2020.
The short-term problem was identified by the EU Select Committee, to which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, referred; that if we are going to start importing gas as quickly as that on such a substantial scale, we must have the means to do so. That involves new import schemes, with their linked infrastructure. These are indeed being planned, but the Select Committee doubted whether they would be sufficiently in place during the next two to three years to enable the whole operation to be conducted smoothly.

339
The committee was particularly worried about the relatively low level of gas stocks. We have held a low level because our main stocks of gas were in the North Sea, but they have been depleted and our stocks are at a lower level than in most countries on continental Europe. Therefore, we no longer have that buffer if anything should go wrong.
There are also longer term risks in the heavy dependence on imported gas. The noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, on the question of gas interconnectors referred to this being a long-term as well as a short-term problem and a very costly one. The real issue, as the noble Lord, Lord Gray, mentioned is that we are located at the end of the European pipeline, which means that we will be increasingly dependent on distant and some uncertain sources of supply and on gaining adequate access to pipeline connections—this is of great importance—which pass through a number of countries, any one of which could change its policy on the subject. So it follows that we ought to be putting much greater emphasis on diversification of supply, which the Government identified in the White Paper. At present, they place their main reliance on wind energy as the main diversification.
A number of noble Lords—my noble friend Lord Greaves and the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, in particular—referred to the problems encountered in particular by on-shore wind energy. My noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie referred to the interconnector cables which will have to be built to ensure that we have the full connections with offshore wind power. But even if the Government's targets for wind power are achieved, this will still represent a relatively small proportion of our future energy requirements. Therefore, a wider range of renewables needs to be developed more speedily; for example, biomass, photovoltaics and tidal power.
But that in itself would not be enough. This therefore leads to a subject which has perhaps dominated the debate; namely, nuclear power. I am of the opinion that we cannot have a coherent energy policy without settling the nuclear issue one way or the other. If we decide to go ahead with nuclear power, certain problems must be resolved. If we do not, we must clearly demonstrate how the resultant gap will be closed. One of the problems which must be resolved if we want to go ahead is the relatively high capital cost. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, made some interesting comments on that. Apparently, there are ways in which that cost can be substantially reduced.
Furthermore, most of us believe that the issue of the handling of nuclear waste has gone on for far too long and it needs to be resolved quickly. Finally, there is the issue of achieving public acceptability; probably the most difficult of the issues facing the nuclear industry. In that connection, the interesting contribution from my noble friend Lord Taverne on radiation and safety was particularly relevant.
I turn to an issue close to my heart, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater; namely, coal. I believe that coal has a part to play and I was delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, referred to it. As
340
currently burnt, it has serious environmental disadvantages, which mean that the remaining coal-fired stations will have to be taken out of service before long. But clean coal technologies have been developed with carbon extraction.
It is urgent that some of these plants should be commissioned for two reasons. First, it could help to reduce the dependence on gas in the UK and, secondly and as importantly, it could pave the way for exporting these technologies to countries, especially in the Far East, which are substantial and growing users of coal. Last year, China alone increased its consumption of coal by 100 million tonnes. As a result of that, global carbon emissions, far from reducing in line with Kyoto objectives, actually rose by 3.8 per cent. That is likely to continue. We must seek to ensure that countries such as China and India can be enabled to use more coal without harming the atmosphere.
Oil has been discussed frequently in this House as a result of the recent perturbations and there is no doubt that there must be a greater emphasis on new technologies in the transport sector to reduce the usage of petroleum fuel. Technologies are readily available in the form of biofuels and hybrid vehicles and further along the line is the development of fuel cells, which are already being tried out in a limited number of vehicles.
I come finally to electricity. We have talked about the diversity of prime energy into electricity, the need to reduce gas and the nuclear issue, but I want to refer to two other aspects affecting electricity. The first is the adequacy and reliability of the electricity supply system. Capacity margins have been much reduced as a result of the introduction of the new electricity trading arrangements, (NETA). We now face the risk that under exceptional circumstances there may not be sufficient capacity to meet the demand. Such conditions could be due to the weather, unexpected outages or, as many noble Lords mentioned, terrorist action.
While obviously we cannot provide for all eventualities, there should be a greater measure of insurance than currently exists. Serious consideration should therefore be given to the reintroduction of capacity payments, which could increase the margin of reserve. I was interested in the reference by the noble Lord, Lord Gray, to the concept of a security of supply obligation. I regard that as a major issue which needs to be tackled urgently.
There should be a major shift from conventional power stations to more localised generation, right down to the domestic scale in which I declare an interest. My noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, who, I am glad to note, has just said, "Hear, hear", strongly supports that. Such a development would have the advantage of greater efficiency through the use of waste heat and the avoidance of transmission and distribution losses. The Government should be doing much more in that connection to support combined heat and power.
In conclusion, the publication of the White Paper in February 2003 certainly covered the ground fully. It made clear what the Government's energy objectives

341
were but since then security of supply has become the prime energy consideration. We face new risks, in both the short and long term. Many noble Lords and I have set out some of the actions which should be taken. What seems to be clear to me is that a major reassessment of energy policy is now required.
8.10 p.m.
Earl AttleeMy Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding for the excellent way in which he comprehensively introduced this debate. I have heard it said more than once about your Lordships' House that we are interested in debating only hunting, shooting, fishing and sex—perhaps we should add "energy". There is a very good reason for that. All noble Lords who have spoken are extremely concerned about our ability, on the one hand, to meet the twin but conflicting demands of security of energy supplies in the widest sense and, on the other hand, to arrest the march of global warming and climate change. When I say "arrest", I mean arrest, not just the cosmetic attempts of the Kyoto treaty to hide the political embarrassment of global warming, as Professor Lovelock put it.
Almost all noble Lords seem to be singing from more or less the same song sheet, but I suspect that the Minister wishes that he could use now the Government's song sheet that will be written after the general election. Before getting to the substance of my speech, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding for the sterling support and advice that he has given me and my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon over recent months. Sadly, my noble friend cannot be here tonight.
It is unfortunate that, with the exception of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, there is little opposition to the general thrust of your Lordships' recent contributions on energy debates. Hence, we are unable to test our arguments against a contrary opinion apart from that of the Minister. Perhaps it might be good to have someone like Jonathon Porritt in your Lordships' House, even if we did not agree with him.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin painted the general scenario. Among other things, he talked about capacity. Sadly, the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, cannot be here tonight but he very clearly doubts that mothball plant can be quickly brought back on line. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, pointed out that we are dealing with a global problem. She is right, but as a highly developed post-industrial economy we should lead the way in solving the problem. The noble Baroness appears to be well briefed by the green lobby, but not by Professor Lovelock. She spoke briefly of some of the snags with nuclear power, for instance the possibility of a terrorist attack. But what about an attack on an LNG tanker delivering to an estuarine terminal? There is a vulnerability there, too.
The noble Baroness quite properly talked of reduction in demand by various means. She is right to say that there is scope. It will help but, of course,
342
economic growth will mop up any savings in CO2 emissions. She has a point about a terrorist attack on nuclear power stations and nuclear installations. However, a new build can take into account that risk. Secondly, on those grounds would she advocate immediate decommissioning of all nuclear power stations because of the terrorist risk? I suspect not, because of the immediate huge increase in CO2 emissions.
The noble Baroness produced some alarming statistics on the weight of nuclear waste. She may or may not be right; I know not. However, nuclear waste is extremely dense. I must be honest: I understand that the infrastructure for a deep geological depository requires very considerable and expensive infrastructure below ground.
A more interesting and useful measure of nuclear waste is volume. If the noble Baroness visits BNFL at Sellafield she will see that in orders of magnitude the high-level waste store is not much bigger than the Royal Gallery. I think that she grossly exaggerates the scale of the problem. I helpfully suggest that she take another look at the 1999 report of the Select Committee on the management of nuclear waste.
I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Taverne. I agree with him that the risks of nuclear activities are overstated. But I have not heard the details of his arguments before and I will have to study Hansard very carefully.
My noble friend Lord Ullswater talked about the uncertainty of future gas supplies. I agree with him; our reliance on a single source of fuel for such a high proportion of our primary power is unwise. He also talked about despoiling our countryside, as did the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and others. That major difficulty with the Government's policy has been partially mitigated by opting for off-shore wind.
The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, talked about the difficulties with small-scale production of biofuel. I am always surprised by the regulatory difficulties put in the way of renewables.
My noble friend Lord King of Bridgwater talked about new nuclear build. I was at the same presentation that he attended. He also talked about strategic concerns and defence issues—something that, with my military connections, I am acutely aware of.
Since our last debate on energy, our thoughts have been informed by Professor James Lovelock's important contribution to the debate that appeared on the front page of the Independent on 24 January. His opinion was well covered by my noble friend Lord Jenkin and others. In a nutshell, Professor Lovelock points out that global warming could be the greatest danger faced by civilisation so far. He talks about the collapse of civilisation but not the end of human life and states that only nuclear power can meet the demand for energy and reduce emissions. Of course he understands that emissions control will help, but nowhere near fast enough.

343
Part of our problem is that a large proportion of our emissions arise from transport operations, as pointed out by my noble friend Lord Ullswater. Currently, our transport operations use almost exclusively hydrocarbon fuels. There is some electric traction, but of course that also has a carbon penalty.
We can make marginal improvements by reducing our waste and usage of transport, as pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. However, in order to make major reductions to power, energy and emissions relating to transport, a significant reduction in the size of the economy would be needed, because transport is inextricably linked to economic activity. Who is going to tell that to the Chancellor or, for that matter, the Americans, the Russians, the Indians, the Chinese or anyone else who wants to develop a modern industrial economy? Developments in hydrogen-related technology will become ever more important for transport, and that covers both the use and generation of hydrogen.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin referred to the recent report of the EU Select Committee on gas markets and supply. After my Starred Question today, I would not want to pre-empt any debate, but the Minister should not draw any comfort from the report, even though it was slightly more optimistic than I expected.
Two main concerns were identified in the report. The committee was unconvinced about the security of supply in the next two or three years. It was especially concerned about the possibility and the effect of extreme weather conditions and it reports that in the longer term, up to 2015, there should be ample supplies. But the difficulty is that this is within the lead time of new nuclear build, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord King of Bridgwater.
That is tight even for conventional fossil fuel power stations. But, with the advent of the Large Combustion Plant Directive, what alternatives are there? In any case, I fear that 75 to 85 per cent of our primary power from a single source—gas—that we cannot control is unwise.
We should also be informed by recent industrial difficulties in the Norwegian oil and gas industries. I have seen the absolute misery in city tower-block dwellings in Bosnia during the winter of 1993–94, when the inhabitants were deprived of both electricity and coal. My noble friend Lord King touched on the difficulties of maintaining gas supplies in eastern Europe. If we are not very careful about gas supplies, the same difficulties could occur in the UK—to our people in our cities.
Many noble Lords have touched on the attractions of nuclear power. It is clear that no political party will want to raise that issue before the general election. The general election will be fought on other matters. In fact, we do not need to make a decision about nuclear power new build right now. However, in order to keep the nuclear option open, with the shortest possible lead time, we need to make progress on the long-term disposal of nuclear waste, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra.
344
The public see that as an insurmountable objection to new nuclear build. During our most recent debate on energy, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, agreed with me that the only viable long-term disposal option for high-level waste is a deep geological repository. All noble Lords will have noticed the welcome change in attitude from the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, will follow his lead, because it was much appreciated.
However, noble Lords will recognise how much will flow from the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, about high-level waste. It is unhelpful to push too hard on that point at the moment. However, I am surprised that no noble Lord mentioned the closure of the Chapelcross Magnox nuclear power station. I understand the reasons for its closure: it generated only 194 megawatts; but that represents quite a few wind farms. At some point, it may be necessary to change the terms of reference for Chorum. It is expending far too much time examining unviable disposal options, rather than following the admirable suggestion of your Lordships' Select Committee.
Outside Westminster and the industry, there is confusion about the role of the NDA. Of course, its role is nuclear decommissioning, not long-term waste management. I should like to take this opportunity to welcome the appointment of Sir Anthony Cleaver as, effectively, chairman designate of the NDA. The issue of waste management is important and the general public's acceptance of waste solution is a prerequisite for the public acceptance of any new nuclear build, if required at some time in the future—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra.
It may be that we decide not to exercise the nuclear option. If we do not, we shall have to look at tidal power. I am extremely disappointed by the Government's attitude to the possibility of a tidal barrage. I am running out of time, so I shall have to leave it there, but I wish that the Minister would be a little more positive about tidal power, so that industry will consider investing more in research on the Severn Barrage project.
Thanks in part to our debate, Ministers are beginning to recognise the weakness of their policy That concerns medium-term security of supply and the fact that we may not be moving nearly fast enough or global warming and climate change.
8.23 p.m.
Lord Davies of OldhamMy Lords, I join other noble Lords who have congratulated the noble Lord Lord Jenkin, on introducing the debate, which has raised fundamental issues about energy policy. I pay tribute to both his tenacity in repeatedly raising these issues in the House and the forceful way in which he introduced the debate. He will recognise that our views differ on certain aspects of energy policy, and I quibble with one remark that he made. That is his suggestion that the Government, far from listening to such debates, have nothing but contempt for other views expressed.

345
Let me say that, of course, we stand by the main propositions behind the White Paper. We are clear that that made an important statement, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, indicated, about the development of government policy. Of course, we recognised that within that there would be a necessity for evolution and development against changing circumstances. The Government do not have a closed mind about issues and rightly so. In areas where we have clear views, it will take some degree of persuasion for us to change our perspective.
I would be doing the House a disservice if I did not rebut the notion that the Government do not listen carefully to contrary views. I say to the noble Lord, Lord King, who emphasised that when such a person of limited influence in the department as me is replying to the debate, it behoves me to ensure that Ministers who do take crucial decisions are aware of the contours of the debate. I could not agree with him more, and the value of such a debate is exactly that. We have important and significant mechanisms for feeding these issues back to Ministers who take responsibility for decisions.
It is not long since the Energy Bill left this House for the other place. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, would agree that during the debates on the Bill on a number of occasions we articulated many of the issues that have been raised again this evening. We had many stimulating discussions about the security of the UK's energy supply, which has been a significant theme of this evening's debate, and about issues of renewable energy. I recognise some of the anxieties that were expressed, although I take it with some concern that some of these criticisms are now coming from quarters that it was expected would be largely supportive. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, expressed in the most graphic terms that there is a necessity for a rethink among the Green movement on its stance with regard to renewables. Rethinking is always a good concept for any pressure group.
The noble Lord referred to the fact that I might know a little bit about Saddleworth, and therefore was aware of the important meeting that took place the other day about the possible construction of wind turbines there. I hope that he will recognise that it was not just the good folk of Saddleworth who participated in that debate, but people from other parts of the country. I hope that he also noticed that some of them were not very far removed from strong lobby groups on pro-nuclear. Therefore, the debate on wind turbines may not have been quite the innocent issue of protection of landscape against the necessary generation of electricity. It also had a strong element of ensuring that one potential competitor, an alternative strategy to nuclear, should in fact be challenged in those terms. That meeting gave some reflection of that.
We all recognise that there is no more fundamental issue of greater importance to our economy or our very way of life than the security and development of energy supplies. It will not be a surprise to anyone in this House if I first refer to the White Paper. I assure noble Lords that we have not changed our perspective on the
346
White Paper. In our view, it expressed the absolute cardinal points that an energy policy for this country needs to be based on. Putting the United Kingdom on a path to reduced CO2 emissions by 60 per cent by 2050 is an international obligation. Noble Lords who have participated in this debate and have reflected on the environmental issues all recognise the salience of that objective in terms of the welfare of the wider world and not just our own citizens.
Maintaining the reliability of energy supplies, as I indicated before, was a point emphatically made in the debate tonight. Another factor is the promotion of competitive markets both in the UK and beyond, because it is through such structures that we get the best value for our people. Ensuring that each home is adequately and affordably heated is essential, because heat and light are crucial to all our fellow citizens for enjoyment of living. This is not a menu of options. These four points interlock and are part of the total objective that we must have for an energy policy. It is a package to be taken as a whole.
I will come to the points about particular technologies that noble Lords have advanced this evening, but I wanted first to produce a general response. We need flexibility to keep the UK on the right track to meet our international obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, and to meet our ambitious domestic goal to reduce carbon emissions by 2050. That is an important dimension of our objectives.
In terms of the broader picture, this means that we need a diverse mix of energy sources and supply routes. Of course noble Lords are right to emphasise—it came out in a number of the penetrating speeches made this evening—that in fact we were on the brink of a substantial change with regard to our energy, in terms of our movement to greater dependence on international supplies. In putting forward this position, our obligation is to meet the needs of our people, but it would be remiss if we did not recognise that all our neighbouring economies too will be dependent upon the securing of those supplies.
I recognise what is being said about the potential vulnerability of some of those supplies, because they are distant and they are from countries with which we have not in the past developed trade of a dependent kind in quite the way we will with regard to energy. Our job is to maximise the potential routes of supply of energy. When we do this, we are looking at Europe, we are looking at Russia, we are certainly looking at central Asia and of course we are looking at North Africa.
The Foreign Office's job, as is certainly emphasised in its objectives, is to create international negotiations, treaties, obligations, frameworks and understandings, which guarantee that we are able to maximise our access to energy supplies against a background where some of this will be done in co-operation with our European partners. This is because Europe itself is increasingly dependent on these flows of energy resources from locations outside Europe.

347
One ready solution to this particular position has been emphasised this evening; namely, the ready-made solution of increased development of nuclear power. There have been a number of weighty contributions, but also perhaps one or two less substantial points.
The noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, asked how long it took to build a nuclear power station from scratch. Well, from its whole planning, it takes 10 to 15 years. I did hear a remark that there might be some nuclear power stations which could be bought off the peg. I was not quite sure just what that represented—I suppose it indicated that there might be a faster route towards development of nuclear power, but I cannot quite envisage that.
What I am resisting, however, is the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Gray, that the Government are busy putting every obstacle in the way of the nuclear industry. That is not so. It is the case, as he has recognised, that we do not, at this stage, believe that building new nuclear power stations is likely. That is because it is not economically attractive. It is not the Government dictating that. It is just not true that the Government are putting every obstacle in the way.
The Government are concerned about keeping the nuclear option open. They are not putting barriers in the way in those terms. Of course, we are reflecting. I do not think that noble Lords can be dismissive of that point, which was ably emphasised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, in her contribution; namely, that there is a whole range of real anxieties about nuclear power.
There are worries about nuclear accidents, which we cannot erase from public perception. They are certainly not erased from the perception of the Russian or American publics or that of many of our European partners. Nor can we underestimate the problem of terrorist attacks. Of course, all power supplies are potentially open to threat in those terms. But we all recognise the particular danger to the community of a terrorist attack affecting a nuclear power station.
As the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, constantly reminds me, when will we be convinced that there is a solution to the issue of nuclear waste? In a recent contribution, my noble friend Lord Sainsbury regarded the deep geological approach as the one that is most likely to be effective. Of course, I would do nothing but support that position.
Earl AttleeMy Lords, the noble Lord agreed that it was the only viable option.
Lord Davies of OldhamMy Lords, I am not decrying from that position. I am merely indicating that those issues are not easily overcome. We all know that the issues concerning nuclear waste are still a profound problem. They cannot be readily brushed aside, however enthusiastic several contributors to this debate may be about nuclear power.
With regard to renewable energy, of course the Government are concerned that there should be a range of options. I was enormously grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, for his advocacy of a range
348
of potential options, including those with exciting potential for the future with regard to tidal power, but which currently may be very difficult, in commercial terms, to bring into the market place. But he is right that we need to encourage such developments and such research. The Government are doing exactly that.
There is no doubt that in the shorter term, it is not that the Government have a preoccupation with wind power. I assure noble Lords that that is not the issue. The issue is that wind power is proving to be the area of generation of power to which the market is responding and in which it is preparing to invest heavily. Of course, there are environmental considerations in that respect.
In round two, planning permission and development will see a greater number of wind turbines placed in coastal waters and not on some of our greatly cherished landscapes. But it will also be recognised that some wind turbines will be located on land. Of course, planning permission must be obtained. It will have to meet the strict requirements of not interfering aggressively with the landscape.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is right to point out that in our protection of areas of outstanding natural beauty we should not ignore those areas that are just immediately outside which, themselves, are treasured and valued by local people. Let me say that if anything came out of the meeting at Saddleworth, it is certainly the case that such procedures will not be followed without local people having their say.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, emphasised again his enthusiasm and commitment to combined heat and power. He berated the Government, as he has on many occasions in the past, for our more limited enthusiasm as regards the benefits of that strategy. It is not that the Government do not recognise the benefits of combined heat and power, but they do not take a supportive stance. The noble Lord will recognise that we have some reservations about putting undue emphasis on this solution to the issues. However, who better than the noble Lord, with his background, could stress the role that coal can play, in particular new clean coal technologies? Of course we are responsive to that. We are concerned to ensure that a situation does not develop within renewables in which we rob Peter to pay Paul. The major problem with combined heat and power may lie in that area.
I return to the theme with which I began my remarks. It has been suggested during the debate that the Government have closed minds and blocked ears on the development of our energy policy. We have a clearly identified strategy to which we are committed, and we have obligations that must be met which dictate that strategy. It is not the case that we are closing off options, nor is it that we are unmindful of the strength of positions which develop in the energy field against a background that all noble Lords would recognise; that of a significantly changing perspective on the security of and access to energy supplies. No one doubts the importance of that. It is why we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, for initiating this debate. It helps to give prominence to issues that we all recognise.

349
In replying to the debate I recognise that I have fallen short in responding to every point. I have to confess that the one which floored me most was that introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne. I shall need to look carefully at the research he quoted on the limited impact of nuclear disasters on the health of surrounding communities. He has set out his stall to challenge received opinion on these issues by quoting some very important sources. I am not in a position to respond to him at the level at which he presented his arguments, and I hope that he will forgive me. However, his arguments will be taken on board.
That leads me to a more general point. It was suggested during the passage of the Energy Bill that the issue of security of supply was such that it should be written on to the face of the Bill as a government requirement. That was done in this House. We indicated that we had some difficulty with the amendment and of course we resisted it. I indicated at the time that it would not find favour with the other place. However, what I want to reflect to noble Lords this evening is this. Discussions and negotiations have been conducted in the other place. It is recognised that there are serious concerns about this issue. I am able to reveal to noble Lords that negotiations are reaching a point where we would expect the Secretary of State to undertake to make an annual report to Parliament about the security of energy supplies. That would guarantee a significant debate in the other place once a year, and no doubt in your Lordships' House it will most likely merely add to the number of debates which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, would prompt in any case, together with several of his noble friends who are particularly active in this area.
It has been an interesting debate in which some very important and salient points have been made. The Government certainly are aware that this is an important and significant issue for our community. Far from seeking to choke off debate. it is our responsibility to encourage it in areas that we all recognise are not only exceedingly difficult but absolutely essential to the welfare of all the communities we hold dear.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of RodingMy Lords, before I beg leave to withdraw my Motion, I have ascertained that I have about 23 minutes before our time runs out. However, I have considerable sympathy for the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord McIntosh, and other Ministers, who are in their places. They have to conduct the business which follows this debate and I shall resist the temptation.
I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, who described this as a sombre debate. That is certainly what it has been.
I welcome the recognition by the Minister, in his customary amiable way, that events certainly have moved on since the White Paper of 15 months ago and that security of supply has now reached the top of public concern. It so happens that I opened a copy of
350
a letter from the Minister for energy, Stephen Timms, addressed to one of my colleagues in the Commons, just before I introduced the debate. I have not had time to read the amendment that the Government are minded to table at Report stage in another place. It is a step forward and we shall want to look at it very carefully indeed.
The only other speech I would pick out from what has been a remarkable debate—I thank all noble Lords who took part most warmly for their contributions—is that of the noble Lord, Lord Taverne. I took part in a debate when the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, made his maiden speech, and he made exactly the same point. He made it in rather a different way and a different manner, but he raised the issue of whether radiation is to be regarded as linear or whether there is a threshold below which it can be beneficial.
I believe we shall hear more of this because, as the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, pointed out, the costs that have been imposed on the entire industry over the past 50 years of dealing with radiation on the assumption that it is a straight line and linear and therefore has to be kept to the absolute minimum—nil if possible—are enormous. This argument will have to be addressed. I sympathise with the Minister for being confronted with the argument, but it has been heard before and will be heard again. It is a very important issue.
With those very few remarks and reiterating my thanks to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Gangmasters (Licensing) Bill
8.48 .pm.
Lord CarterMy Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Carter.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Boston of Faversham) in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of CommitteesI understand that no amendments have been set down to the Bill. With the agreement of the Committee I shall now put the Question that I report the Bill to the House without amendment. The Question is that I report the Bill to the House without amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 (Audit of Public Bodies) Order 2004
8.50 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey)rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 7 June be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord saidMy Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to speak to the second order as well, also laid on 7 June. Both orders are being made under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000.
It may be helpful if I put the orders in context. Last year, the Government made orders in support of their response to the report of the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, Holding to Account. One of those orders provided that the Comptroller and Auditor-General would be the auditor of all NDPBs other than those incorporated under the Companies Acts. Another order granted the Comptroller and Auditor-General access rights to certain documents for the purpose of carrying out those audits.
The Government welcomed the commitments that the Comptroller and Auditor-General made at the time. He provided assurances that his new powers would not be used in a way that would increase burdens and that the National Audit Office would put in place new arrangements to ensure a high quality of service in the absence of any competitive tendering arrangements.
The Government also made an order to rationalise the statutory responsibilities for auditing special health authorities which were previously subject to audit by both the Audit Commission and the Comptroller and Auditor-General. That order, together with a separate order discontinuing the requirement to produce summarised accounts, reduced the dual audit burden on the special health authorities and reduced Department of Health costs.
The orders being debated today are intended to continue the process that Parliament approved last year. I am grateful for the assistance we have received from the National Audit Office throughout the process of preparing these orders. I now turn to the orders themselves.
The Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 (Audit of Public Bodies) Order 2004 provides for the Comptroller and Auditor-General to be made the statutory auditor for the Hearing Aid Council. The Hearing Aid Council currently appoints its own auditors. The order also takes account of developments in respect of the Seafish Industry Authority.
The Hearing Aid Council is a statutory body established under the Hearing Aid Council Act 1968. It regulates anyone who sells hearing aids, whether in the high street, the purchaser's home or a hospital. However, it does not regulate hearing aids that are supplied free of charge by the National Health Service, through mail order nor e-commerce sales.
352
The Hearing Aid Council sets the standards of competence and conduct towards which all hearing aid dispensers are expected to work. It was reclassified as a non-departmental public body, with effect from 1 April 2003. It is intended that in due course the Hearing Aid Council will transfer from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Department of Health.
Last year's order, the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 (Audit of Public Bodies) Order 2003, made the Comptroller and Auditor-General responsible for auditing the Seafish Industry Authority as from the financial year 2005–06. The date was chosen to enable the contract with their auditors to run its course. Since then, the auditors have resigned, to become the Seafish Industry Authority's internal auditors. There would be a clear conflict of interest if they retained the position of external auditors. There is now no body with legal responsibility to carry out the external audit. The Government are taking the opportunity, with this new order, to bring forward the date when the Comptroller and Auditor-General becomes responsible for auditing the Seafish Industry Authority to the financial year 2003–04.
The second order, the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 (Audit of Health Service Bodies) Order 2004, deals with the audit of four new special health authorities, and has been prepared in consultation with the Department of Health. The special health authorities are: NHSU, known as the NHS University; NHS Direct; NHS Professionals; and the NHS Pensions Agency.
The previous arrangements required two sets of accounts to be prepared for each special health authority—one set by the special health authority and the other set by the Department of Health—and for each special health authority to be, in effect, audited twice—once by auditors appointed by the Audit Commission and secondly by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. The intention of the second order is therefore to put the new special health authorities on a par with all the others; that is, to make the Comptroller and Auditor General the statutory auditor of special health authorities in place of the Audit Commission, thus avoiding the dual-audit burden. The proposals continue the Government's commitments to improve parliamentary accountability and I commend the orders to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 7 June be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Baroness NoakesMy Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the orders. I shall say at the outset that we support them. They rationalise the way in which certain parts of the public sector are audited. The first audit is in line with the report of the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, which we have always supported. The second order is a logical measure to remove double audit arrangements. We find nothing to object to in the orders.

353
The Minister may be hoping that I shall now sit down. But I have to disappoint him, because an old audit hand never misses an opportunity to talk about her specialist subject. I shall therefore crave the indulgence of the House for just a few minutes on that subject.
I would like the Minister to address the simple issue of the Government's overall policy towards public sector audit. We have adopted a patchwork approach across the country. The longest-standing element comprises the Comptroller and Auditor General and National Audit Office. We have been well served by those arrangements and I am pleased to see that the effect of the orders before us this evening is to extend the scope of the C&AG's work.
However, in the early 1980s, the then government—a Conservative government—took a look at local authority audits. They decided that they should be brought under a common framework and the Audit Commission was invented. The Audit Commission then became flavour of the month and it acquired other audits, including those of NHS bodies, which were rather unsatisfactorily audited at the time by the Department of Health. Since then, the Audit Commission has been busy acquiring all kinds of other functions such as best-value inspections, which we could debate another day.
I concede that in creating the Audit Commission, the Conservative government set the ball rolling, but we now have duplication of public audit. Is it logical and/or cost-effective to have that? Earlier this year, I had the privilege to speak on the Public Audit (Wales) Bill for these Benches. I was pleased to note that the Government had taken a firm view that audit duplication must end in Wales. The Auditor General for Wales will be responsible for audits of the whole spectrum—central government, local authorities and health bodies—and the Audit Commission will disappear in Wales.
Why have the Government taken that bold approach to public sector audit in Wales, but left England to languish under these double arrangements, which owe more to historical accident than logic? The second order creeps us a little nearer to a logical end state, but a lot more is left unchanged by the orders.
That is the overall picture. If the Government do not want to address in England what they have correctly addressed in Wales, I shall turn to the second order. It deals with some parts of the NHS—namely, special health authorities—and builds on the orders that were made last year. Those orders were rightly justified as a means of preventing the special health authorities being audited twice. If that rationale is good enough for special health authorities, why is it not good enough for the other health bodies that have been created by NHS legislation; namely, strategic health authorities, primary care trusts and NHS trusts, which are audited by the Audit Commission and then audited again for the purposes of the summarised NHS accounts? I remind the Minister that the summarised NHS accounts are a large volume which I think I am
354
the only person to collect from the Printed Paper Office each year. That brings together the accounts of all those things that have already been audited by the Audit Commission. There is a similar, although slightly more complicated issue, in relation to foundation trusts.
What is the logic for rationalising the audit arrangements for special health authorities but not all the other bodies in the NHS? I have struggled to find what substantive difference there is between them in terms of audit arrangements. I hope that the Minister can enlighten me.
Lord Shutt of GreetlandMy Lords, I, too, rise to thank the Minister for his presentation of the two orders and to say that we on these Benches support them. They seem the right way in which to go forward. I listened with great care to the noble Baroness, as I am similarly an old audit hand and as I have an interest in what the word "audit" means.
One thing that occurs to me—although in one sense I say, "sufficient to the day"—is a reservation about absolute and utter uniformity. I understand that the Comptroller and Auditor-General being placed as auditor of all sorts of things in the public sector is one thing. However, in the private sector there is encouragement from time to time for the idea that auditors should be changed. It would not do if there were only certain people with experience of auditing in the public sector.
I am happy to support the orders in relation to the relevant bodies, and see that that is a way of straightening up those matters that seemed to have a jagged edge. However, I have some reservations about the total straightening of these matters, because it is important that there should be alternatives from time to time. Indeed, there is often a need for alternatives. Having said that, I support the orders.
Lord McIntosh of HaringeyMy Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their support for the order, and I am glad that there is unanimity within KPMG about the need for the orders.
Baroness NoakesMy Lords, for the record, I have not been within KPMG for four years.
Lord McIntosh of HaringeyMy Lords, neither has the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, I should think. One might say that there is support from KPMG graduates.
Both the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, joined this House in 2000. I am not sure whether they were present for debates on the Government Resource and Accounts Bill, which I had the pleasure of taking through the House. If they had been, they would be aware that during the passage of that Bill there was a very strongly-held view by the Public Accounts Committee in another place that the Comptroller and Auditor-General should be the auditor of a great many more public bodies than the Government had originally proposed.

355
Seeking as always to listen to the views of Parliament, since those were the views not particularly of the Government but were held very strongly by the main opposition party and, I believe, by the Liberal Democrat Party, we took the view that we should consider the matter. We asked the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, to conduct an inquiry into the extent to which the remit of the Comptroller and Auditor-General should be extended. We accepted his recommendations and have been implementing them. These two orders are tidying up implementation orders. We call them "Sharman orders", in fact, in honour of the noble Lord, Lord Sharman.
Baroness NoakesMy Lords, would the Minister regard the second order as a "Sharman order"? The special health authorities are not NDPBs, as I understand it. That takes us into different territory from that on which I was trying to argue.
Lord McIntosh of HaringeyMy Lords, no, they are not NDPBs, but they are covered by the recommendations that the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, made. They are the logical extension of the recommendations made by the noble Lord, Lord Sharman.
Having given that piece of history, I acknowledge the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. It is certainly the case that Wales and, although she did not say so, Scotland have merged the two bodies. It is certainly a sustainable argument that the same should be done in England. In general, the distinction that has been made in England is that the Comptroller and Auditor General audits national bodies and the Audit Commission is responsible for the audits of local bodies. I am not saying that that has to be the case for ever. The best that I can say is that we should bear in mind the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. I thought they were well made.
356
We should consider the balance of advantage. The Audit Commission has the capacity to audit local National Health Service organisations, just as it has the responsibility of auditing local government. It has the ability to follow up audits with value for money studies, as does the National Audit Office. I believe that local authorities and National Health Service trusts find them valuable. It may be that the local structure of the Audit Commission is more appropriate for that purpose in a larger country such as England.
It should not be thought that I am setting my face against the suggestions of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and I am certainly not a devotee of uniformity, of which the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, is rightly suspicious. Let me take on board the points that have been made. Of course, they are wide of the immediate subject matter of the orders before us but I undertake that we will consider them.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 (Audit of Health Service Bodies) Order 2004
9.6 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of HaringeyMy Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 7 June be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at seven minutes past nine o'clock.

  Sub-Saharan Africa: Debt
  The Earl of Sandwich asked Her Majesty's Government:
  In which sub-Saharan African heavily indebted poor countries are civil society groups and parliaments playing a significant role in poverty reduction strategies and in monitoring the impact of debt relief payments. [HL3262]
  The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos):In order to qualify for debt relief under the heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC) initiative, governments lead participatory processes to develop poverty reduction strategy papers (PRSPs), involving civil society and the international community. To date, parliaments have not played a significant role in these processes, but there are increasing signs of parliamentary interest and involvement. DfID supports this development because the PRSP approach ensures that the money saved from debt servicing is spent on health, education and other development projects.
  Of the 23 sub-Saharan African countries that have qualified for the HIPC initiative, 19 countries (Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, Ethiopia, The Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia) all have full PRSPs in place. The remaining four countries (Democratic Republic of Congo, Sierra Leone, Guinea Bissau and Sao Tome and Principe) have presented interim PRSPs to the World Bank and IMF boards.

  International Development Association: Financing
  The Earl of Sandwich asked Her Majesty's Government:
  How the United Kingdom and other G8 countries make up the shortfall in International Development Association financing as a result of reduced loan payments. [HL3263]
  Baroness Amos: Reduced loan payments arise as a direct result of the increased use of grants in the International Development Association (IDA). Reduced loans or increased grants have two associated costs. The first is the lost income from the repayment of the loans that would have been made in the place of grants (the lost reflows), and the second is the lost administrative charges on IDA loans. For grants agreed during the thirteenth replenishment of IDA (IDA 13), the UK has supported a proposal, whereby lost administrative charges would be compensated through upfront contributions made by donors, and lost reflows would be compensated as and when these would have fallen due on a pay-as-you-go basis.
  In IDA 14, the issue of compensating IDA for the cost of grants will arise again, as grants are expected to remain an important funding instrument for IDA. Further proposals for grant compensation are being put forward by World Bank staff, and these will be discussed during the replenishment negotiations. A key objective for the UK will be to secure an agreement which recognises the importance of ensuring the long-term financial integrity of IDA.

  Speed Cameras: Installation Criteria
  Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether occurrences of fatal accidents are amongst the criteria for the installation of speed cameras at a particular accident location; and, if so, what number of such accidents warrants the installation of a speed camera. [HL3344]
  Lord Davies of Oldham:
  The rules for the safety camera cost recovery scheme require partnerships to use the guideline of four accidents resulting in people being killed or seriously injured over the previous three years at sites they propose to enforce using cameras.

  Passenger Franchises
  Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Which passenger franchises include a significant revenue risk to the franchisee. [HL3380]
  Lord Davies of Oldham:
  All franchisees normally have revenue risk. The exception is where circumstances have required a full management contract to be put in place. Currently this applies only to First North Western services.

  British Transport Police
  Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Why it is necessary for the British Transport Police to have its headquarters in central London; and what are its current requirements for additional office space in London. [HL3431]
  Lord Davies of Oldham:
  The British Transport Police has confirmed that the force, with its national responsibility for policing of the railway system, has a strong operational requirement for its headquarters, including strategic command and central support activities, being centrally located with fast and easy access to the principal hubs of the rail infrastructure, and in close proximity to key stakeholders in both the rail industry and government. Uniquely London meets such operational requirements.

  BTP would face substantial costs associated with any relocation away from central London, and such costs would far outweigh any revenue benefits of alternative locations and could not be supported in terms of value for money.
  WA23
  The force is reviewing its future accommodation requirements in the light of the possible need to vacate its current HQ offices at Tavistock Place when the lease expires at the end of 2005. The extent of any replacement accommodation will be a matter for early consideration by the new British Transport Police Authority.

  UK Sport: Modernisation Programme
  Lord Moynihan asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Further to the Written Answer by the Lord McIntosh of Haringey on 11 March (WA 194), whether they intend to continue underspend in UK Sport's modernisation budget for the national governing bodies of sport in each of the three years of the project; and [HL3299]
  Further to the Written Answer by the Lord McIntosh of Haringey on 11 March (WA 194), whether they will provide a breakdown of the underspend for UK Sport's modernisation budget detailing how much money was carried forward for the modernisation programme and returned to the Treasury. [HL3300]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey): The underspends to budgets in each year were as follows:

  Year

  £

  2001–02

  839,700

  2002–03

  2,029,800

  2003–04

  1,620,000

  Under the end-year flexibility scheme none of this was returned to the
  Treasury.
  UK Sport's business plan for 2005–09 has yet to be approved and as a result the budget for the modernisation programme remains to be agreed. UK Sport has no intention to underspend on the modernisation programme in each of the next three years.

  Sport: Funding
  Lord Moynihan asked Her Majesty's Government:
  When they will announce which United Kingdom sports eligible for high performance funding are to be financed at a devolved level, and which at a United Kingdom level. [HL3354]
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey:
  There is no change to the responsibilities for funding that were outlined in Game Plan. The main complexities were for the UK national governing bodies of sport receiving significant funding for programmes in support of their performance pathway from both UK Sport and Sport England and the subsequent monitoring and evaluation of that investment.
  WA24
  There were also complexities for athletes of the same performance standard on the pathway receiving different levels of financial support from home country sports councils.

  There are constructive discussions currently under way between UK Sport and Sport England, in the first instance, aimed at addressing the NGB programme issues. In addition, all the sports councils are committed to making joined up funding decisions in support of one stop plans and so inconsistencies should be eliminated over the next Olympiad.

  Sport England and UK Sport
  Lord Moynihan asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What is the annual rent for the offices of Sport England and UK Sport in London; what is the length of the respective leases; and when the next break clauses, if any, take effect. [HL3355]
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey:
  The annual rent for Sport England's London offices is £1,116,000; the length of the lease is 15 years, and the next break clause takes effect on 29 September 2007. The annual rent for UK Sport's office is £750,000; the lease is a commercial 15 year lease with no break clauses.

  Lord Moynihan asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they plan to relocate any UK Sport functions from London to Loughborough; if so, which functions; and when the relocation will take place.[HL3356]

  Lord McIntosh of Haringey:
  Sir Michael Lyons conducted a review of the scope for relocating public sector jobs outside of London and the south-east. His report, published in March 2004, indicated that DCMS had identified a number of possible relocations, one of which was UK Sport.

  Discussions are on-going with UK Sport about the implications of this proposal, but there has been no decision concerning the relocation or timing of such a move.

  Development Land: Central Government
  Baroness Byford asked Her Majesty's Government:
  How much land is held by government departments, the National Health Service and other public institutions; and what proportion could be made available for house building. [HL3399]
  The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): Estimates of previously developed land in England that may be suitable for development (brownfield land) are available from the national land use database of previously developed land for 2002. An estimated 13,000 hectares were owned by central government and other public sector bodies, excluding local government. Of these about 6,000 hectares were judged by the local authorities to

  WA25
  be potentially suitable for housing, with a capacity of 160,000 dwellings. These figures include both previously developed land and buildings that are vacant or derelict and land currently in use identified by local authorities as having potential for redevelopment.
  Following the publication of the Sustainable Communities Plan (Feb 2003) the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, through English Partnerships, set up a register of surplus land held by central government and its agencies. Any department proposing to dispose of land which is surplus to its own operational requirements now has to place that land on the register for a period of 40 working days before the land is marketed. This procedure gives the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, English Partnerships or other departments the opportunity to express an interest in acquiring the land to take forward its own policy objectives, before it is marketed to the private sector. In April 2004 land on the register covered over 2,700 hectares.

  Homeless Households
  Baroness Byford asked Her Majesty's Government:
  How many homeless people lived in rural areas for each of the years 1999–2003. [HL3400]
  Lord Rooker:
  Information collected about local authorities' actions under homelessness legislation is in respect of households, rather than persons.

  Homeless households in all forms of Temporary Accommodation as at 31 March: England

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  2004

  Rural authorities

  3,460

  4,270

  5,230

  6,060

  7,030

  7,860

  8,390

  8,270

  Urban authorities

  37,780

  43,240

  51,340

  59,110

  68,170

  72,580

  81,010

  89,020

  All local authorities

  41,250

  47,520

  56,580

  65,170

  75,200

  80,440

  89,400

  97,290

  Notes Households in accommodation arranged by local authorities pending enquiries or after being accepted as homeless under homelessness legislation. Data prior to 1997 are not available on a comparable basis. Totals may not equal sum of components because of rounding.Source ODPM PIE homelessness returns (quarterly).

  Stoke Heath Young Offender Institution
  Lord Dholakia asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether they will establish a public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of Joseph Scholes in Stoke Heath Young Offender Institution in March 2002, as recommended by the coroner. [HL3214]
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): The coroner has written to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, commenting on a number of issues arising from the inquest. We are considering his comments and will reply in due course. We will make known our response by means of a Ministerial Statement.
  Estimates of the number of households accepted as eligible for assistance, unintentionally homeless and in a priority need category, in local authority districts classified by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister as rural, are tabled below.
  Households accepted by local authorities as eligible for assistance, unintentionally homeless and in priority need: England

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Rural authorities

  14,950

  16,890

  17,420

  19,320

  20,850

  Urban authorities

  90,630

  97,790

  100,390

  110,750

  116,150

  All local authorities

  105,580

  114,670

  117,810

  130,070

  137,000

  Notes Totals may not equal sum of components because of rounding Source ODPM PIE homelessness returns (quarterly)
  Baroness Byford asked Her Majesty's Government:
  How many temporary-accommodated households there were in rural areas in the years 1995–2003. [HL3401]
  Lord Rooker:
  Information on the number of households living in temporary accommodation provided by local authorities under homelessness legislation as at the end of each quarter is collected by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Estimates as at 31 March of each year, in local authority districts classified by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister as rural, are tabled below.

  Young Offender Institutions: Search Procedures
  Lord Dholakia asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether Prison Service contracts with other agencies running young offender institutions contain checks on the use of strip search and physical restraint procedures. [HL3217]
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: All but one young offender institutions are run by HM Prison Service; HMYOI Ashfield is privately managed. Other establishments, including other privately managed prisons, accommodate young adult offenders as a proportion of their population. All establishments holding young adult offenders, including those which are privately managed, are subject to the Young

  WA27
  Offender Institution Rules 2000, of which Rule 42 covers searching and Rule 52 covers restraints. All of these establishments keep records on the use of strip search procedures and physical restraint procedures.

  Prisons: Offending Behaviour Courses
  Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether a prisoner who refuses to attend a faith-based offending behaviour course for reasons of conscience is in any way disadvantaged; and whether prisons offering no alternative to such a course will notify prisoners in writing that they will not be disadvantaged; and [HL3223]
  What instructions they have provided to the Prison Service to ensure that a prisoner who is required to attend an offending behaviour course as an essential precondition of his parole but declines to attend a faith-based course for reasons of conscience is offered a transfer to a prison which (a) runs an equivalent non-faith based course; (b) is equally convenient for visitors; and (c) allows him to continue with any course of study he is undertaking. [HL3224]
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: There are no faith-based offending behaviour programmes for prisoners accredited by the Correctional Services Accreditation Panel (CSAP). Some prisons do run faith-based courses accredited by other recognised bodies and open to all prisoners, for example on victim awareness, but no prisoner should be disadvantaged for refusing to attend such a course for reasons of conscience. Where there are good reasons why a prisoner cannot participate in a particular recommended activity, this should be recorded in the sentence plan.
  It is open to the prisoner to seek a transfer to another prison running a similar non faith-based course. Current guidance requires governors to consider regime and family contact issues before moving prisoners and, whenever possible, to avoid moving prisoners if it disrupts their participation in an educational course or treatment programme or their consideration for parole. However, where a prisoner is identified as needing work, treatment or education programmes, which are not available at their current location, they may be moved to another appropriate prison; subject to available vacancies at that establishment.
  There are no essential pre-conditions of parole that require a prisoner to attend an offending related course. It is, however, a mandatory requirement that reports of any offence related courses attended are included in a prisoner's parole dossier. The Parole Board, an independent non-departmental executive body, determines parole and the Prison Service has no input into the parole decision process.

  Asylum Seekers: Democratic Republic of Congo
  Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether they will suspend the removal of failed asylum seekers from the Democratic Republic of Congo who were resident in Bukavu. [HL3308]
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: As with applications from all nationalities, each asylum (and human rights) claim made by someone from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is considered by the Home Office on its individual merits, in accordance with our obligations under the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Individual asylum seekers from DRC found by both the Home Office and the Independent Appellate Authority not to be at risk of persecution and not in need of humanitarian protection are considered for removal on a case by case basis.
  All returns of failed asylum seekers from DRC are to Kinshasa only. In the current circumstances, we see no need to suspend returns of failed asylum seekers who originate from or have been resident in Bukavu.

  Motoring Offences
  Viscount Simon asked Her Majesty's Government:
  How many notices of intended prosecutions for motoring offences which were issued in 2002 were abandoned and not pursued to convictions. [HL3334]
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Data on notices of intended prosecutions are not collected centrally within England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland.

  British Citizenship Applications
  Lord Tope asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What is the current backlog of applications received for British citizenship since January 2004. [HL3335]
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The amount of nationality work in progress fluctuates. The only published figures are the numbers of decisions made annually.
  Lord Tope asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What steps are being taken to clear the backlog of applications received for British citizenship since January 2004, to enable local registration services to plan and prepare regular ceremonies. [HL3336]
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Officials from the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) are working closely with representatives from the local authorities to ensure a steady throughput of citizenship decisions to allow adequate planning and preparation for ceremonies. Additional resources will be allocated to meet an increase in the number of applications being submitted.
  Lord Tope asked Her Majesty's Government:
  When local authorities will begin to receive regular payments for the British citizenship ceremonies which they have already undertaken. [HL3337]
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Payments are made to local authorities when they acknowledge receipt of certificates for presentation at ceremonies. There have been difficulties in meeting the agreed 14-day target for making payments, which are now being addressed. Arrangements have been made with busier local authorities for more frequent payments.

  Asylum Seekers: Somalia
  Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether, in the light of recent reports of armed conflict in several parts of Somalia, they will suspend the enforced return of Somalian failed asylum seekers. [HL3339]
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: All Somali asylum and human rights applications are considered by the Home Office on their individual merits, in accordance with our obligations under the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Each application is considered against the background of the latest available
  Decisions on applications for an extension of leave to remain1 in the United Kingdom and settlement2, by category, excluding EEA nationals, 1999–2002

  United Kingdom

  Number of decisions

  percentage refused

  Category

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  All decisions Of which:

  178,810

  249,920

  277,375

  337,650

  2.4

  4.5

  5.6

  5.5

  Fiancé(e)s Spouse

  45

  95

  85

  100

  23.3

  24.5

  22.4

  22.4

  (probationary year applications)3

  16,555

  27,645

  24,910

  19,235

  1.6

  4.5

  7.4

  3.8

  1 Excludes dependants of principal applicants, asylum related decisions, the outcome of appeals and withdrawn applications.

  2 Excludes "in line" dependants and the outcome of appeals.

  3 Data include unmarried partners.

  Data on whether an application for leave to remain was made after existing leave had expired are not available.
  Data for the number of residence documents issued to non-EEA spouses of EU nationals are not available for the period requested.
  information about the situation in the country of origin. These sources include intergovernmental organisations, governmental sources and human rights organisations.
  We recognise that conditions in Somalia are such that there are individuals who are able to demonstrate a need for international protection. But we do not accept that each and every individual who presents himself as an asylum seeker from Somalia has a protection need and should automatically be allowed to remain in the UK.
  Individual asylum seekers found by both the Home Office and the Independent Appellate Authority not to be at risk of persecution and not in need of humanitarian protection are considered for removal on a case by case basis. The Home Office will not return vulnerable groups and will enforce the return only of those Somalis it is satisfied are not in need of protection.

  Immigration: Leave to Remain
  Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
  How many persons already in the United Kingdom applied for leave to remain:

  when they were within an existing leave to remain; and

  when they were overstayers,

  on the basis of their marriage or intended marriage to a British citizen, a European Economic Area national or a person with indefinite leave to remain, in each of the five years 1999–2003; and in each case, how many were refused leave to remain. [HL3341]
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The latest available data on the number of people that have received extensions of their existing leave to remain in the United Kingdom can be found in the table.

  Asylum Seekers: Zimbabwe
  Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether they will ensure that persons claiming to be supporters of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) are correctly assessed; and that any

  WA31
  person who has falsely made a claim to be a member or supporter of the MDC is returned to Zimbabwe. [HL3342]
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: All asylum seekers are rigorously screened to test the credibility of their claimed identity, nationality and travel route to the United Kingdom. If a Zimbabwean applicant claimed to be a member or supporter of the MDC, in the substantive asylum interview the caseworker would address the credibility of the applicant's account, and any documentation produced, by testing their knowledge of the MDC, their commitment to the party, the nature and extent of alleged persecution, and whether the applicant could produce corroborative evidence to support their claim. Whilst there may be similarities between claims, each one is different and the line of questioning will reflect the individual nature of the claim.
  The current policy of not generally enforcing the return of failed asylum seekers to Zimbabwe makes provision to enforce the return of those whose presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good.

  European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What is their total annual expenditure on funding the United Kingdom secretariat for the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia. [HL3349]
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The Government's total expenditure for the UK secretariat for 2003–04 was £66,858.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether they intend to withdraw funding support for the United Kingdom secretariat for the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia; and, if so, what are their reasons for this decision. [HL3350]
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The Government will cease funding the UK secretariat on 30 June 2004. Unlike her predecessor, the new UK member of the European Monitoring Centre (EUMC) management board does not carry the significant extra duties of chair of the management and executive boards of the EUMC. She therefore does not have the same need for a support office in London as her predecessor. The centre in Vienna is now fully up and running and able to provide practical support to board members, unlike when the secretariat was established. Furthermore, the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) is currently developing a European strategy and is becoming more engaged with European processes—a fact which is inevitably leading to a duplication of activity between the CRE and the secretariat which the Government
  WA32
  cannot justify funding. This decision was taken after careful consideration and in no way represents any reduction in the UK Government's commitment to the EUMC or to the fight against racism at national or European level.

  Private Security Industry
  Lord Ouseley asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What support they will provide to companies in the private security industry to become compliant with operational standards and practices considered to be in the public interest; and [HL3358]
  Whether they are satisfied with the regulation of the private security industry; if not, what measures they intend to introduce; and when those are likely to be introduced and become effective; and [HL3359]
  Whether there is adequate access for private security companies to appropriate information about current and future employees in the interests of improving their screening requirements; and [HL3360]
  When the licensing of security officers will begin; and who, among staff of private security companies, will be included. [HL3361]
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Under the Private Security Industry Act 2001 (PSIA), we have put in place measures for the effective regulation of the industry. The Security Industry Authority (SIA) will license people to work in various sectors of the industry. These arrangements will be introduced in phases. Licensing of door supervisors commenced in the pilot area of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight in March of this year, and will roll out across England and Wales over the next 10 months. Licensing of door supervisors will be followed later this year by that of vehicle immobilisers, with the manned guarding sector (security officers) and key holders in early to mid-2005, although no set dates have yet been confirmed. The final sector to be subject to regulation will be that of security consultants and private investigators in 2006.
  Anyone involved with work of a security guarding nature will require a licence, and the PSIA makes provision for employees, employers, managers, supervisors and directors of security companies to be licensed.
  The authority's procedures include three checks on people applying for licences:
  an identity check of the licence applicant,
  a criminal record check at standard disclosure level through the Criminal Records Bureau, which includes information about all convictions—including any that are spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act—cautions, reprimands and warnings recorded centrally on the Police national computer, and
  a check on professional competence to do the job.
  As to companies engaged in the industry, the authority's voluntary approved contractor scheme (ACS), is expected to come into effect from the summer of 2005. The ACS will provide consumers and industries with an assurance that what is being accredited is competent, committed to quality and adheres to professional standards. The scheme will allow the SIA to guide and facilitate the industry, and ensure that it is focused on internal performance standards and quality of delivery.
  The principal objective of the measures is to raise performance standards in the industry, thereby promoting increased public trust and confidence and assist in nurturing development opportunities.

  Euro 2004: Football Banning Orders
  Lord Moynihan asked Her Majesty's Government:
  How many people were subject to football banning orders at the start of the Euro 2004 championships; and how many of these surrendered their passports to the police prior to the start of the tournament. [HL3386]
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Two thousand two hundred and fifty-three individuals were subject to football banning orders at the start of the Euro 2004 European football championships. The Football Banning Orders Authority (FBOA), which has statutory responsibility for monitoring compliance with passport surrender and other conditions, advises that all banning order subjects have complied with the exception of 43 individuals whose non-compliance is subject to police checks. There was extensive police monitoring of England fans en route to Portugal and transit countries. No subject of a banning order was found attempting to leave England and Wales.

  Access to Goods and Services: Draft European Directive
  Baroness Gould of Potternewton asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What is their view on the draft European directive on equal treatment between men and women with regard to access to goods and services, particularly the right of individuals to ask to be seen by healthcare professionals of a particular gender. [HL3100]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): The Government broadly support the draft European directive on equal treatment between men and women in access to and the supply of goods and services. We do, however, have concerns about the proposals on insurance and pensions, exemptions and the extent to which the directive may place obligations on service recipients as well as service providers. The European Commission is continuing to negotiate with member states regarding the directive.
  The Government are committed to making National Health Service services more responsive to patients, by offering more choice across the spectrum of health care. In future, patients' personal preferences will be expressed in the choices that they make, and this may include choosing the gender of the clinician that they wish to see. The ability to choose the gender of clinician may be of particular importance to people of some faiths where questions of decency may arise. The United Kingdom is seeking to ensure that the final form of the directive will enable a patient to express preferences about the gender of their clinician. The negotiations are continuing, however, and, at this stage, we are not in a position to predict the outcome on this issue.

  Human Rights
  Lord Laird asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Filkin on 7 June (WA 12–13), whether the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights are individual or group rights. [HL3435]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin): The convention rights set out in Schedule 1 to the Human Rights Act 1998 apply to all legal and natural persons within the United Kingdom. In order to bring proceedings against a public authority for an action or actions which are rendered unlawful by Section 6(1) of the Act or to rely on convention rights in any legal proceedings, the complainant must be (or would be) the victim of the alleged unlawful act.

  Equality Legislation
  Lord Ouseley asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What are the benefits for the people of Great Britain of not having a Single Equality Act. [HL3363]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): Legislation to ensure greater equality of opportunity is a priority for this Government, as is demonstrated by the improvements we have already made and the range of actions we are taking.
  Since 1997 the Government have introduced new legislation outlawing discrimination in employment on grounds of sexual orientation, religion and belief (and in due course age); strengthening existing legislation on disability discrimination; strengthening the Race Relations Act including introducing a duty on public bodies to promote race equality and publication of a draft Disability Discrimination Bill, which will further extend rights and opportunities for disabled people. We are also continuing to improve the workings of the Equal Pay Act and the Sex Discrimination Act, for example, through the introduction of the equal pay questionnaire and

  WA35
  through action to streamline the complex rules of procedure relating to equal value tribunal cases. Further major steps are in progress or planned.
  The Government do not however believe that a complete legislative overhaul is the right way forward at this time.
  The Government's priority now is legislation to establish the Commission for Equality and Human Rights as detailed in the White Paper Fairness for All which was published on 12 May. We expect that the new commission will play a full and active part in the debate on the future development of equality legislation as part of its proposed power to keep such legislation under review.

  Energy: Global Consumption
  Lord Howell of Guildford asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What studies they have made of the increase in global primary energy consumption in 2003, as reported in the British Petroleum Statistical Review 2004; in particular the increase in (a) world oil consumption; (b) world natural gas consumption (outside the United States of America); and (c) world coal consumption. [HL3409]
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville:
  The Government continuously monitor developments in world energy markets by using a number of sources to inform their assessment of changes in global energy consumption (and production), although they have not themselves commissioned any studies that look specifically at global energy demand in 2003. The rise in global primary energy consumption in 2003 was primarily a result of the global economic recovery, and, in particular, economic development in emerging economies (notably China). The Government recognise the challenges brought about by such growth. Therefore, as outlined in the 2003 Energy White Paper, "Our energy future—creating a low carbon economy", the Government are working with developing countries to encourage more effective management of energy demand, through energy efficiency improvements and the development of renewable sources of energy.

  Iraq: Human Rights and Humanitarian Law
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What steps they have taken since the occupation of Iraq to ensure that (a) members of the Armed Forces and other United Kingdom personnel and persons employed by contractors there comply with international human rights and humanitarian law; (b) there are effective safeguards and sanctions against abuse whether by torture or other forms of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; and (c) there are effective remedies for any victims of such abuse.[HL2753]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): Members of the United Kingdom Armed Forces and contractors are liable under both UK and international law for their conduct while on operations in Iraq. As such, military personnel are fully informed of their responsibilities and obligations under international human rights and humanitarian law, not only through training received prior to deployment, but also through specific standard operating procedures. All UK military personnel deploying to Iraq receive an aide-mémoire card on the law of armed conflict which clearly states that prisoners, detainees and civilians must be treated with dignity and respect, and must not in any way be subject to abuse, torture or inhuman or degrading treatment.
  Any breaches in the law are usually also offences against service law, and are tried under service discipline Acts, but may also be tried under ordinary criminal law, which includes the Geneva Convention Act 1957 and the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (which gives effect to the torture convention). Likewise, contractors would also be tried under ordinary criminal law if they were found to have abused Iraqis. However, contractors are not directly involved in the apprehension or detention of Iraqis.
  There is a mechanism in place by which Iraqi citizens who claim to have been abused by members of the UK Armed Forces can make a claim. Such claims are handled in accordance with the direction of the Coalition Provisional Authority—specifically Section 6 of CPA order number 17. This states that:
  "Third party claims including those for property loss or damage and for personal injury and death or in respect of any other matter arising from or attributing to Coalition personnel or any persons employed by them, whether normally resident in Iraq or not, and that do not arise in connection with military combat operations, shall be submitted and dealt with by the Parent State whose coalition personnel, property, activities or other assets are alleged to have caused the claimed damage, in a manner consistent with the national laws of the Parent State".
  Hence, we would generally make payments in circumstances where the claim would give rise to a legal liability under English Law. Payments by other coalition partners is a matter for them.

  Armed Forces: Training Costs
  Lord Astor of Hever asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What is the cost on average to the Armed Forces per recruit undergoing basic training. [HL3313]
  Lord Bach:
  The Ministry of Defence currently does not have a unified approach for costing the discrete components of individual training across the three services. Work is under way to develop a consistent methodology for costing training outputs across defence.

  Essential Medicines
  The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos):
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Gareth Thomas) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  I have placed in the Libraries of both Houses copies of the new UK Government paper Increasing access to essential medicines in the developing world: UK Government policy and plans. This paper is published by the Department for International Development (DfID) on behalf of seven government departments—the Department of Health, Department of Trade and Industry, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Her Majesty's Treasury, the Inland Revenue, the Patent Office and DfID. These departments worked together to deliver the paper.

  The lack of access to essential medicines in developing countries is one of the most pressing global health issues. Tackling this could save millions of lives every year. The World Health Organisation (WHO) estimates that as many as 4 million lives could be saved each year in Africa and south-east Asia with improved access to medicines. However, while some encouraging progress has been made in recent years, there remains a limited supply of affordable medicines and inadequate health systems to deliver them in many developing countries, and a continuing shortage of new products to meet developing country health needs.

  We have strengthened collaboration and policy coherence across government to address this issue and have jointly agreed next steps. These are outlined in the paper, and cover four areas:

  1. Support to developing countries through the UK development assistance programme, with a focus on increasing poor people's access to health services;

  2. Trade policy, focusing on supporting developing countries in understanding and making use of the flexibilities within World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules governing intellectual property;

  3. Engagement with the business community, focusing on work with the pharmaceutical industry, to address the longer-term supply of affordable medicines to developing countries;

  4. Efforts in the UK and internationally to stimulate increased research and development into new medicines and other healthcare products relevant to developing country health needs.

  WS10
  We will, for example: work with UK research institutions to establish a UK funders forum for health research relevant to developing country needs; monitor and evaluate the UK vaccines research relief, a tax credit for the research and development of products for HIV, TB and malaria; work with the pharmaceutical industry to develop a best practice framework, to support and encourage companies in their work to increase access to medicines; implement any necessary legislation within the UK (and EU) to facilitate export to developing countries under compulsory license, if requested, in line with the WTO General Council's decision of 30 August 2003.

  Implementation of the paper will require continued collaboration across government. It will also require us to work in partnership with developing country governments, international agencies and donors, civil society, the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, the broader private sector and the research community.

  East Midlands Development Agency
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville):
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Hewitt) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  I have decided to appoint Bryan Jackson as the new chair of the board of the East Midlands Development Agency (EMDA).

  The appointment will begin on 14 December 2004 and is for three years, expiring on 13 December 2007. I have placed further details of this appointment in the Library of both Houses. The appointment has been made in accordance with the code of practice of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

  Independent Monitor for Entry Clearance: Annual Report 2002
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean):
  Copies of the first annual report by Fiona Lindsley, the Independent Monitor for Entry Clearance refusals without the right of appeal, will be placed in the Library of the House today.

  The report covers a review of decisions taken in the calendar year 2002. It should have been submitted by 30 November 2003, but was delayed due to the late appointment of the independent monitor. I thank Ms Lindsley for her hard work in completing her first report as Independent Monitor for Entry Clearance.

  We welcome Ms Lindsley's report. It contains a number of interesting recommendations, a number of which have already been addressed.

  Ms Lindsley has started working on her second report, for the calendar year 2003, which should be submitted to my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary (Mr Jack Straw) by 30 November 2004.

  Non-competitive Government Contracts
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach):
  My honourable friend the Minister of State for Defence (Mr Adam Ingram) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  I am pleased to announce that the Government have accepted the recommendations in the Review Board for Government Contracts 2003 general review of the profit formula for non-competitive government contracts.

  This package of measures, to be implemented from 1 July 2004, represents a significant modernising of the current profit formula arrangements, and is consistent with the department's defence industrial policy.

  The measures that will be introduced include an alternative profit calculation methodology, a recognition that there are varying degrees of risk associated with defence non-competitive contracts, arrangements for addressing "profit on profit", a formula for sharing excess profits and unconscionable losses, and incentives to encourage timely submission of post-costing certificates.
  WS12
  A copy of the report has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Financial Services Authority: Annual Report 2003-04
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey):
  My honourable friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ms Ruth Kelly) has made the following Written Statement.

  The annual report 2003–04 of the Financial Services Authority (FSA) has today been laid before Parliament. Copies are available in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The report forms a key part of the accountability mechanism for the Financial Services Authority under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA), and assesses the performance of the Financial Services Authority over the past 12 months against its statutory objectives.