Westminster Hall Sitting of 12 December 2001

Preamble
[SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Regional Government (South-West)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Kemp.]
9.30 am
Mr. Hugo Swire: I am most grateful for the opportunity to introduce this debate, and I thank the Minister for being here. I want to expose the seemingly inexorable creep towards regional assemblies in general and for the south-west of England in particular, and the unwanted, unnecessary, unsustainable and illogical nonsense that they represent.
I do not subscribe to the argument that voters in the south-west are crying out for another tier of government. Indeed, I recently tabled a written parliamentary question to ask the Minister how many representations in favour of an elected regional assembly had been received from my constituents in East Devon. The answer, which will be of no surprise to my right hon. and hon. Friends, was none. They may share my suspicion that a similar exercise undertaken in other constituencies in the south-west would produce the same result.
The real purpose for calling this debate is to ask the Minister to spell out the Government's plans and timetable for elected regional assemblies in general and for the south-west in particular. I confess that the detailed plans are not at all clear to me and to many others with whom I have discussed them.
Mrs. Angela Browning: Does my hon. Friend not suspect that the Government's obfuscation on that subject is rather like that on the single currency referendum? In order to fulfil an election pledge, from two elections ago, the Government have said that a referendum would be held on the subject, but they know only too well that, at this point in time, they will not get the answer that they want.
Mr. Swire: Indeed. I agree with my hon. Friend and I shall come to that in a moment. There seems to be some confusion over the referendums, and where and when they will take place.
In another written parliamentary question on 20 November, I asked what changes to local government structures were planned as part of the introduction of regional assemblies, to which the Minster replied:
"As previously announced by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, we intend to publish a Regional Governance White Paper, and this will set out how we plan to take forward our Manifesto commitment that:
`provision should be made for directly elected regional government to go ahead in regions where people decided in a referendum to support it and where predominantly unitary local government is established'."—[Official Report, 20 November 2001; Vol. 375, c. 211W.]
248WH
Notwithstanding that, there is considerable evidence that plans are well advanced—both in areas that have unitary authorities and those without—and that the Government have already prejudged the outcome of local referendums.
Dr. Caroline Jackson, a Conservative Member of the European Parliament for the south-west, highlighted that in a speech on the 17 November to the Cornwall constitutional convention at Bodmin, when she pointed out, among other things, that the main task of the assembly would be to call the South West of England Regional Development Agency to account and to act as the regional planning body.
That embryonic body now has a budget of £1 million and, earlier this year, it made a successful bid for a further £500,000 from the Government; money apparently intended to strengthen regional accountability, whatever that is supposed to mean. The body has already started to send out select committees to hold hearings around the region and is apparently focusing, with Government support, on two themes; engaging social and economic partners, and sustainable development. Dr. Jackson noted that this was clearly a growth industry and that the assembly's staff complement, which is currently 11, was growing and included a full-time chief executive. It is looking for new premises in Taunton, which must come as some comfort to the citizens of Penzance, 144 miles away.
To add to the confusion immediately before the general election, the media reported that the Labour party would publish a post-election Green Paper with proposals to establish eight elected regional assemblies with the same boundaries as the regional development agencies, provided that support could be gained in a referendum. In the interests of clarity, will the Minister confirm whether that remains Government policy? If so, when is action likely?
Let us assume for the purpose of this debate that the Government intend to proceed with an assembly for south-west England and that it will have the same boundaries as the RDA for the south-west.
Mrs. Browning: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that a petition of 50,000 Cornish signatures will be handed in at Downing street today. It states that Cornwall wants to be a region in its own right in the event of any regional division. Have the Government not failed to take account of our natural regional differences? We in Devon accept that there is a clear difference between Cornwall and Devon, and the rights of the Cornish should surely be respected.
Mr. Swire: Again, I agree with my hon. Friend, who must have had sight of my speech. Her comments no doubt find favour with the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George). Aspirations in Cornwall and in the rest of the west country are different, and I shall return to that in a minute.
A regional assembly with the same boundaries as the RDA for the south-west would cover Cornwall, Devon, Somerset, Dorset, the old Avon county, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire. Does the Minister understand—my hon. Friend said this more eloquently than I ever could—that the people of those counties will feel little or no sense of identity or common purpose with such an assembly?
Mr. James Gray: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making such a good point. Does he

249WH
realise that if one stuck a pin in the most northerly part of the county of Gloucestershire and swivelled what he describes as the south-west region on that pivot, the Scilly Isles would end up over Glasgow?
Mr. Swire: I do, and I do not imagine that people in the Scilly Isles would want that to happen in terms of government, although they would be far better rewarded under the Scottish Parliament than they are under this Parliament. I understand also that if one drew a line from Bristol, one would find that Bristol was further from Penzance than Brighton. The geographical homogeny of the Government's aspiration is questionable, to say the least.
Most of our constituents identify with their town or village, are deeply proud of their county and feel a strong sense of patriotism towards their country. However, they feel that they have little in common with someone from Bristol, Swindon or Gloucester, and I dare say that the reverse is true. The boundaries of a regional assembly would be artificial and would be logical only in the eyes of a Whitehall planner. Is it not significant that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said, few Cornish people in the campaign for greater decentralisation are calling for an assembly for the south-west? A pressure group is, however, arguing for the creation of a Cornish senate with the same boundaries as the current county, but with greater powers.
Ms Candy Atherton: I am slightly confused. The gentleman who stood against me in the general election was firmly in favour of a Cornish assembly and was a member of the campaign committee.
Mr. Swire: If the hon. Lady had listened, she would have heard me suggest that there was a clarion call in Cornwall for a Cornish senate but not for inclusion in any governmental organisation in the south-west. I cannot speak for the gentleman who stood against her, and I cannot say that I agree with him, but he is entitled to his views.
Many of the advocates of elected regional assemblies—including, no doubt, the gentleman who stood against the hon. Lady—argue that their creation would be an important measure to address the growing sense of disillusionment with the political process. The behaviour of some members of the present Government does little to help to restore confidence in the honesty and integrity of politicians generally.
There was a marked decrease in turnout in south-west counties in the recent general election, as there was in the country as a whole. However, there is no concrete evidence to suggest that the lack of a regional assembly dissuaded any electors from casting their vote. How do the Government expect a regional assembly for the south-west—an artificial creation, devoid of historic or cultural ties—to foster any greater interest or enthusiasm in the electoral process? Is it not the case that the creation of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly—they at least have the advantage of being institutions with which people can identify—has not led
250WH
to any increase in voter participation? The Government and campaigners for regional assemblies will claim that their creation will constitute a decentralisation of power, bringing government closer to the people. In reality, it will achieve the opposite.
We are told by Mr. Chester Long, the former Exeter city council leader, and now regional assembly chairman, that
"People are already beginning to appreciate what the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly have done. We need to have the same clout and one voice for the whole region. We already have arts bodies, development agencies and sports bodies run along regional lines so why not an assembly?"
A certain Mary Southcott, a development consultant and secretary of something called the south-west constitutional convention—a body that, despite the Bishop of Exeter's unfortunate claims to the contrary, most decidedly does not enjoy all-party support; Conservatives will have nothing to do with it—explained that:
"The idea of the assembly is to have a focus for the region involving the social and economic partners which included for example the trade unions, the CBI and the different faith groups."
Mrs. Browning: Is my hon. Friend aware that before the constitutional convention was set up and Ms Southcott appointed, the secretariat was provided by a trade union headquarters in the north-east of England? We owe the organisation in the south-west to the trade unions.
Mr. Swire: My hon. Friend is full of useful information this morning. The north-east of England, which is where the idea originated, feels ill-done-by after looking over the border at the Scottish Parliament. I shall be sorry if these ideas are exported from the northeast to the south-west, as that would not be appropriate.
Mr. David Drew: We do our own thing in the south-west and go at our own speed. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he would want to stop the northeast assembly, or those in the north-west, Yorkshire and Humberside?
Mr. Swire: I am talking about the south-west this morning. No doubt others will speak about their own parts of the United Kingdom. Returning to that august body, the south-west constitutional convention, its secretary, Ms Southcott, continued:
"One of the arguments we make in favour of a regional elected assembly is that at least if it is elected people will know more about it and it will be accountable to them. It is a sort of regional government in waiting, but I believe it has not got to the point of people in the South West feeling it's their government. There is no sense of ownership out there that the assembly is working for us all. But the creation of the assembly itself is in advance of what many other regions in England have done so far, and those in it have found it a useful place to meet and are beginning to think in South West terms rather than Devon, Gloucestershire or Bristol terms. If we are all thinking that Whitehall does not know best and decisions are best taken at a local level then we need to think where they should be taken. And remember even if people in the South West do not want an elected assembly now, they will still have a Regional development Agency, a Government Office of the South West and a Regional Assembly none of which will be elected or democratically accountable to them. When people see that situation they might begin to think differently."

251WH
Or maybe not, because the truth is that either the regional assemblies will be a wholly new tier of government, sandwiched between the existing county councils and central Government—in which case the lines of democratic accountability are set to become even more blurred—or, as is more likely, county councils will be abolished and regional assemblies will become the middle tier of government between district councils and central Government.
Mr. Drew: Hear, hear.
Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend may not have heard the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who apparently is strongly in favour of the abolition of Gloucestershire county council.
Mr. Swire: I thank my hon. Friend for pointing that out. No doubt the local press will take an interest in what the hon. Gentleman says about the abolition of his shire county, and all shire counties.
The Government's latest contribution to the breaking up of the constitution of this country would be the abolition of the shire counties—for which the hon. Member for Stroud argues so vigorously—and centuries of our history. If the abolition of the county council system were the intention behind the new assemblies, it is surely the case that that will amount to a centralisation rather than a decentralisation of power. That is the opposite of what the Government claim to want.
Bureaucracy is growing at regional level through organisations such as the regional development agencies. With that comes a growing amount of funding. In reply to my written parliamentary question, the Minister for Employment and the Regions, the hon. Member for Hull, West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), acknowledged that the South West regional development agency's grant had increased from £44.5 million in 1999–2000 to nearly £63 million in 2000–01. The agency has a grant in allocation of £84.5 million for 2001–02.
I have some sympathy with the Campaign for the English Regions, which argues that the elected regional assemblies are necessary to hold such bodies to democratic accountability and to address the democratic deficit. A far better idea would be to abolish the RDAs and give the money directly to the democratically elected county councils.
I sometimes wonder whether anyone has stopped to consider whether this regional bureaucracy is necessary or desirable. Voters in the United Kingdom are already well served by local elected representatives. There are, on average, 2,000 people to every council member, 67,000 people to every Member of Parliament and 510,000 electors to every Member of the European Parliament. In Scotland and Wales, people have Members of the Scottish Parliament and Assembly Members as well. The south-west regional assembly, which apparently already meets four times a year at county hall in Exeter, has 117 members, none of whom has been elected to anything by anyone—at least, not to any new legislative body.
Mr. Anthony Steen: I have been fortunate enough to attend one of the regional assemblies. Is my
252WH
hon. Friend aware that about 120 bureaucrats come from all over the area, read prepared statements and never relate to each other? The whole thing is a total waste of time and an awful waste of taxpayers' money.
Mr. Swire: I am covered in envy at the idea of my hon. Friend attending such a talking shop. I was pointing out that none of those people had been elected to anything, to my way of thinking. That body is a talking shop, and a not inexpensive one, which is my point. The next time my hon. Friend is invited, I ask that he takes me along as well, if I have a quiet morning.
How would people be elected to a regional assembly? According to the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) in a speech in June, such assemblies will have an appointed element, like the existing RDAs, from business and trade unions, as well as an elected element that uses proportional representation. He did not say what sort of proportional representation. At least some members will be elected, unlike on the RDAs, which seem to have been filled with more than their fair share of Labour cronies.
At the recent county council network conference in Scarborough, the Minister for Local Government, the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), suggested that a south-west assembly was likely to have 15 members: 10 directly elected and five appointed by Government. He also conceded that the number could increase to 25. Each assembly would apparently nominate a regional executive and a "first minister". The mind boggles.
The assemblies would not only oversee RDAs and regional planning, but would administer housing corporations, the national health service regional executive, regional arts boards, learning and skills councils and local Environment Agency offices. They would also oversee police and emergency services. If they went ahead, county councillors would find themselves with a lot of time on their hands.
Ought we not to be debating whether those functions could be more effectively decided and implemented by existing county and district councils? If the Government were serious about achieving a genuine decentralisation of power, should there not be a wide debate on strengthening the power of existing local government institutions?
Perhaps we have stumbled on to something else altogether. Perhaps the assemblies have nothing to do with the Government wanting to strengthen our local democracy. Perhaps the agenda is tied up with the Government's European ambitions. Could the real agenda be to create a Europe of the regions in which the national level of government is all but abolished, following the ceding of some powers upwards to a centralised European Government and others to a regional tier of government? Is it a coincidence that the boundaries for the regional development agencies, and presumably those for the regional assemblies, are coterminous with the United Kingdom regions in the European Union regional model?
It may be argued by advocates of regional assemblies that the so-called regions require a voice in Europe when it comes to lobbying for EU regional money. However, the regions may be as artificial and diverse as that proposed for the south-west, with the needs of Cornwall

253WH
hardly the same as those of Wiltshire. Why will a regional tier of government be any more effective in the long run than individual counties lobbying independently, collectively or even through central Government?
Ms Atherton: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that our roads and railways go through Wiltshire to Cornwall and back out again? If we do not work together, both counties suffer.
Mr. Swire: Our roads go everywhere. We could go from Penzance to John O'Groats if we wanted. The homogeny is artificial. Roads in my part of the country, Devon, have nothing to do with roads in Wiltshire or anywhere else.
Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend was wondering whether the proposals were part of a wider European agenda. Is he aware that the M4 is shortly to be renamed the E27 and will run from Berlin to Cornwall?
Mr. Swire: I was aware that some roads were to be given fancy names, presumably to make up for the lack of road repairs, which would be more welcome.
There is one other possible reason for the agenda on regional assemblies. It could be a Government attempt to rebalance the United Kingdom's constitutional structure following the creation of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, which left many constitutional issues; not least the over-representation of Scottish Members at Westminster and the unanswered West Lothian question. However, the only model based on regional assemblies that would adequately address the West Lothian question is a fully federal United Kingdom, with the regional assemblies having full primary legislative powers akin to those held by the Scottish Parliament. If they have less than legislative powers, the West Lothian question will not be answered.
Do the Government intend to give elected regional assemblies such powers? What fiscal powers, if any, will the assemblies have? What will be their other sources of funding? A row is already brewing about the operation of the Barnett formula in Scotland, and there is enormous scope for arguments to escalate over funding in these assemblies. Moreover, who will pick up the cost of funding the creation of the new assemblies? The total bill will be many millions of pounds. The cost of the Scottish Parliament, which the Government assured the people of Scotland before the 1997 election would be no more than £50 million, has escalated to nearly £250 million, and the final bill has yet to be seen.
Finally, what is the envisaged relationship between those elected to the assemblies and democratically elected Members of Parliament? Are our roles to be dumbed down further?
Mr. Gary Streeter: I am very much enjoying my hon. Friend's erudite speech. However, does he not think that the Minister should tell us one more thing? Assuming that the Government deliver on their manifesto commitment to have a referendum in various parts of the country on regional
254WH
assemblies, what will happen if the north-east elects to have a regional assembly but the south-west does not? Would it represent a sustainable constitutional settlement for the country if one part had a new tier of government and other parts did not?
Mr. Swire: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I invite the Minister to address that point. What my hon. Friend describes would create enormous friction between the different regions. However, perhaps creating an assembly in the north-east is a way of softening up other regions to encourage them to get their noses in the trough.
The Government's drive for regional assemblies, and for the south-west regional assembly in particular, is illogical, unnecessary, unpopular and a distraction from the real needs affecting the counties of the south-west. Regional assemblies would be artificial creations, would foster no sense of common identity and would do nothing to re-engage voters with the political process. They would centralise rather than decentralise power, facilitate the creation of a Europe of the regions, would do little to address the constitutional imbalance of the United Kingdom and would be costly, diverting resources away from more important areas of spending.
In conclusion, if any Conservative Member believed that creating a south-west regional assembly would in any way benefit any of our constituents, we would support the idea as one. We do not believe that, because the south-west does not want or need a regional assembly.
9.58 am
Ms Candy Atherton: I congratulate the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) on securing an important debate, although I cannot support his arguments. Those of us who support devolution should remember that the only reason why we are having the debate is because of the Labour Government's policies for devolving power to the regions. I support those policies.
Cornwall has been debating a range of issues, as the hon. Gentleman said, and I want to focus on them. Today is an important day for the county on two counts. One hundred years ago today, Marconi for the first time transmitted radio waves from Cornwall to Newfoundland. That is being celebrated in Cornwall. Also, the Cornish assembly petition, with 50,000 signatures, is being delivered to No. 10 Downing street today. It is a great petition, but I think that many of those who signed it wanted to show support for devolving power, rather than a desire for a purely Cornish assembly. We need to be clear; we must devolve power. The man in Whitehall is seen as out of touch. Physically, he is closer to Germany than to Cornwall. For better or worse, we should make our own decisions. If someone is going to get things wrong, we should prefer it to be ourselves. On the other hand, we want to get things right.
In Cornwall, the saying "no one listens to us" is a mantra. That used to be true under Conservative Governments.
Mr. Streeter: When the hon. Lady spoke to people on doorsteps during the general election campaign, how many expressed support for a tier of regional government involving the counties of the south-west?
Ms Atherton: Far more than expressed support for a Cornish assembly.
Mr. Streeter: How many?
Ms Atherton: Seven or eight.[Laughter.] I am being honest. That was far more than talked about local authorities. They debated the issue and were genuinely engaged.
Mr. Gray: If, as the hon. Lady says, there is such overwhelming enthusiasm for regional devolution among her friends in the Labour party, where are her hon. Friends who represent Bristol constituencies, Exeter or the rest of the south-west; apart from her hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew)? They ain't here.
Ms Atherton: I am delighted to say that many of my hon. Friends are in government. To return to the question asked by the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), the seven people to whom I referred were not Labour party people. They said independently that they wanted a regional assembly. I thought that that was quite a high number of people to be mentioning the subject; many issues are not raised in the way that they used to be.
The mantra about no one listening to Cornwall used to be true. We want to solve our own problems, and it is quite easy to blame Whitehall and Westminster for all of those. No doubt sometimes Westminster and Whitehall are the problem, but sometimes they have an answer. When we wanted objective 1 funding for our county, we got together and fought for it, but it was Westminster—notably the Prime Minister and civil servants—who did the work in Europe. When we needed matched funding for our university—some £19 million—we went, again, to Westminster and the Prime Minister, and got it. The first act of the regional chamber was to support Cornwall's application for objective 1 status. All seven counties, councils and chamber together, were working to support the objective 1 bid.
I am working with colleagues, as I am sure all hon. Members are, to exert pressure on our regional airlines and train companies to improve our rail and air links. However, those do not stop at the Tamar bridge. They go to and from Cornwall and through other areas.
Mrs. Browning: Roads and railways that pass out of the hon. Lady's constituency come through mid-Devon and east Devon and through my constituency. When the Government came to office in 1997, they halted road building in the south-west. Surely to goodness the hon. Lady can see that a strategic Government overview is needed of the core transport links in this country. Her party's Government stopped that and set back the west country by decades.
Ms Atherton: There is a £180 billion transport plan. I am delighted about the plans for Gossmoor and Dobwalls, two places that were never tackled when the hon. Lady's party was in government.
Mrs. Browning: I hope that the hon. Lady will agree with me and the CBI in the south-west that the whole
256WH
area needs more than just one major road route in and out of the region, namely the M5 corridor. When the Government came to office, the dualling of the relevant section of the A30 to link to the M3 and provide a second corridor was ready to go out to tender, following a public inquiry. The Government halted that and there has still been no progress. We do not want lectures from Labour about roads in the south-west. Labour has done more damage to the infrastructure there than any other body.
Ms Atherton: I do not agree on that last point. I will always work with any hon. Member from any party to improve road and transport networks in the south-west, and I will keep pushing for the dualling to which the hon. Lady referred. I was referring to the work on the A30 at Gossmoor—the critical bottleneck area in Cornwall—which the Government are to fund.
Mr. Steen: I am glad to see the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) in her place and looking so much better than she did last night.
I want to talk about the dualling of roads and railways. I hope that the hon. Lady agrees that we need not just one but two railway lines into Cornwall. As things stand, the whole of Cornwall depends on the rail track between Exeter and Plymouth not being affected by the sea coming through the barriers and destroying the railway line. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government must ensure that there is a second way of getting to Cornwall by rail?
Ms Atherton: I should point out that when I spoke to the hon. Gentleman last night, I referred to some tablets that I was taking, which might have caused me to be absent this morning.
I agree that serious work needs to be undertaken on the Exeter line. If trains cannot pass along that line, they do not get to Cornwall. We must work on that on a cross-party basis; the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) has now been able to get his little bit in the local paper.
Businesses work and trade with one another in Cornwall. They also trade outside the county and within the seven counties. The regional supply chain is important. Boundaries are arbitrary, but opportunities in regional government are infinite. That is why I support the seven county option.
The Government have made it clear that they support regional government where there is clear local support for an assembly and where the predominant method of local government is unitary. In Cornwall today, there are three levels of local government: parish and town councils, district councils and county councils. In addition, there is the regional development agency, the Department for Education and Skills, the Government Office South West—which appears to be unaccountable—water companies and others. Further up the line, there is Westminster and, over the water, Brussels; quite a lot of government, some might say.
Some years ago, there was an opportunity for Cornwall to opt for unitary local government, but that opportunity was, sadly, not grasped. In recent weeks, the Labour party in Cornwall has widely consulted on how we want to devolve power. We held branch meetings, constituency meetings and a county

257WH
conference. Last month, we voted, by a huge margin—more than seven or eight; the figure was nearer to 100—to devolve power to the lowest possible relevant level.
We said that we want to devolve power to the parish pump level. Parish and town councils are well placed to deliver economic regeneration and lead the renaissance of Cornish towns and the economy. Why do we need a souped-up county assembly? Surely the best route is to devolve power to the most appropriate and lowest level. Let us take power from unelected mandarins, but let us not leave ourselves isolated in the new century. I am not sure that the rest of England will welcome increased support to Cornwall, for which myself and others are asking, while we opt out of the rest of the arrangements.
I have no doubt that most of those who support an assembly are genuine in their support, but some are seeking complete self-government and to opt out of Britain. I know that that is not the majority view in my constituency. People want relevant devolved power, but not an opt-out. If hon. Members are unsure about what I say, I suggest that they trawl the websites on the subject, as I have done.
Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: I stood as a candidate in Torridge and West Devon in the 1997 election, and what the hon. Lady says is not the case. People in Cornwall were adamant that they wanted to break away. I remember all the flags flying on the Tamar and Launceston bridges. The hon. Lady is talking about the wish of people in Cornwall to go it alone. She should address that issue, rather than considering the matter as a regional one.
Ms Atherton: The Cornish Solidarity campaigns were powerful, but they were not representative of the majority in the county. People want devolved power, but they do not necessarily want to opt out of the rest of the country. Men and women in Cornwall are saying, "Yes, we want greater self-distinction. We celebrate our culture, but we do not necessarily want an assembly." We all want Cornwall to succeed. It is wrong for those who are campaigning for an assembly to imply that we are not for Cornwall. We are, but we see different ways in which to achieve our ambitions. I want to make it clear that we have ambitions for Cornwall.
The Labour party in Cornwall announced its view of the way forward. It welcomed the devolution of power, but not a nationalistic assembly. The story made the front page of our regional daily newspaper, the Western Morning News, since when I have received not one letter setting out views for or against the proposal. That is important. The majority of people in Cornwall, as in the wider south-west, want devolved power, as appropriate. I urge the Government to give us devolved power as soon as possible.
10.10 am
Mrs. Angela Browning: I shall not detain hon. Members for long because many colleagues wish to speak. In presenting the debate so eruditely, my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) covered much ground. He set out the worries of Conservative Members about the formation of regional government in the south-west. I wish to add to some of the matters to which he referred.
258WH
I was the only west country Member of Parliament who was present at County hall in Exeter, when the then regional development agency chairman, Sir Michael Lickiss, oversaw a debate on regional identity. Representatives attended the regional chamber to identify what each part of the region had in common, as a result of which the RDA produced a glossy brochure with a faulty CD attached to it. The purpose of the money used, and the time taken to set up such a debate, was to ask, "Who are we in the south-west? What does the development agency believe are the common denominators in respect of the old coalfields of Gloucester, the Isles of Scilly, Bournemouth and Poole?"
My hon. Friend the Member for East Devon said that few aspects of the different parts of the region have a common denominator. The representatives who attended the debate split up into workshops in the afternoon; some talked about tourism, some discussed transport and other talked about different components. When the report of the proceedings was published, it was interesting that people said, "Let us take out all those aspects that are particular to, say, Gloucester or Cornwall and look at what is left. We could be describing any region anywhere in the country." In other words, the area was so homogeneous and watered down that it did not have a regional identity.
Mr. Robert Key: Or a soul.
Mrs. Browning: How right my hon. Friend is. I shall come on to souls in a minute.[Interruption.] I shall also refer to the bishop.
Mr. Steen: My hon. Friend is always fascinating to listen to; I am already in a trance. Is it not a curious phenomenon that new Labour talks the whole time about "different-sized units" and "getting closer to the people" but, in reality, the units are becoming bigger? The region is a bigger unit that is getting further away from the individual, not a smaller unit in which people are cared for and cherished.
Mrs. Browning: That is exactly right. My hon. Friend will know that that is why, when that august body identified a regional identity, it could find nothing that we would recognise as being south-west specific. The region had things in common with other regions, such as tourism and agriculture, but nothing that was distinct to the south-west. The whole exercise was bogus and, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon said so clearly, the area is an artificial chunk of England, in terms of the other regions of England and the way in which the map has been drawn.
Putting aside Scotland, the Greater London area and Wales—they already have regional identities—the Government have carved up what is left of England into bite-sized chunks for their own purpose, not for the purposes of the people who live in those areas. It would be easier for a Government to see off one small region of England rather than to have to deal with the voices of England assembled in our national Parliament when we need to put the case in terms of our towns, our counties and our regions.
I will be generous to the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton). I am not a Devonian; I have lived there for only 33 years, so I cannot yet claim

259WH
to be local. I am getting there, but I am not there quite yet. However, when people ask me where I live, I reply that I live in the south-west of England. By that, I mean the area on the map that is Devon and Cornwall. That is the area that, psychologically, I regard as the southwest of England. I realise that Devon and Cornwall have had their differences over many years; I have been there long enough to know that. None the less, we all have a perception of the area with which we identify. The Government are tearing that apart with the structure that they have put in place.
Mr. Drew: The hon. Lady is saying that, under the Conservative Government, it was a mistake to create Government offices for the regions. Will she explain the logic of maintaining them?
Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), who was the Minister who introduced them, will no doubt add to my comments. There is a need for Government offices for the regions. Strategic issues concerning wider areas interlock into the national picture of, for example, rail and road infrastructures. That is leading to regional government. The Government have set up regional development agencies that are totally unaccountable to the electorate and whose finances are obscure. When the regional development agency threw £1 million at Plymouth airport, it did so without any consultation on the impact that that would have on other airports in the region. It did so without having evaluated local air transport. The agency was unaccountable. It showed largesse to one airport without taking any accountability of the impact on other airports. That is not democracy.
When we flag up our concern about the agency's lack of accountability for its decisions and spending, the answer is, "Ah, well, we can now turn the RDAs into something that is democratically accountable". The Government have deliberately created a structure that is so objectionable in democratic terms that the only solution is to take it one step further and turn it into an arm of regional government. The Government have created a problem and their solution suits their own agenda. A cynical person—I am not cynical—would say that the Government have deliberately forced the hand of the public to make them think that the only way to resolve the problem of RDA accountability is to turn it into a form of elected government to solve the problem that the Government have created.
Mr. Liddell-Grainger: I understand what my hon. Friend says. I have read the south-west RDA report, which suggests that the organisation is a shambles. Does she agree that, until Sir Michael Lickiss resigns and is replaced by someone who can run it properly, the RDA will continue to sail from disaster to disaster? It will fail and that will affect us all.
Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend will not be surprised to know that, like many colleagues, I receive weekly complaints about the actions and decision-making of the RDA. Much needs to be done to sort it out.
Mr. Drew: I am delighted to know that the RDA is making such an impact, as it must be if it is receiving so many complaints. Can the hon. Lady tell me of any
260WH
organisation in the south-west, business or otherwise—besides the Conservative party—that wants to abolish the RDA?
Mrs. Browning: I can give the hon. Gentleman such examples.
Mr. Drew: Business organisations?
Mrs. Browning: I do not know whether business organisations do. However, the party of big business, of which the hon. Gentleman is a member, does not represent the people. The big Government are dealing with big business organisations. They are not interested in the little person in the cottage down the Devon lane. The people no longer matter. It is all about big organisations, corporate opinion and all those big cronies who troop through Downing street for drinks a couple of times a year. We know how the game is played, because the Government have made themselves past masters at courting big corporate institutions. They are the ones who are listening to and influencing that group. They do not care about the people; the people do not matter.
Andrew George: Does the hon. Lady accept that her critique requires the solution that I hope the Government will introduce; democratising the quangos that the present and previous Governments created on the regional basis, and about which she is so critical? Is not the solution that to which she is most opposed: the establishment of a democratic structure to which those quangos should be accountable?
Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman's party would have acted earlier, sooner and in greater measure. Under the chairmanship of the former Liberal Democrat leader of Somerset county council, Mr. Chris Clarke, the Liberal Democrats have led the charge on the matter. They wanted to move the matter along. They and their Labour friends, with whom they do deals, have worked hard. The Express and Echo recently showed a picture of Mr. Clarke, the Bishop of Exeter and Chester Long, Labour councillor for Exeter, with a caption saying that they wanted to create a regional assembly and be involved in running it. I do not criticise personal ambition, but the Liberal Democrats cannot pretend, as they usually do, that they are interested in democracy. They are interested not in democracy but in power. They have shown by their actions towards the local regional development agency and the chamber that they are first in the queue to sign up for such developments. They are at one with Labour on this matter in the south-west.
The Government have been softening up people in order to implement the proposal. Throughout the country, including in the south-west, they have set up committees chaired by bishops in order to provide some soul and credibility. However, we can see through that. It is a matter of great regret to my colleagues and I that those committees no longer allow people to attend if they do not sign up to the philosophy to create a regional government in the south-west and to bypass current, democratically elected representatives.
Mr. Steen: On a point of order, Mr. Griffiths. When I intervened on the hon. Member for Falmouth and

261WH
Camborne (Ms Atherton), I may have inadvertently implied something that I want her to know I did not intend. When I saw her last night, she was clearly unwell, but she was hoping to attend today. My intervention was intended to express pleasure that she was present, and not to suggest that there was anything untoward about her condition last night, which might have implied that she was on a busy evening out, eating and drinking. That was not my intention.
Mr. Win Griffiths (in the Chair): I am sure that we all appreciate that intervention. It would help the Chair and the Front Benches if the next speaker were to conclude at about 10.30am.
10.24 am
Andrew George: Thank you, Mr. Griffiths; I shall do my best to keep within the time. I would like to take interventions, but clearly I shall be constrained. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) on securing the debate. This important issue needs airing.
This is the beginning of a debate, not the end. I hope that the many Conservative Members who have attended today's debate—in numbers that we have never seen before on debates on other issues—will sustain their commitment and interest, as it is important that the policy develops with an injection of constructive dialogue involving all parties.
We are pushing back the frontiers with an interesting and challenging development of policy. I have absolute enthusiasm for devolution, but we must ensure that the Government introduce it with flexibility, so that it reflects people's identities. Many Conservative Members recognise that those identities exist, but not necessarily within the constraints of the boundaries created for administrative ease in some parts of the country. Those boundaries do not necessarily reflect the identities of the people in that area. The areas may be collections of shire counties and are sometimes small and sometimes large.
Dr. Andrew Murrison: Will the hon. Gentleman reflect upon the region of Wessex, the crucible of which lies in my constituency, near the village of Eddington? That is where the Wessex region was created, more than 1,000 years ago. People feel a strong Wessex identity, and that feeling extends not just through parts of the south-west, but through parts of the south-east, too. That strong feeling simply is not there in the south-west. I think that the hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head, because there is a great miscellany of identities. The south-west is a Government-defined one, which in the long term will not work, although something like a "Wessex region" just might.
Andrew George: If the hon. Gentleman feels that way, he and those living in what he defines as Wessex must bring forward their proposals and make it clear how they believe devolution can be delivered to a Wessex region.
Dr. Murrison: On a point of order, Mr. Griffiths. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to put a spin on my
262WH
words? He tries to paint me as a Wessex regionalist. I am sure that Lord Bath, proprietor of Longleat and perhaps the most prominent Wessex regionalist, would be delighted to hear that, but for the record, I am not.
Mr. Win Griffiths (in the Chair): That was not a point of order, but a point of debate.
Andrew George: I am grateful for that point of order, which has further muddied the hon. Gentleman's clarification. Whether or not he is a Wessex regionalist, he is suggesting that there might be variations in the model of devolution according to different boundaries in different parts of the country. He made a proposal that might be taken as a variation on the devolution to the collections of shire counties that currently form the boundaries of the Government's south-west region.
Hon. Members have enunciated the Conservative position this morning, and we are hearing a variety of opinions. I do not want Conservative Members to hold back from debating the issue among themselves. Conservatives now strongly favour devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and that is healthy and helpful. Although Conservative Members clearly do not want to abolish those structures, many of them take a different view on devolution for England.
The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) pointed out the significance of this day. It is significant not only because of Marconi's original transmission from my constituency to Newfoundland—in which my family was involved—but because the Cornish constitutional convention will today deliver 50,000 signed declaration sheets to No. 10 Downing street. The hon. Lady has presented a distortion of reality; the people signed a declaration that clearly indicates that they are enthusiastic about devolution and, in particular, about devolution to places with which they identify. One such place is Cornwall, which would include the Isles of Scilly, if they were to choose to join.
I am an enthusiast for devolution. However, we must devolve to places that exist in the minds of the people. If we do not do that, I fear that the Government's policy could get derailed. Some of the arguments that have been presented by Conservative Members must be taken on board. Turn-outs have been low in several recent elections. That indicates that if voters do not feel that the body to which they are electing representatives reflects the identity of the place to which they feel they belong, they will stay at home. That undermines the principle of democratic legitimacy, and all hon. Members would like that to be upheld. We want a body to be established in the south-west, and we want it to be supported; it must have democratic legitimacy.
Size is an issue that concerns many hon. Members. Cornwall is a small area, but there are many small regions in Europe, and in other parts of the world. An insular view is often taken in this country; we should lift our eyes, and take succour from the models that work in other parts of the world.
Dr. Murrison: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Andrew George: I must conclude.

263WH
The Government should not stick to a rigid, obedient, control-freak version of devolution. Devolution must be flexible, and debate should be encouraged; those regions in the country that may seek variation, with regard to size, should express their views. Variable geometry and variable speed should be the principles that inform the way in which this important Government policy is developed in the coming years.
Mr. Win Griffiths (in the Chair): Thanks to the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), three minutes are available, allowing me to call another Conservative Member.
10.32 am
Mr. Robert Key: I was born at 1 Penlee way, Stoke Damerel, which is just up the hill from Devonport dockyard, so I understand the south-west. I grew up in the aftermath of a terrible war, in which Plymouth was flattened; bloodied but unbowed. In 1947, I moved to Salisbury, and, subsequently, my father moved to Truro. During the 56 years of my life, the region has changed dramatically, and I want nothing more than to see it succeed.
It is a region, but it does not have an identity of its own; it never has had one, and it cannot have one. Cornwall is proud of its traditions, but it is ungovernable in traditional terms. It should have an assembly, of some sort; Trelawny knew all about that, and we should take note.
Devon, like Gaul, is divided into three parts, and it should look to its county council for salvation, rather than to Bristol, a city state in the west midlands. Bristol was born out of the need to have a focus for colonial trade. If a regional assembly were to be established in Bristol, the history of the city would inform how its inhabitants would think of the rest of the south-west.
Salisbury is on the edge of the region. Historically, culturally, spiritually and economically, it looks south, and it has about as much in common with the Isles of Scilly as they do with Gloucestershire. In 1990, when I was a Minister at the Department of the Environment, we started the process of improving the delivery of Government services from Whitehall down to local level. We achieved that by bringing together national Government Departments and regional centres. There was never any intention that those regional Government offices should have a democratic dimension, because they were already accountable to the House, through the Members of Parliament and Ministers who represented their regions. It is a grand folly to think that by creating a new tier of politicians and bureaucrats in Bristol, the people of the south-west will be better served. They will not. It will be a waste of money, and will take power from the people and put it in the hands of political parties. If, perish the thought, we had proportional representation, the people would have less and less say over decisions that were taken in their name. I hope that we never reach that point and, as Member of Parliament for Salisbury, I shall do my level best to ensure that we do not.
10.35 am
Mr. Adrian Sanders: I congratulate the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) on successfully raising the subject. The question of how we wish to be
264WH
governed in the future requires the full participation of all hon. Members and our constituents. I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's speech, which seemed to be against taking decisions closer to the people whom they affect. The speech opposed the democratic control of taxpayer's money that is spent in the region and supported the continuation of quangos that spend more in our region than all local councils combined.
Mr. Swire: The hon. Gentleman misunderstood my speech. I support giving more power to the existing democratically elected and accountable local county councillors.
Mr. Sanders: Therein lies the other point. We have heard about only county councillors. However, 38 per cent. of the south-west's population live in unitary councils. They are not the same thing, by a long chalk.
There are many quangos and organisations, such as learning and skills councils, health authorities, and the Sports Council, that contain people who are often paid to sit on boards and are appointed from London. They are not accountable to the region and spend more money than the councils combined. If the Conservative party argues that all the quangos should be devolved to local authorities, does it say that the health services in this country should be brought under accountable control and devolved down to the authorities that run social services? If so, that is a radical departure from Conservative local government policy.
Mr. Liddell-Grainger: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the total budget for the regional development agency last year was £68 million, of which £10 million was spent on administration?
Mr. Sanders: The hon. Gentleman makes the point for me. That budget, surely, should be under democratic control.
Such local government has been a long-standing Liberal Democrat policy. We recognise that undemocratically accountable government has been exercised in the regions for decades. When the then Conservative Government created the Government office structure, they gave only a new title to administrative offices that already existed in the regions.
Mr. Key: I regret to say that the hon. Gentleman is misinformed. The whole point was that the offices did not already exist. Some Whitehall Departments had no regional presence and others had a massive regional presence, such as the Department of Transport. The policy was an attempt to bring the delivery of services together and to get Government Ministers and Whitehall Departments to talk to each other about local delivery.
Mr. Sanders: There was still top-down delivery, because the Government offices were answerable to Ministers in London, rather than to people who were elected from within the region. They delivered services

265WH
that were determined by the government in the regions. That was more along colonial lines; the only thing that was lacking was a High Commissioner in the region.
Mr. Key: That is what the Liberals want.
Mr. Sanders: No, we do not. One of the models that I fear more than any other is a London-based model, with a 15 or 16-member assembly for the south-west. That would be the worst possible policy.
We have seen different models introduced in different parts of the United Kingdom. The models in Scotland, Wales, London and Northern Ireland are all different from each other. It does not necessarily follow that the same model would be adopted in every region. People have to determine what their regions are, and those regions need to decide what powers they wish to draw down. The process should be driven from the grass roots, not the centre.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Gentleman is having the wool pulled over his eyes by his Labour allies. When the Secretary of State was asked yesterday, following the statement on the White Paper, whether he could give an assurance that the assemblies would not take any powers upwards from district and county councils, he was unable to give one. It is clear that the new assemblies will take powers upwards, away from the electors, rather than downwards from Westminster.
Mr. Sanders: That does not follow. The right hon. Gentleman's comments highlight the need for Conservatives to get involved in decisions now—to get fully involved in the partnerships emerging in the different regions, which go beyond political parties—and to influence them. The Government are responding to the agendas that they themselves are setting. If Ministers have a top-down plan, they will be vigorously opposed by those in other parties who believe in regionalism as much as they will by the Conservatives.
There are three tests for regional government. First, is it elected and accountable to the people of the area? Secondly, is it efficient, and does it save money by cutting down on bureaucracy and well-paid quango appointments? Thirdly, is it effective; not a talking shop, but a body with real power to tackle real problems? That is the agenda that we want, and those are the tests that we will apply to any regional assembly.
10.41 am
Mr. Malcolm Moss: Offer a Liberal three minutes, and he will take six. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) on his success in achieving this debate, and on the excellent way in which he demolished the Government's ideas and proposals for regional government, especially in relation to the south-west. His debate is timely. It is unfortunate that we have only an hour and a half, because many of my colleagues were not able to speak. Clearly, this is an important issue, which needs to be debated more fully than we have had time for this morning.
266WH
The debate is timely also because the Minister announced only a few weeks ago that it should be possible to get the first regional assembly into operation within the lifetime of this Parliament. That was the first public utterance from the Government that they expected to drive the idea of regional government through during the lifetime of this Parliament. Will the Minister confirm that a timetable has been proposed, that there will be a Bill before us next November and an Act on the statute book by 2003, and that the first referendum will be held in 2004–05?
Is not this whole process driven by political pressure, largely from within the Labour party, and especially from the north-east of England? Will the Minister confirm that he expects the first regional government to be in the north-east? When the Minister made the announcement recently, he said that it was not possible to draw a line under devolution just for Scotland and Wales, in the face of
"demands for similar treatment for the English regions".
Will the Minister tell us where those demands are coming from? Clearly, they are not coming from the elected representatives of the south-west region.
Labour's plans for regional government will mean less, not more power for local communities; a point made on several occasions by my colleagues. It will lead to the abolition of at least one tier of local authority in those regions that adopt the assembly model. Conservative Members believe that the tier most likely to disappear is that of county councils. In 1996, the current Foreign Secretary said:
"Labour has consistently—for over 20 years—argued that two-tier local government could not in general co-exist alongside elected regional assemblies".
Andrew George: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Moss: No, as I have only a few minutes.
More recently, the Minister's colleague Lord Falconer said in another place:
"I do not know the precise estimate of cost in relation to expenditure on a regional assembly… As to whether there should be two-tier authorities, in some cases it is not right that there should be. That is something which needs to be looked at particularly in the context of where there is a regional assembly. If one has a regional assembly and two other tiers that looks to be too many."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 November 2001; Vol. 628, c. 368.]>
It is important that the Minister confirms that he shares Lord Falconer's view and thinks it likely that a tier of local authority must be removed from regions that opt for assemblies.
Huge costs would be involved in reorganisation. Figures have been given today in terms of the present costs of RDAs. Would the Minister like to share with us whether his Department has done any work on the possible cost of reorganisation in the tiers below the regional assemblies? It cost millions to reorganise Humberside as a county council. If that were replicated across the eight regions and shire counties involved in the process, the figure would run into billions. Has the Minister's Department done any costings? Exponentially, could not the costs run into billions of pounds?
Mr. Sanders: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Moss: No, I will not, as I have only a few minutes.
Business groups remain extremely sceptical about regional government. The director general of the British Chambers of Commerce said that many businesses thought that the RDAs set up two years ago had yet to prove their worth. The CBI spokesman thought that the case for English devolution had not been made, saying:
"Until this Government tells us what it is for, it cannot really expect us to say whether we support it or not".
That is the case that Conservative Members have made today.
10.47 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Dr. Alan Whitehead): I thank the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) for raising what is—I concur with the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss)—an important subject that needs to be discussed widely in the future, in this Chamber and elsewhere. Regional government in England is a key part of the Government's programme for constitutional reform, and I look forward to many interesting debates on the issue. It is a credit to the official Opposition that about 10 per cent. of their Members are present for the debate. They are united in doing what they do best, which is to oppose measures.
Since we took office in 1997, we have secured far-reaching and effective constitutional changes. We have devolved power to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and given London a democratically elected strategic body to promote its interests. In mentioning the Opposition's presence in numbers to oppose the measure, I was reminded of a plaque in my constituency that states:
"Near this spot, King Canute reproved his courtiers".
That is an historically accurate version of this story.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: If regional assemblies are so inevitable, will the Under-Secretary tell us about the inevitability of removing the shire, unitary, district or parish tier of government? It is easy to be in favour of new tiers of government—Labour is always in favour of over-government—but which tier will be removed? We want to know so that we can warn our councillors that the Government want to abolish them.
Dr. Whitehead: The right hon. Gentleman is reading rather too much into what I said. I aimed to underline the foolishness that King Canute felt on that occasion, rather than the wider agenda that King Canute might have had in terms of regional government. Debates on Scottish and Welsh devolution and on the Greater London Authority probably contained speeches that were very similar to those that we have heard this morning. It is significant that Conservatives now play an active role in all those assemblies. The south-east regional chamber has a very active Conservative chairman, many active Conservative committee chairs
268WH
and 40 Conservative council members. On reflection, Conservative Members might feel that their united opposition could be tempered in the future.
Mr. Key: I seek to remind the Under-Secretary that the Labour party was bitterly opposed to the European Union and all that it stood for and to the European Parliament when it suited it.
Dr. Whitehead: Yes, and the political circumstances and the political considerations have changed. That is exactly the point that I was attempting to make, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has underlined it. As political circumstances change, so opinions and ideas change and people adopt different positions. My point, contra Canute, is that Conservatives now sit happily in these various assemblies, in precisely the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman.
Andrew George: Does the Under-Secretary accept that Conservative Members seem to be suffering from benefit of hindsight disease, the symptoms of which are a brass neck and short-term memory loss? They seem to have forgotten that during the 18 years in which they governed the country, they sucked powers away from local authorities, created networks of quangos and did not deliver the kind of policies that they now claim they would like.
Dr. Whitehead: Yes, the hon. Gentleman makes a strong point about the born-again nature of these defenders of people in thatched cottages. In terms of things that have changed, and of selective memory, we might reflect that one of the reasons put forward for the creation of Government offices for the regions under the stewardship of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) was that most other countries in Europe had effective working regions that were able to discuss matters with Brussels, but that Britain had no such regions. The Conservative Government of the time created Government offices for the regions and made representations that those offices should be regarded as regions for the purposes of discussion with Brussels, provided that they were not elected.
Mr. Swire: I am most grateful for the revisionist historical tour that the Under-Secretary is undertaking. At some stage in the next eight minutes, will he address the question that has been asked by every one of my colleagues, namely, what tier of local government will be sacrificed if the regional assemblies go ahead?
Dr. Whitehead: I am very generous in giving way to hon. Members. If I can make some progress, perhaps I shall be able to answer some of the questions that have been asked.
Over and above the issues of devolution, there remains a missing link: the English regions. Why should what is good for Scotland, Wales and London be denied to the English regions, especially those that say that they, too, want more democratic accountability and greater influence over policy making at regional level? It should not. That is why our manifesto commits us to providing for directly elected regional assemblies in

269WH
those regions where popular support is demonstrated through referendums and where there is predominantly unitary government.
The forthcoming White Paper on regional governance will set out in detail our proposals, and I shall say more about that. People in England deserve the opportunity to choose whether to have a political body—an elected assembly—which pulls everything together at a regional level and which has the legitimacy, the critical mass and the clout to set priorities and to speak up for the region.
Elected regional assemblies will give people in the regions the chance to have a stronger political voice and will bring decision making at the strategic level closer to the people. They can improve delivery by giving the regions the freedom and flexibility to meet their own needs and priorities within the national framework and co-ordinating the many activities and strategies that exist in the regions. They can make government in the regions more accountable to people in the regions, and provide regional stakeholders with a clearer decision-making framework.
I emphasise, for the hon. Member for East Devon, that the regions will be strategic. He is concerned about the position of local government. The idea of regions is to devolve powers and functions down from the centre, not to suck up power from the services from local government. The regions will be closer to the people in terms of strategic delivery.
It was fascinating to hear the hon. Member for Salisbury making the case against regional government. I took his words down carefully; he said that it would take power away from people and put it in the hands of political parties. I ask him to reflect on the strange practice in this House of electing people to sit for political parties to exercise a democratic function.
The debate has been strange in that Opposition Members have emphasised the idea that the Government have some fiendish plan to impose regions on a reluctant public. That is not the case. The people of each region will decide in a referendum whether and when an elected regional assembly is right for them. Let us be frank; not all regions will want to have an elected regional assembly within the next few years. Although there is a demonstrable demand in the north-east, that is clearly not the case in the south-east, for example. Some regions may never opt for a regional tier of government, which is their prerogative. That is why we are enabling different regions to move at different speeds appropriate to their particular needs—what we call the asymmetric approach.
I am aware of the claims by the Cornish constitutional convention for an elected assembly for Cornwall. One of the convention's points is that the south-west is an artificial entity, but that Cornwall represents an area with which people identify. However, the south-west region has become increasingly well known and accepted since the Government office was established in the early 1990s, and especially since the creation of the RDA. A survey carried out by The Economist in 1999, for example, found that 86 per cent. of respondents in
270WH
the south-west could identify the region in which they lived. It is true that recognition is not the same as loyalty or attachment, but experience from the development of regional government overseas demonstrates that it is not necessary to have a lengthy historical identity to create a modern political identity.
Dr. Murrison: Will the Minister give way?
Dr. Whitehead: I apologise, but I do not have the time to give way.
There is evidence from a number of countries of regions with little or no historical identity successfully developing and maintaining one. Many of the German Lander and. French regions can be given as examples.
Andrew George: Will the Minister give way?
Dr. Whitehead: I want to make progress, so it is difficult to give way.
We should consider the case for Cornwall and how it might fit into a regional assembly for the south-west as we draft proposals for our White Paper. Of course, there will be a substantial debate as that White Paper is produced. Our thinking is that introducing an elected regional assembly with new powers and responsibilities to cover an area and population no greater than that of an existing county does not make a great deal of sense. Indeed, one of the main purposes of our regional arrangements should be to provide a focus for tackling problems that go beyond the existing local government units, not to duplicate the units that are already there.
Mr. Moss: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He is conspicuously refusing to answer a question that has been put to him three times. Which tier of local government do the Government expect to remove should regional assemblies come into force?
Dr. Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman seems to have missed the point that I emphasised: it will be for people in regions to decide for themselves through a referendum whether they want a regional assembly. It may be the case that, subsequent to the creation of a regional assembly, some concern will be expressed about the reorganisation of local government. The hon. Gentleman will not expect, nor should he, a blueprint to be set out this morning, when the whole basis of the idea of regional government is that people decide what they want and how they want it in their regions. Since we came to power in 1997, much has been done to strengthen the arrangements in the English regions.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: On a point of order, Mr. Griffiths. Is it out of order for a Minister to promise to the House to do something and then fail to deliver? The Under-Secretary promised to answer our questions about which tier of Government he would abolish; he has conspicuously refused to do so.
Mr. Win Griffiths (in the Chair): That is not a point of order. In his own way the Under-Secretary has answered the question.

Landlords and Tenants
11 am
Mr. Chris Mullin: At the outset, I must say that I readily accept the fact that there are many landlords who act responsibly. I accept that the private rented sector has a part to play in meeting housing need. There are also many decent responsible tenants in private accommodation, and I have no wish to tar them all with the same brush.
What I am against, and what my constituents are up in arms about, is bad landlords—landlords who see their only function as collecting rent, and take no interest in the behaviour of their tenants or the condition of their property. Some, indeed, never visit their property from one year to the next. It is an unhappy fact that in Sunderland we have rather a lot of bad landlords. There is a clear correlation between the growth of the private rented sector and the crime, vandalism and general mayhem that blights the lives of all too many of my constituents.
There are parts of Sunderland—I believe this to be true of other northern cities—where the private rented sector is dragging down the entire social fabric. There are streets where my constituents live in dread of the advance of the private sector because they know that it means an influx of antisocial neighbours and a complete lack of interest on the part of absentee owners in the behaviour of their tenants. They also know that that the advance of the private rented sector means a fall in the value of their own property to the point where it can become unsaleable. In extreme cases, they know that the streets in which they live may fall into Beirut-style ruin, leading eventually to demolition. They know all this because they have already seen it happen just a few hundred yards from where they live.
What makes this especially galling is that most of those landlords tend to live in the leafier areas of the city, where they do not have to put up with the conditions that they and their tenants inflict on others. It is even more galling that much of the mayhem they see going on around them is funded out of the public purse through housing benefit, which travels directly from the local authority's bank account into the landlord's bank account without ever passing through the tenant's hands.
Nearly 90 per cent. of the 5,000 or so tenants on housing benefit in Sunderland have their rent paid in that way. When I last inquired, our top 10 landlords were receiving £1 million a year between them in housing benefit, which flowed directly from the public purse into their bank accounts. They have no incentive to take an interest either in the condition of their property or in the behaviour of their tenants. The money will continue to flow regardless. That is an incredible state of affairs. We are funding the destruction of large swathes of our inner cities—and at the same time, we are pouring money into regeneration programmes, much of which will be wasted unless we can devise some mechanism for influencing the behaviour of our most recalcitrant citizens.
For those of my constituents who have the misfortune to live in areas where the private sector is expanding, this is the single greatest issue. It blights their lives. Many are
272WH
elderly, vulnerable people who have lived in or near their present homes all their lives. They can remember a time when the social fabric was intact. They worked hard to make comfortable homes for themselves and their families, and they become distraught as the value of their property falls year by year while house prices generally are rising—even a mile from where they live. The value of property in some parts of my constituency has halved during the past 10 years and that is due, in large part, to the rise of the unregulated private sector.
In some areas of Sunderland, people's only hope is to sell to a landlord at a price far below what any reasonable person would regard as fair. Indeed, there is sometimes a suspicion that landlords allow antisocial tenants to accumulate in a street as part of a deliberate tactic to force down prices. People have broken down in tears in my office as they described the mayhem around their homes. They are desperate to leave, but they are trapped because estate agents advise them that their only hope is to sell to the landlord who owns the properties on either side of theirs at a fraction of what any reasonable person would regard as a fair price.
Lately, there has been a new and ominous development. Property companies are buying up former council houses that were originally purchased under the right-to-buy scheme. They then move in antisocial tenants, whose behaviour the local authority is powerless to influence. It is not unknown for a tenant to be evicted from public housing, only to reappear in an ex-council house a few streets away. One can imagine the message that that sends to law-abiding citizens, some of whom had to pluck up the courage to give the evidence that may have led to the eviction of criminal or antisocial neighbours.
What is to be done? Various solutions have been canvassed. The Government initially proposed to license only houses in multiple occupation. Some of us said, however, that would not solve the problem because many of the houses with the worst problems were single tenancies. Indeed, there is evidence that the worst landlords are switching from multi-occupied houses to single tenancies to outwit the regulators.
It has been suggested that housing benefit regulations should be amended to give local authorities the discretion to withhold payment of housing benefit. That would cause landlords to take much more interest in those whom they put in their properties, and in their behaviour. The object of any changes would not be to remove antisocial tenants from properties, but to change their behaviour. People must live somewhere, but a mechanism is required to prompt them to live in a civilised way alongside their neighbours.
Shelter is against changing the housing benefit regulations because they would cause landlords to discriminate against tenants on housing benefit, particularly in the south.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Before the hon. Gentleman moves on, will he say how landlords can influence their tenants' behaviour?
Mr. Mullin: Yes. As I explained, I am talking about landlords who often do not visit their property, and who take no interest in its condition or the behaviour of the tenants. They do not care whether the rubbish is put out

273WH
on time. They may not have a tenancy agreement with their tenants, and even if they do, they may not enforce it. Good landlords take a detailed interest in managing their property, and I seek to spread good practice so that we can make a serious attempt to alter the behaviour of the worst tenants. To be fair, I must add that many tenants who are not badly behaved live in rundown properties because the landlord takes no interest in repairs. If he had to go and collect the rent from them once a week, he would be more likely to be apprised of their immediate concerns, and do something about them.
The third option, which the Government now favour, is to give councils the discretion to license all landlords. I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm that that is his intention. Will he also confirm that the factors to be taken into account when considering whether to grant a licence include the condition of the property and the behaviour of the tenants?
Where does the Bill lie in his Department's list of priorities? I am aware that the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions is bidding for rather a lot of legislation in the next round, and I do not want to see it pushed to the back of the queue and fail for lack of time, as happened last year.
What consideration, if any, has been given to introducing a planning power that would give local authorities discretion to limit the percentage of rented property in any given street? Is it not legitimate for a local authority, in consultation with residents, to consider that 10, 20 or even 30 per cent. of rented property is enough, and more would irrevocably alter the character of an area? Might that not be a legitimate reason for a local authority to turn down an application by a landlord for a licence? I do not ask for an instant opinion, as I have not given the Minister notice of my question, but I would be grateful if he would reflect on it and come back to me.
Finally, I seek a response from the Government to a suggestion about which I wrote to the Minister for the Environment on 6 July. I am still awaiting a reply. I invited my right hon. Friend to close a loophole in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 that allows absentee landlords to avoid taking responsibility for littering by their tenants. Under section 46 the occupier, rather than the landlord, is liable for ensuring that domestic waste is placed in appropriate receptacles and made available for the bin men on the appropriate day. As a result, landlords have no incentive to take an interest in the disposal of their tenants' waste.
As the law stands, the local authority has to be able to relate a particular piece of litter to a particular tenant, so successful prosecutions are almost impossible to achieve. That is especially the case in multi-occupied properties, which tend to house the worst offenders. As a result, huge quantities of litter are sometimes left by irresponsible tenants to be scattered to the four winds. The same people behave in the same way week after week, and the council is powerless to act, beyond clearing up the mess. The obvious solution is to amend the Environmental Protection Act to allow prosecution of the landlord as well as the tenant. I would be grateful to hear the Government's response to that idea.
274WH
Before I conclude, I must pay tribute to my local newspaper, the Sunderland Echo, which has done much to galvanise local opinion with its "Stop the Rot" campaign. My purpose in securing this debate is to try to generate a sense of urgency among Ministers about what, for Sunderland and many other local authorities in areas of low demand, is a serious problem. It is four years since I first raised it with Ministers, and I have done so repeatedly since then. Indeed, during my brief visit to Government, I arranged a little tour for my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, who was then the Minister responsible for housing, so that he could see the problem at first hand.
Such is the mayhem caused by irresponsible landlords and antisocial tenants that in parts of my constituency civilised life has broken down. The council has already had to demolish entire streets, and if help does not arrive soon, I can name the next streets to be demolished. I hope that the Minister can assure me today that help is on the way.
11.13 am
Mr. Harold Best: I rise to speak in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), with a mixture of pleasure and sadness. The sadness is due to the fact that the debate is necessary at all. I echo my hon. Friend's final comment about the continuing campaign that some of us have been running for the past five years to get some action on this troublesome problem.
It is difficult to exaggerate the stress, anxiety and damage that is being done. Growing chunks of my constituency, which were once comfortable, well-established family housing areas, have become deserts at some times of the year. Those parts of my constituency have the highest crime rates in the United Kingdom.
I live in a place well known to hon. Members who are cricket fans, and to some rugby fans—outside the gates of the Headingley cricket ground. That was considered a good place to live when I bought the house 30 years ago. All around lived families; every house was owned and occupied by families. There were children everywhere. People took care of their immediate environment and there was little, if any, antisocial behaviour.
We certainly had pubs, and we still do—more than we ever did. We have clubs, too, which we did not have then—and there are more of them now than ever. We also have take-away food places. The number of those has grown, and no matter how one tries to resist, it looks like continuing to grow. Take-away food has become the major litter-generating industry. People claim that it is a service to the community, providing cheap and easy food, but as a by-product, at great cost to the community, it produces mountains of litter in the streets, which are irregularly and infrequently cleaned up. It lowers the status of the area.
I differ slightly on one matter from my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South. Property prices in some areas have been forced up, not down. Properties have become highly desirable for conversion into houses for multiple occupation. A former family home

275WH
occupied by four people with one car can now house as many as eight young people, who may each want to park a car outside. Those are the large semi-detached homes that people like me live in.
My house is on three floors. I brought up my family there. We have a small drive, which I built, and provision for two cars. We have only one, but the drive meant that a visitor's car can be parked off the street. That kind of concern for a community has gone. We must look for the motor for that change, and it is precisely what my hon. Friend described.
The principle of cause and effect is well understood. Things happen because something causes them to happen. A strange thing about the cause of what is happening in my constituency is that everyone I know, including me, supports the cause—the phenomenal growth in the number of young people entering higher education. I cannot find anyone who opposes that continuing growth. However, it was not planned for. No provision was made to accommodate the phenomenally increased numbers of students. Approximately 30,000 students live within half a mile of where I live. To say that they are densely packed is putting it mildly. The effect on housing stock is as my hon. Friend described.
Litter, filth and the irresponsibility of landlords—and, sad to say, some of their tenants—must be understood and tackled. The phenomenon is not unique to the UK. In 1997 the town of Waterloo, in Canada, was drawn to my attention. It had the same problems and eventually, by empowering local government, it introduced byelaws that did precisely what my hon. Friend has asked for. Landlords were made responsible for everything that took place in or around their property. They were even made responsible for clearing snow—and it really snows in Waterloo. Handing such direct responsibility to landlords has transformed things there, and got rid of most of the problems.
I have drawn that example repeatedly to the attention of Ministers in relevant Departments in the past few years. We are looking for ways of managing the problem. We have to learn the obvious lessons. Six or eight people might live in a multi-occupied house, with a third of them changing every year, so there is a constantly rotating population. To find among all those people someone who takes responsibility is a bit like looking for rocking-horse droppings. It is rare because each resident comes from a background in which somebody else in the house—perhaps their mother—made sure that the bin was filled and put out at the right time, and other such normal events were organised. Now, nobody in a household of eight picks up that responsibility, let alone locking the door at night or closing the windows. That is how we have become the crime capital for burglary, street robbery and armed robbery on a horrendous scale—I cannot exaggerate it.
Making people responsible is going to take time and legislative action. We need the willing and enthusiastic co-operation not only of central Government but of local government. We need sensitive, intelligent interventions by local government to meet particular and peculiar differences in sets of circumstances, and to address particular, peculiar issues. We are not all the same, so blanket legislation will not work. We have to be intelligent and sensitive.
As I have said, it is impossible to exaggerate the despair in my constituency. People have nervous breakdowns and come to my surgery in tears. I live in
276WH
the area, and I cannot walk in the streets without people asking me what I am going to do about one issue, when something is going to be done about another issue, or telling me that the Joneses and the Smiths have sold up, and others are moving out. There is panic in the community.
That has threatened the future of three primary schools, because with no families around there are fewer children, so there are no new pupils. The whole social structure is coming apart, and the argument that landlords are doing us a service by providing accommodation is not laughable, but tragic. Landlords do not build new houses or blocks of flats. They take existing housing stock and corrupt it for a use for which it was never intended. That is the problem that we face; that is the harsh reality.
11.22 am
Mr. Don Foster: I suspect that all right hon. and hon. Members will find that housing is either top or near the top of the list in their postbags, and it is the issue raised most often by people who come to their surgeries. It is therefore particularly welcome that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) has secured this debate, which touches on the important issues that are daily raised with us by our constituents. He was right to draw attention to his concern about bad landlords and the problems that they create. For example, he described them as people who do not care about their properties and rarely visit them, and who, by their actions, drag down the social fabric in an area as has been so graphically illustrated by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best). There was some disagreement between the two hon. Gentlemen as to whether that had the effect of raising or lowering the prices of neighbouring properties.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, South made some interesting suggestions about the way forward, and I should like to comment on them. I was slightly disappointed—although I do not mean that in a critical way—that he did not focus more on the other half of the title of today's debate: antisocial tenants. It would be appropriate for those people to be mentioned in the remaining contributions. I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that it is now vital that the Government get on with plans to license houses in multiple occupation.
The Minister may recall that the Labour Government, in their 1997 general election manifesto, made a clear commitment to tackling the issue, but we are still awaiting details of proposed legislation. I hope that the Minister will bring us up to date with the Government's plans in that respect.
I also hope that the Minister will answer the questions asked by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South about the Government's plans for licensing other privately rented properties, which I think is vital. At one point, we were led to believe that the measure might be introduced in certain areas selected by the Government. Now we are being told that local authorities might have the power to decide whether they wish to do that.
It is important to consider some of the other measures that local authorities could, perhaps, adopt to provide some assistance—rent deposits, for example. One of the difficulties faced by many of my constituents—and, I suspect, the constituents of other right hon. and hon.

277WH
Members— is that far too often, when a tenant wishes to move on, a bad landlord makes it unnecessarily difficult to get back the rent or a portion of it, and disagreements then occur. Local authorities might be given the power to set up a central rent deposit system, whereby they hold the deposit on behalf of the tenant, and can arbitrate between the tenant and the landlord as to whether the entire deposit, or an agreed portion of it, can be returned.
It would also be interesting to look at some wider issues. I wonder whether the Minister has had the opportunity to reflect on the role of registered social landlords and their activities in support of regeneration. We have already touched on that subject tangentially, but I am concerned about the areas in which registered social landlords know that they are absolutely certain to be able to fill all their properties, so there is little incentive for them to get involved in regeneration activities.
In other parts of the countries, notably in the north, registered social landlords think it beneficial to be involved in regeneration as a way of making the area more acceptable, and thereby making it more likely that tenants will come into it. There is a disparity between the north, where on the whole registered social landlords are willing to get involved in regeneration, and the south, where that is not the case.
Surely we want a system in which all registered social landlords want to get involved in regeneration. To a large extent, that will depend on their arrangements with the Housing Corporation. Has the Minister held discussions with the Housing Corporation about that aspect of its contractual arrangements with registered social landlords?
Out-of-date legislation on the condition of properties— governing factors such as overcrowding, safety arrangements and so on— makes it easy for bad landlords to continue to be bad. Will the Minister update us on the Government's plans for bringing some of the out-of-date legislation in respect of such matters more up to date?
I shall now talk about antisocial tenants. Many of us find housing high on the list of issues raised by constituents, and within that subject, two categories are the most common cause for complaint. The first is the fact that some constituents do not have access to good housing, and the second is the problem of antisocial behaviour by tenants in neighbouring properties. In the summer recess, the people in my office checked through my case work and discovered that during the past two and a half years, there have been more than 90 cases concerning constituents who have suffered from the neighbours from hell. It is important that we continue to debate that issue.
There has already been much discussion about legislation on homelessness. I welcome some of the developments in that respect, but the wider issue at stake is the action that we must take against neighbours from hell. The Minister will say that the antisocial behaviour order is one of the tools for tackling the problem, but can he tell us how many times such orders have been used? They may be a useful tool in the armoury of
278WH
defence, but they are not proving particularly satisfactory, because of the legal complexities and the time required to obtain them.
It is important to consider what other strategies may also be available. The Government are becoming increasingly interested in schemes such as the introductory tenancy scheme, but several worries have been raised about that, and rightly so. An alternative scheme that is well worth examining is the acceptable behaviour contract, which is drawn up between the incoming tenant and the landlord. Such schemes have been working well in several areas. For example, a scheme for teenagers was drawn up in Islington, and it has been working successfully. The amount of vandalism and difficulties created by young people has been significantly reduced as a result of such contracts. I should be interested to hear the Minister's reaction to the idea of such a scheme.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, South referred to housing benefit, and said that the fact that the payment is made directly to landlords has meant that they have not had to take any action in respect of their properties. As he said, that means that the Government, on behalf of taxpayers, are funding the destruction of large swathes of the housing stock. He was absolutely right to draw attention to the need to re-examine housing benefit, how it is paid and how it is decided who is eligible to receive it.
There is another side of the coin, of which we should also be well aware. One of the problems for many of my constituents who are on benefit is that many landlords are unwilling to accept as tenants people who are in receipt of housing benefit. We are in danger of labelling people who are on housing benefit as likely to be bad tenants. That is not true, and it is important that we get that message across to people. There must be action at Government level to find ways to stop private landlords preventing people on housing benefit from becoming tenants.
Mr. Mullin: The hon. Gentleman is right that we should not tar all people on housing benefit with the same brush. As he will acknowledge, I made that point during my opening remarks.
The situation at the hon. Gentleman's end of the country is different from that at my end of the country. In the south, there is often a shortage of property of all types, whereas Sunderland has a surplus. Landlords need housing benefit, but we do not need them. We have vacant properties. Landlords would change their attitude if councils had the power to change the method of payment. The way round the differences at each end of the country is to give discretion to local authorities according to circumstances in local areas, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best) suggested.
Mr. Foster: I agree. We could solve several problems by giving local authorities greater powers and wider discretion, including powers with regard to antisocial tenants and bad landlords.
The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West made a valuable point about the difficulty that some towns and cities face because of the increase in the student population. Greater thought is required about how we

279WH
find suitable accommodation for the large numbers of students that we already have, and the increase that we expect.
Mr. Best: Does my friend opposite— I shall call him that as I am not allowed to call him my hon. Friend— agree that we should consider the way in which universities recruit their students? If students were recruited from the area where they already live, that could reduce the pressure that we experience. It may also be more beneficial to the environment, because of a reduction in travelling and other socially damaging effects.
Mr. Foster: I partially agree with the hon. Gentleman. We should not interfere with the university experience by requiring students to attend their local university. However, that is an increasingly an attractive option, given the financial consequences of doing otherwise. Greater responsibility must be given to universities to ensure that they have adequate arrangements to accommodate the students that they recruit. In my constituency, the university of Bath has worked hard with the local council to find interesting and attractive solutions to the problems in the city. Many students may live in one road of houses in multiple occupation. Each student may bring a car, and problems may be created for other property owners and tenants in the road. I am aware of the problem, but I pay tribute to the university of Bath for its development of imaginative solutions.
There are many other issues that hon. Members would raise if we had sufficient time. I want to hear what the Minister will tell us about licensing houses in multiple occupation and other rented property, and his response to what the hon. Member for Sunderland, South said about requiring landlords to take greater responsibility for activities that occur in properties that they own but rent out to other people.
11.39 am
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I congratulate the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) on securing the debate. When I saw the full title of the debate—"Government plans for dealing with irresponsible landlords and antisocial tenants"— I though that the hon. Gentleman had brought forward a challenging issue. It behoves all of us to try to think of satisfactory solutions to intractable problems. We all recognise that; we have all have received constituency correspondence about bad landlords and bad tenants.
Despite the hon. Gentleman's general caveat that he was not having a go at all landlords, some of his remarks suggested that he had forgotten that landlords are involved in business, and if we make the entire private rented sector too regulated and burdensome, they will disappear. In an intervention, he said that the area that he represented did not need the private rented sector— but it would be much worse off without that sector. We must take care not to expect landlords to put right all society's ills.
Mr. Mullin: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's general point; it is not my intention to blame landlords for all the ills of society. None the less, I repeat my point: people's experiences are different in different parts of the
280WH
country. In Sunderland and the other old industrial cities there is a surplus of property, which makes it possible to engage the attention of even the most stubborn landlord, because landlords need tenants for their properties— and they need those tenants to be paid for by housing benefit.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I agree. An area such as the hon. Gentleman's constituency, where there is a surplus of low-quality, low-value housing, is the converse of an area such as my constituency, where there is a shortage of housing, property is very expensive, and key workers have difficulty finding a home.
All hon. Members know, from the contents of their postbags, that every constituency in the country has problems with bad landlords, and in particular with antisocial tenants. Therefore, it behoves us to work with all the relevant agencies to try to come up with satisfactory solutions to recommend to the Government— and we hope that they will enact them. The purpose of such debates is to try to come up with constructive solutions.
I shall talk about antisocial tenants first, and then move on to the subject of landlords.
Mr. Best: I have a point to make about landlords, before the hon. Gentleman discusses antisocial tenants. I agree that good landlords exist; anyone would agree with that, if they had been in the presence of a landlord with tears rolling down his cheeks because his family had run the business for generations and the other properties in his area were decaying, with catastrophic consequences for his company. Landlords have a valid point of view, and good landlords should be supported.
I have suggested to such landlords— I will make the same suggestions to landlords organizations— that they might seek to establish certain standards of accommodation, and of behaviour, with regard to their tenants. That might in turn lead to the creation of a kind of joint industry board of landlords, tenants and local authorities— a joint venture to stabilise and improve matters.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I will refer later to some of the ideas that the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best) proposed. I spent three weeks in Leeds, Central, which contains the university ward, during a by-election campaign, so I, too, have some ideas about how to deal with bad landlords. However, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will deal with the tenants first.
Antisocial tenants blight many innocent people's lives, and Conservative Members say that it should be easier to obtain antisocial behaviour orders. Although they are a good mechanism, they are too cumbersome, and too difficult to obtain. Current powers to deal with antisocial behaviour usually require evidence from neighbours, which is often difficult to obtain. It takes time to gather evidence and prepare a case, yet the sanctions imposed by the courts do not necessarily protect the local community from future problems. Landlords are frequently unable, or unwilling, to take action against antisocial tenants, and at present, local councils cannot legally require a landlord to take responsibility for the actions of a tenant.

281WH
I want to draw the House's attention to Newham borough council's action against anti-social residents. It has been the subject of a press release, which I shall quote. It concerns the case of Belinda Baron, which came to court. The press release states:
"It was alleged in court that Belinda Baron had allowed her boyfriend, Christopher Gittings, to threaten the lives of neighbours on more than occasion. Police were called to several incidents. It was also stated in court that Belinda Baron had allowed her son, who is now nine, to abuse, spit at, and throw stones at local people whilst making no attempt to restrain him. Local children had also had their lives threatened and had been subjected to abuse and intimidation."
That is the sort of "neighbours from hell" case that all hon. Members present have encountered in constituency correspondence.
The press release continues:
"Using the Professional Witness Scheme, Newham gathered sufficient evidence, including statements from six local residents, to satisfy the Court that the possession order was justified. The scheme provides support to witnesses who are in fear of further intimidation and reprisal if they give evidence. These proceedings are part of Newham's continuing action to make the borough a safer place to live. The successful court action sends out a clear message that Newham will carry out its duty to protect local people from tenants and residents who are intimidating, abusive and violent."
I praise Newham for taking that action. We need to extend anti-social behaviour orders, and not only to allow the local authority to issue them, but to consider allowing housing associations and registered social landlords, and perhaps residents associations, to have an input.
When we say that we wish to use anti-social behaviour orders, we must think about what will happen, how we will enforce them, and how we will try to rehabilitate people. That is a real difficulty, which strikes at the root of the problem of anti-social behaviour. What will we do when we have issued an anti-social behaviour order? How will we try to rehabilitate people so that their behaviour is compatible with the norms in society? Community service orders may have a part to play, but what does one do with a really awkward customer who refuses to co-operate with a community service order?
The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) mentioned conditional tenancies, which were part of our policy at the last election. I spoke to the Fosseway housing association this morning, to ascertain its view on antisocial behaviour orders and hear how it deals with the problems. I was told that conditional tenancies would provide one of the best armouries to deal with the problem. A tenant who had a past record of antisocial behaviour would be given a limited tenancy for three months. If he did not behave well during that period, the tenancy could rapidly be removed from him. A fast-track procedure would be necessary to make sure that he could be evicted.
As I said during debate on the Homelessness Bill, the Opposition welcome the idea of licensing houses in multiple occupation. Will the Minister say when he expects that legislation to be introduced?
Mr. Don Foster: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, although we rather glibly— I may be guilty of this, too— use the phrases "licensing houses in multiple occupation" and "licensing other rented properties", it is important to have a serious debate about the nature of the conditions attached to the licence? Ultimately, it is not the licensing that matters but the nature of the licence.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Of course. It is self-evident that the purpose of licensing would be to eliminate houses in multiple occupation that are in really bad condition, and to try to root out rogue landlords who are not reaching a reasonable standard. The hon. Gentleman and I will no doubt be on the Committee charged with considering the proposed legislation when the Government bring it forward. No doubt we will have many hours in Committee discussing that precise subject, and I would welcome that debate.
Mr. Foster: Does the hon. Gentleman further agree that the licence should not relate only to the nature of the property but to the responsibilities of the landlord, as the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) said.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I said in my reply to the hon. Gentleman's previous intervention that the licence should also root out some of the bad landlords, so I would certainly include the behaviour of landlords.
At this stage, it would be appropriate to deal with the issue of litter, which was mentioned by the hon. Members for Sunderland, South and for Leeds, North-West. Litter is a difficult and intractable problem, and one would need to think carefully about changing the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to take away the responsibility entirely from the tenant and put it on the landlord. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Sunderland, South was advocating that. I may have misunderstood him. Perhaps he thinks that there should be a joint responsibility. Will he explain, within the confines of a brief intervention, how that would work?
Mr. Mullin: I have thought carefully about the matter. I am talking about not the odd piece of paper but piles of litter as tall as the hon. Gentleman and me, which stand in back lanes for weeks, and are cast to the four winds. The answer is to make litter a joint responsibility, and to give the landlord— because he, as well as the tenant, can be prosecuted— an incentive to cause the tenant to observe the conditions of his tenancy agreement, which should solve the problem. It is not necessarily the landlord who must clear it up, but someone must— if not the tenant, the landlord, as he is profiting from the business
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. Landlords could take tougher action within the confines of a reasonable tenancy agreement. Perhaps I should have declared my interest in the debate as a chartered surveyor, although a non-fee-earning one. I have had to deal with such matters in a professional capacity, which is not easy. Within the confines of what is reasonable to put in a tenancy agreement, that should always be a requirement. In the past, I have very

283WH
strongly advised both landlords and tenants to have a written tenancy agreement so that both parties to the agreement have a clear understanding of their obligations under the agreement.
Perhaps we could insist that landlords put pressure on their tenants to conform to the responsibilities in their tenancy agreements. I would certainly expect disposing of litter to be one of the responsibilities in the tenancy agreement, and local authorities should be able to take action against landlords who do not fulfil their obligations under the tenancy agreement.
Mr. Best: I made a passing reference to the litter industry— or should I say the take-away food industry. Unfortunately, where I live, it is possible on any night of the week to follow the litter trails. They begin at the take-away food shops, and at various points along the way we find half-eaten food and abandoned packaging. To say that that is unsightly the next morning is to put it mildly.
There is a serious health hazard, too. There has been an enormous growth in the numbers of foxes scavenging, and of rats. Does the hon. Gentleman share my view that we might impose a levy on the take-away food business, which manufactures not only food but vast quantities of litter? As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) said, that litter does not come in small stacks. There are cubic metres of the stuff all over the area. If an additional levy were imposed on them, we might be able to hire cleaners to follow the daily litter trails.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. One need only go half a mile from here late at night to see some of the appalling litter left behind from fast food outlets. We cannot entirely blame the outlets, because it is their customers who are responsible— but the litter bins are crammed full, so it is difficult for people who have been to a fast food outlet to find anywhere else to put the litter, so they drop it in the street. We need to ensure that the local authority licence for a fast food outlet provides for proper litter receptacles that are emptied at regular intervals so that there is always a litter receptacle on or near premises where fast food is served and waste is generated. The hon. Gentleman also makes an interesting point about vermin. Not only rats and foxes but all sorts of other inner-city vermin that can be a health hazard are attracted. I entirely agree with him, and the Minister might like to discuss the matter.
I will move on, because time is short. Licensing for the whole private rented sector, which several hon. Members have called for, would place a large additional obligation on local authorities and would have a huge cost. One would need to examine carefully the national cost versus the benefit. I suggest that we consider a code of practice, perhaps even a star rating system for landlords' properties that house tenants on benefit. After all, the taxpayer pays that benefit, and if he does not get good value because of the poor quality of the property being offered, that is of interest to him.
The idea of somehow restricting benefit to either landlords or tenants, subject to good behaviour, requires careful consideration. Restricting benefits to antisocial tenants would only encourage them to enter
284WH
other areas of crime such as burglary, stealing to fund their drugs habits, and prostitution. To link reductions in benefits to antisocial behaviour requires careful consideration.
Mr. Mullin: Fortunately, there has been careful thinking about that. The suggestion, which I believe the Government accept in principle— the Minister can tell us whether I am right— is that if a local authority in an area such as my constituency, which has a surplus of properties, has the discretion to license landlords, only landlords with sufficiently high standards to attract a licence will be able to take tenants who are paid for by housing benefit. That would provide those landlords with a powerful incentive to get their act together.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: There is scope for further guidelines— I put it no stronger than that— to cover landlords housing people on benefits. However, I do not know whether we should go as far as licensing all houses where tenants receive housing benefit. One would need to conduct a careful cost-benefit analysis to discover whether it would be worth while.
Mr. Mullin: No. We are talking about giving local authorities the discretion. I appreciate that circumstances vary in different parts of the country. However, in my part of the country— this applies to lots of big industrial cities where there is a surplus of property— the measure would undoubtedly have a powerful impact. The council is begging to be given that discretion, and the sooner we get on with it the better. No more careful thought, please.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I would still like to hear what the Government have to say, and find out how much the measure would cost and what the actual benefit would be.
I shall now return to the serious problem raised by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West, which is shared by other university towns. Large numbers of young people are often housed in substandard housing. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman— the Government might like to take notice of this— that the university authorities should take more interest in the housing of their students. I do not know what the arrangements are at the university of Bath, to which the hon. Member for Bath referred, but I suspect that that university takes a fairly close interest.
I see no reason at all, particularly given modern IT, why a university should not maintain a register of all housing available to students. Irresponsible landlords could be struck off that register, or at least a warning could be placed on the register that a particular property was expensive or of poor quality. I see no reason why that could not be done. To be candid, in many cases students do not treat property with proper respect either. If the university authorities took a greater interest in cases of student misbehaviour, there would be an easy mechanism for the landlord to come to the university and say, "Your student has caused so much damage and he has disappeared. I don't know where he is, but I want to recover the money. Will you help me?"
Mr. Don Foster: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. As he asked, I would like to tell him that the

285WH
university of Bath has agreed with the local council to regenerate some parts of the city with new buildings specifically for students. That avoids the problem of the multiple use of properties. The university has been very imaginative and has introduced requirements not only that students should agree to behaviour codes, but that they should not bring a motor car anywhere near the city of Bath. That is an important measure, which links in with issues of proper public transport. There are some imaginative schemes.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: That is admirable and commendable. The Minister will have heard what the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West have said. The problem is serious and it is growing. We rightly encourage more youngsters to stay in further and higher education, but they will require housing in concentrated areas. We must deal with that problem.
Mr. Best: I welcome what the hon. Members for Cotswold and for Bath (Mr. Foster) have said. I would like to be able to say that the university of Leeds had matched, in performance and intent, the good things that have happened in Bath. However, I regret to say— I am picking my words as carefully as I can— that its behaviour in recent years has reflected the other forms of antisocial behaviour that hon. Members have described.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I have no doubt that that is correct. University authorities must take a closer interest if they are to keep landlords and their students up to scratch.
This has been an interesting and constructive debate. We have not got to the bottom of how we shall rehabilitate those who are antisocial or a nuisance to the rest of society. I have called for mechanisms that make it easier to issue antisocial behaviour orders, but I am under no illusion but that we also need mechanisms to rehabilitate people. I know the problems that exist and I sympathise with social workers and probations officers, who are extensively involved in issuing orders, because by and large, they must make them work. We shall have to find mechanisms to rehabilitate people.
We must never forget that the antisocial behaviour of a small number of people causes a nuisance to a much larger number of innocent people. The Government and the law should always protect the innocent person, and if there is any doubt, the person responsible for the antisocial behaviour should be penalised.
12.2 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Dr. Alan Whitehead): I am pleased to respond to a debate that deals with such a wide range of issues, including housing, regeneration, and law and order.
The debate is opportune. We recently issued our consultation paper on the selective licensing of landlords in areas of low housing demand, to which I shall return. First, however, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin)
286WH
on raising the issue before us. He has a strong constituency interest and, as a former housing Minister, a first-rate knowledge of the development of Government policy on the subject. I do not, however, want to single him out for praise, because all hon. Members have made helpful and constructive contributions to this thoughtful debate.
I hope— this is perhaps a wish rather than a hope— that the issue is not of substantial concern to too many hon. Members and their constituents. Plans for regeneration are in hand in several areas where economic and social decline is furthered by the activities of antisocial tenants and what can only be described as the villainous activities of landlords. Such people act directly against the regeneration activities that are in hand.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: May I clarify what the Minister is saying? If antisocial tenants are a problem in an area like mine, which is relatively well off and law abiding, then it must be a problem in every part of the country. The Minister should be under no illusion about that.
Dr. Whitehead: Of course I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. One hopes that, in all parts of the country, people on housing estates in the rented and private sectors will live in harmony. The problems that have been mentioned this morning do not occur throughout the country, but it is certainly true that in many parts of the country but not necessarily in all local authority areas the problems are real, and we need seriously to think about them.
I know of the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best) has undertaken on housing in multiple occupation, particularly the problems and pressures that houses in multiple occupation occupied by students can bring to an area. The debate has been informed by those who know a great deal about the matter, and they have made solid points.
In the housing Green Paper published on 4 April 2000, we noted that in areas of declining housing demand, particularly in parts of our northern cities, the large-scale operations of a minority of unscrupulous landlords have caused problems. Those problems were often linked to criminal activities such as housing benefit fraud, drug dealing and prostitution. I have already said that those activities can destabilise local communities, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South has told us how that can happen. That can create social and economic problems that seriously hamper efforts at regeneration, and that makes life difficult for respectable tenants and responsible landlords— and for owner-occupiers, who may come under pressure to sell up and move away.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South pointed out, unscrupulous landlords increasingly offer homes to anti-social households, not least those who have been excluded from nearby social housing because of their misbehaviour. My hon. Friend also spoke of the suggestion in the Green Paper that local authorities could be given discretionary powers to license privately rented dwellings or landlords in particularly problematic neighbourhoods. Licensing under those circumstances would deal with a possible

287WH
surplus of housing in areas where bad landlords and tenants are likely to do the most damage. The Green Paper suggests that a local authority could be given discretionary powers to license an area, perhaps where stress is a particularly difficult problem, but it would not have to use them.
The Government's housing policy statement published a year ago said that we would consult on proposals for the selective licensing of private landlords in areas of low demand. Each scheme would be subject to approval by the Secretary of State. The power would not be exercised willy-nilly; a local authority would have to apply to the Secretary of State to be given that discretion. We would countenance such schemes only in areas where tenants could find readily available alternative accommodation should the landlord fail to obtain or lose a licence or withdraw from the market.
Our plans to consult on proposals for legislation were somewhat delayed by the election in June, but the Secretary of State announced on 20 October the start of consultation on our proposed licensing scheme. It is clearly our intention to try to legislate when parliamentary time permits, which I hope will be at an early stage.
We believe that licensing could be one of the range of tools available to local authorities, alongside other measures. The aim would be to enable local authorities to ensure that all landlords played their part in a comprehensive local strategy to tackle the consequences of low housing demand.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the Minister clarify when he is likely to introduce legislation for licensing of houses in multiple occupation, and for the new discretionary licensing scheme? Is it likely that both schemes will be part of one Bill?
Dr. Whitehead: I fear that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman complete satisfaction at the moment, although I will shortly tackle the issue of legislation that is now proceeding through the House. That legislation is not a complete answer to the questions raised today, but the Government intend to legislate on the issues at an early stage.
The Government think that additional regulation is justified for the pervasive and acute problems in several low-demand areas, but that could stifle the supply of private property for renting elsewhere. That is why we propose discretionary powers for local authorities to license private landlords in all or part of their areas. Landlords would need a licence, which would be issued only if they met standards of personal fitness— basically, no criminal record— and management fitness, including safety checks on the operation of their houses.
To keep the focus on better management and the exclusion of criminal landlords, the problem of unfit housing would be tackled separately through the existing or future housing condition regimes.
Mr. Don Foster: The Minister rightly refers to future housing condition regimes. Before he moves on, will he bring us up to date on the Government's plans for the introduction of such regimes?
Dr. Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman has anticipated my next remarks. I was about to underline the
288WH
Government's view that a selective licensing regime will complement measures to provide for, among other things, the licensing of houses in multiple occupation. That future housing regime will run alongside the selective licensing of landlords in specific areas. The hon. Gentleman will be interested in further complementary measures to replace the current housing fitness standard and related enforcement machinery with a new regime based on a housing health and safety rating system. That will apply to all properties, and I will say more about it in a moment.
The selective licensing. of landlords will focus on localised problems that relate to landlords in areas of low housing demand. It will not be concerned with housing fitness as such. HMO licensing will cover the types of accommodation that consistently pose the highest risks across the country, so that selective landlord licensing should ensure that HMO licensing could be properly targeted.
We seek to fulfil as soon as possible some of our commitments on the licensing of HMOs, through our support for a private Member's Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner). Part 3 of that Bill contains specific provisions for the registration of HMOs and new definitions stating what the occupants of HMOs may be regarded as, so that a wider definition can be secured and some related problems can be overcome. The Bill would also give further discretion to local authorities to license blocks of flats or houses with two storeys under certain circumstances. Several elements of legislation that the Government would like to introduce are contained in that Bill, so we have given it considerable support.
Mr. Mullin: I presume that selective licensing will apply not only to multi-occupied houses but to single tenancies, where most of the problems arise in my constituency. Will the management of tenants, the behaviour of tenants and the number of complaints attracted be taken into account when deciding whether to grant a landlord a further licence?
Dr. Whitehead: My hon. Friend is right to draw the distinction between the licensing of HMOs, which is a licensing regime relating to the fitness of properties, and the licensing of landlords in an area of low housing demand, which deals with the landlord's fitness to be a landlord of any sort of housing tenure. Part of the process of granting a licence includes providing evidence to be taken into account, either prospectively or after the licence has been issued, in determining whether it should be continued. One example might be a continuing licence for a pub landlord. If such a landlord has behaved inappropriately in managing properties in an area, the licence would not be renewed.
The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) mentioned antisocial behaviour and neighbours from hell. I have always expressed considerable sorrow for a town near Gdansk in Poland called Hel, where presumably all the neighbours are from Hel. However, we are talking specifically about antisocial behaviour, which can poison tenancy relations in an entire neighbourhood.
In the Green Paper, we recognise that there are, on occasions, unholy alliances between bad landlords and bad tenants. That can create intractable problems,

289WH
which require a multi-agency approach. That was and is a key theme of the policy action team, led by the Home Office, which looked into antisocial behaviour.
The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 requires local authorities and the police to develop local crime and disorder reduction partnerships and to implement strategies for reducing crime at local level. It also allows local authorities and the police, working together, to seek antisocial behaviour orders against anyone who causes harassment, alarm and distress to others.
Antisocial behaviour is a cross-tenure problem. It does not occur only in one form of housing tenure. It can occur in owner-occupied property as well as in rented property. Many antisocial tenants may move into private rented accommodation from the social housing sector and back again, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South said.
In developing a co-ordinated approach, local authorities can make use of Home Office guidance to local authorities and to the police in dealing with antisocial behaviour, especially by issuing antisocial behaviour orders. The Government are also considering measures to speed up the eviction of antisocial tenants in the social sector. The hon. Member for Bath asked how many ASBOs have been issued so far. The answer is 466, although there is evidence that local authorities are beginning to make greater use of them.
I remind the Chamber that part of the problem of obtaining court action against so-called neighbours from hell is that the more that people in the neighbourhood are intimidated, the less likely they are to keep logs and appear in court as witnesses. The introduction of professional witnesses is a great step forward towards ensuring that people need not suffer additional intimidation as a result of appearing in court while ASBOs are procured.
The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) raised the issue of conditional tenancies. He may be aware of the emergence of introductory tenancies, which are similar to the tenancy to which he referred. They can play an important role in ensuring that the local authority tackles nuisance and antisocial behaviour on estates. The recent Court of Appeal judgment is welcome. It ruled that introductory tenancies are compatible with the European convention on human rights. That provides reassurance and clarification for authorities that already operate those tenancies and to those local authorities that considered them but were concerned about compatibility.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: People from my local housing association told me this morning that even if a housing association had conditional tenancies and evicted a tenant from such a tenancy, the local authority would have a requirement to rehouse that tenant. As the housing association is the agent of the local authority, it would have a requirement to rehouse those tenants, so it would simply evict the tenants from one place and rehouse them in another. We need to consider mechanisms for dealing with antisocial behaviour and rehabilitating people into society.
Dr. Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman is right, and I am not making the case that introductory tenancies are a
290WH
panacea for the wider problems that he mentions. However, I draw attention to them because they are a method for ensuring that tenants behave in a socially acceptable way when they take up their tenancies, especially if they have a previous history of antisocial activities.
Mr. Mullin: May I have my hon. Friend's assurance that he will address my point about amending section 46 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to littering? I gave him notice of that point and wrote to the Environment Minister on 6 July. I hope that my hon. Friend has had better luck than I had in getting a reply from that Minister.
Dr. Whitehead: As appears to be the custom this morning, my hon. Friend has anticipated me. I was about to turn to that point.
In our Green Paper, we noted that the problem in declining areas with bad landlords and antisocial tenants was compounded by the fact that such antisocial tenants were often dependent on housing benefit. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South referred to that. Housing benefit is paid directly to the landlord, which provides landlords with no incentive to enforce tenancy agreements or manage their property effectively. I recognise the concerns expressed on that matter.
The selective licensing of landlords should ensure that bad landlords are given a chance to get their act together and that, if they do not do so, they are unable to continue to operate unlicensed. It would not be right for unlicensed landlords to continue to be supported with housing benefit payments. With such safeguards as may be needed to protect innocent tenants, we shall need to ensure that legislation on selective licensing closes the door on such payments. We also need to recognise that housing benefit is the right of the tenant and is paid directly to the landlord only when tenants cannot manage their own affairs.
My hon. Friend referred to littering— an issue on which he wrote to the Minister for the Environment. The problem of littering in housing in multiple occupation is often severe, but it is sometimes difficult to prove precisely who is responsible for it. Section 46 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 is not exactly associated with litter provisions, but it requires the householder to place household waste in the receptacle specified by the waste collection authority for normal weekly collection.
There is a power under the Environmental Protection Act to force the householder to take responsibility for putting the waste out. The problem that might arise in implementing my hon. Friend's suggestion would be that it would give an additional and overlapping power to the landlord. That could cause confusion. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has a litter legislation review in hand, and it will shortly publish proposals for consultation. I imagine that that will be one of the issues on which consultation will take place, but as my hon. Friend says, that is not my departmental responsibility.
Mr. Mullin: I sympathise. I once had responsibilities similar to those of my hon. Friend and I know that they

291WH
are vast. I am seeking to address the problem that occurs when a great quantity of litter comes out of what is often, but not always, a multi-occupied house, and no one will accept responsibility for it. The local authorities cannot prosecute, because they cannot identify which individual in the house put out which bit of litter, and that is what they are required to know at the moment. They therefore want the power to prosecute the landlord, in order to prompt him to require the tenant to put things in order.
Dr. Whitehead: Yes, indeed. I understand my hon. Friend's point. I hope that DEFRA's consultation will address his concerns, although I must emphasise that there is a potential problem of confusion in law.
Where poor condition housing— in all tenures— coincides with declining demand for housing and with social problems, we have a serious problem. A vicious spiral can ensue in which problem landlords and tenants play a part. When people start to leave areas and houses are boarded up, crime moves in, conditions deteriorate, and whole neighbourhoods head rapidly down a steep slope. In those situations the licensing of landlords is but one tool available to local authorities to address antisocial behaviour and declining property values. Local strategic partnerships can help to co-ordinate measures and improved public services can help to revitalise an area, as can addressing the quality and quantity of the housing stock.
The Regulatory Reform Act 2001 should enable the Government, by order, to sweep away the constraints surrounding local authorities' support for private sector renewal. That will give local authorities much greater freedom within their housing strategies to use their resources to improve conditions in the private sector.
My hon. Friends the Members for Leeds, North-West and for Sunderland, South raised the issue of the power to limit the number of houses in multiple occupation in a particular street. It is best that I write to them on that matter, and I shall certainly do so. I am sure that they appreciate that there might be problems in planning law if a property were allowed to be developed for multiple occupation if somebody had moved out, but not in other circumstances.
The Government want a private rented sector that is better and bigger. That sector provides essential housing to the young and mobile, and also to many of the most vulnerable people in our communities. We want to encourage good landlords through best practice initiatives. We are also conscious that the private rented sector is very sensitive to regulation and to movements in the market for properties for owner-occupation. The hon. Member for Cotswold made the point that in the main it might not be a good idea to regulate all landlords and all rented properties in all areas. Apart from stifling the supply of a much needed resource, that would impose on local authorities the major task of policing the regulation.
In our resolution to press forward with the selective licensing of landlords and HMOs, the Government are focusing on problems relating to the worst landlords in the private rented sector, the most vulnerable of communities and the most vulnerable of tenants.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): We can now move on to the next debate. Meanwhile, I congratulate the Minister on his double innings this morning.

Children's Services (Hertfordshire)
12.30 pm
Mr. Peter Lilley: I called this debate for three reasons. I wanted to make Ministers aware of the intense local feeling about the intended closure of maternity services at Hemel Hempstead and their move to Watford, to place on record our reasoned concerns on the subject, and to spell out our short, medium and long-term aims.
On 26 September, the local health trust announced that the special care baby unit at Hemel Hempstead was no longer considered safe. It was therefore to be closed and moved to Watford, along with all maternity, women's and related children's services. The move is set to be completed by 4 February 2002. Although there had been some consultation with the primary care trust since July about the safety of the SCBU, as the unit is known, no discussion had taken place with it about the simultaneous closure of maternity and women's units at the hospital. However, we have now been told that the problem had been apparent at Hemel for up to 18 months. Why was it not discussed publicly earlier? Why was it not known about at the general election?
The first explanation of the changes was given at a hastily arranged meeting at Watford general hospital on Monday 8 October. I attended it, along with representatives of the primary care trust and local councillors. The chairman, chief executive and medical director responsible for clinical governance in the West Herts community health NHS trust gave us several reasons for the planned closure and transfer. The main ones were the difficulty in recruitment and retention of skilled nursing staff at the Hemel unit, the difficulty in maintaining duplicate cover as required following the inquiry into the Bristol Royal infirmary, and the case of the nurse who suffered from Munchausen's syndrome by proxy. There had been instances of misprescription and misdiagnoses, and a higher than average proportion of nursing staff at the Hemel unit are nursery nurses. They are dedicated staff, but are not trained to fulfil some roles.
The decision comes on top of other issues that have undermined confidence in the West Herts community health NHS trust, and especially in Hemel hospital. The reputation of the hospital was affected by figures that showed that it had one of the highest mortality rates for neck of the femur operations— hip transplants— with one in six patients dying within 30 days of an operation. Action has been taken to respond to that. More relevant to the closure of the maternity unit is that two of the four consultants in the gynaecology and obstetrics team are suspended and under investigation following complaints from hundreds of local women.
An inquiry is due to be published soon, and I do not want to pre-empt its findings. Suffice it to say that, even though they have been replaced, the events have hit public confidence and are probably a much more important factor in putting the skids under maternity and women's services in Hemel than anyone publicly admits. Hemel was already at a disadvantage compared to Luton and Dunstable, which has twice as many consultants in the relevant specialties but handles only 40 per cent. more births. I would like to know the reason for that disadvantage.

293WH
Following the announcement of the proposed changes, all three parties on St. Albans district council unanimously passed a motion of no confidence in the management of West Herts community health NHS trust. However, my constituents are overwhelmingly grateful to and confident in the doctors and nurses at Hemel for the care and treatment that they have provided over the years.
Mr. Tony McWalter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no fewer than 51,281 local people have signed a petition opposing the disposition made by the local health authority? That clearly demonstrates the general fantastic local confidence in the service.
Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point. Similar petitions have been signed in my constituency and in St. Albans to express opposition to the proposed change, and determination that the services should be restored as rapidly as possible.
I accept that safety must be paramount. If there is a clinical risk to mothers and babies, action must be taken to remedy that. If the only option is a temporary move to Watford— that remains to be proved— it will be painful and difficult for mothers during that period, but so be it. My main worry is that the move will not be temporary, but permanent. That is unacceptable. The chairman of the local hospital trust admitted that even outside rush hour, it takes 27 minutes to get from Hemel Hempstead to Watford. For my constituents in Harpenden, Redbourn, Sandridge and Wheathampstead, journey times can be considerably longer.
Watford rush-hour traffic is notorious. It took me longer to get from the junction of the M1 to the hospital in Watford than it took to get from the House to that junction. On top of that, the hospital is next door to the football stadium. Mothers who must go to the hospital during a home match face intolerable delays.
Ultimately, distance undermines safety and I cannot accept the idea that those services should be so far from my constituents. My constituents in Sandridge and Wheathampstead, who currently have the option of going to the Queen Elizabeth II hospital in Welwyn Garden City instead, are worried that there are rumours of those services moving up north to the Lister hospital. Will the Minister tell us whether that is likely?
The fear that the closure of Hemel Hempstead general hospital will be permanent is exacerbated by the Government's plans for maternity spending, which were announced on 16 October. They show that there are plans to spend more on maternity services in virtually every other hospital in Hertfordshire, but no money is set aside for Hemel Hempstead general hospital. If the Government planned to improve that hospital and ensure that we could return maternity services there, surely the hospital would receive a large chunk of the spending. The fact that that will not happen clearly suggests that there are long-term plans to close Hemel Hempstead general hospital's maternity services permanently.
Mr. McWalter: What the right hon. Gentleman says is absolutely correct. The result of that is that £750,000
294WH
of the £1 million given by the Government for maternity services is going to West Hertfordshire. If these plans go ahead, the result of that investment will be a decrease in maternity beds jointly held in Watford and Hemel Hempstead from 63 to 45. That investment would mean a massive slashing of services.
Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for spelling out how the word "investment" in new Labour speak is a substitute for spending, and often means spending less than under the Conservative Government.
The announcement by the Under-Secretary of State for Health, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, in November of an independent review of the decision gave local people some hope that the move to Watford could be averted. Plans were made for meetings with the review panel at the beginning of December and the end of November. However, the meetings were cancelled. It emerged that the team would not start work until 7 January. It will publish its report on 18 January, but that will be only a fortnight before the movement is to be completed. The planning will certainly be under way by then, so effectively, there is a fait accompli and the review has the appearance of a cosmetic job to endorse that.
The name of the chairman of the review team has been released, but the rest of the panel remain anonymous. We are told that that is because the panel is independent. However, how can we know that if we do not know who is on it? Will the Minister tell us who the people are, why the review will start so late, and its terms of reference? I sincerely hope that my scepticism about the review will be unfounded and that it will serve a useful purpose. If it is too late to stop the transfer, the panel could set down a programme to restore accessible services to Hemel Hempstead or St. Albans within a firm timetable.
There is even more serious concern in my constituency that the move of the women's and children's services may not only prove permanent, but be a prelude to the downgrading of Hemel Hempstead General hospital and the loss of its accident and emergency services. We fear that because we have been here before; in the mid-1980s, the maternity unit at St. Albans City hospital was merged with, and moved to, Hemel Hempstead because, we were told, it had a high risk of perinatal mortality. The subsequently published figures did not demonstrate that, but by then it was too late.
We were told that the move was a one-off. Not so: it was a precursor to the merging of the accident and emergency units and acute services, which also moved to Hemel Hempstead from St. Albans. I strongly opposed the merger, as did most local people and all parties, but it was unanimously supported by the consultants, who argued that the merger would lead to an improved service.
The merger went ahead. Ever since then, I have challenged the health authority to publish figures showing whether the service has improved. It has refused. I have asked Ministers to carry out a study of similar mergers across the country to demonstrate whether they have raised clinical standards. They, too, have refused.

295WH
We fear remorseless centralisation in the national health service. We could accept it more readily if it were based on evidence, but if that evidence exists, it has not been published. The real reasons for the merger are the supposed cost savings, which rarely materialise, and bureaucratic empire-building, which materialises all too often. We fear that the change will be permanent, not temporary. It will lead ultimately to the loss of all major acute and accident and emergency services at Hemel Hempstead, and their transfer to Watford General hospital.
Let us consider the short, medium and long-term. In the short term, we must be sure that the move is truly necessary. We must be assured that all options have been properly considered, including transferring qualified staff, increasing the unit's budget and staff complement, and making more strenuous efforts to recruit staff. We have little faith in the proposed review, which purports to be independent although it was set up by a Minister. The review is mostly anonymous and started work too late. It looks more like a whitewash than an objective inquiry. None the less, we hope that the review will be of some use, but if it is not, we must look to the medium term.
Our medium-term objective is to receive a firm commitment to restoring maternity and related services accessible to people in Harpenden, Redbourn, Sandridge, Wheathampstead and St. Albans. That means bringing those services back either to Hemel Hempstead or to St. Albans. That is the least that we will accept from the review.
If there is a proven case for specialisation and larger hospitals, the only satisfactory long-term solution is a super hospital accessible from Harpenden, St. Albans, Hemel Hempstead, Watford, and the area between those four places. None of the existing hospital sites are large enough or accessible enough to fulfil that role and house a first-class specialist hospital covering West Hertfordshire.
We must not let services implode into one of the existing sites, like a black hole absorbing stars into a minute space of infinite density. It is all the more essential to avoid that, given the current review of hospital services in Hertfordshire. At present, there are no hospitals with specialist standing in Hertfordshire that serve the whole region, so a new super hospital in Hertfordshire would help us to prevent the county from being downgraded to an auxiliary of London and Cambridge.
I wait to hear the Minister's response, and ask her to give me assurances about the short, medium and long term. That would be the best Christmas present that my constituents, particularly future mothers, could receive, and I hope that they do.
12.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) for raising such an important issue and for the way in which he has approached the matter on behalf of his constituents. Clearly, almost nothing is more important to people than the future of their hospital services, in particular those that relate to maternity, obstetrics, gynaecology and other services for women and their
296WH
families. I understand the local worry that will have been caused by the speed with which such decisions have been taken.
I am also aware that the right hon. Gentleman has raised the issue previously. He has asked a parliamentary question of a ministerial colleague about the urgent transfer of the service. I know that the way in which the decision became known has caused great worry to hon. Members, health service staff, community health councils in the area and local action groups. The residents of St. Albans and Harpenden became aware of the information by way of their local press. I emphasise that the decision to transfer the special care baby unit from Hemel Hempstead to Watford General hospital is clinical. It is not financially driven, but is a response to several adverse clinical incidents combined with acute difficulties in recruiting specialist paediatric nurses to the special care baby unit. That position led Hertfordshire Partnership NHS trust to declare the special care baby unit service at Hemel Hempstead hospital unsafe.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, clinical safety must be of the utmost importance when providing services to families in his area.The decision was made in the best interests of patient care and safety. Given the circumstances, the option to transfer the service to Watford general hospital was felt to be the most appropriate.
Mr. McWalter: My hon. Friend's briefing may be a little out of date in that the Hunt inquiry was established to find out whether such claims— some of which may be founded on misinformation— are true. The Hunt inquiry was due to meet in January but, as the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) said, there has now been a fourth postponement until March of the movement of the special care baby unit. Perhaps those developments have not reached my hon. Friend's office, but she must not talk as if that action is a fait accompli— as the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden described it. On the contrary, the decision is still very much under investigation.
Ms Blears: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but it is important to say that the decision came about as a result of clinical safety issues and concern about adverse incidents, together with difficulties in recruiting paediatric nurses. Those difficulties are a matter of fact. The trust has set up several recruitment drives, but has been unable to recruit nurses to the unit. I understand that the cover required is about 16 whole-time equivalent paediatric nurses to sustain the number of beds that were in the special care baby unit, but at the moment it has about 6.45 equivalents. Clearly, there is a real problem. It is a fact that recruiting paediatric nurses to a place such as Hemel Hempstead is difficult, given housing costs and the salaries that are paid. Most people in the area would recognise that that has been a problem for a considerable time. Whether or not that issue is sufficient in respect of the decision to relocate the special care baby unit will be examined by the review. Recruitment problems have been an issue for the trust for some time.
Mr. McWalter: My hon. Friend may be aware of the plan to have a 135-unit nurses home on site, so there will be no problem in the medium and long term.
Ms Blears: I am aware of that. Negotiations are continuing with English Partnerships to look into setting up a multi-storey residential development of 135 single cluster units to attract young nurses to the area. However, such developments will occur in 2003 and, as my hon. Friend said, we are talking about the medium term. I am explaining the reasons for the immediate decision that was taken, which will be the subject of review. I wish again to put it on the record that the decision was not financially driven. It is about safety, clinical issues and ensuring that, in the interim, the situation is managed safely so that we can reassure the people in the area that their families and babies are not at risk, and that the situation will continue to be managed as safely as possible.
I also want to set the issue in the context of the various reviews that are taking place. The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden talked about the need to ensure that the decision is temporary and not a fait accompli or a permanent decision. It is important that the matter is considered in the context of the review of services generally. Too often— I have personal experience of this— decisions have been taken that, as a result of subsequent events, almost inevitably become permanent. It is important, therefore, that the temporary decision is based on clinical safety and is not embedded by subsequent actions, from which it is extremely difficult to retreat. I am acutely conscious of the need to do that.
In Hertfordshire and south Bedfordshire, the need for strategic change in relation to acute services is recognised. The right hon. Gentleman's suggestion about the possibility of a new super hospital is not on my agenda. We recognise the need for a review of services, but it is important that all such reviews are linked together. For example, any proposed permanent changes to acute children's services must be subject to formal public consultation with all its implications. People must be involved in the consultation and their views must be taken properly into account. It is important that decisions are made at local level to ensure that maternity provisions, in particular, and provisions for new-born babies are the most effective in terms of local needs. The proposals for maternity services in Hertfordshire also need to be considered in the context of two important developments in the national health service as a whole.
I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the current national review of links between maternity, gynaecology and other related services. The long-accepted view has been that, once a special care baby unit is moved, the maternity provision has to move. The obstetrics and gynaecology units also then have to move. I understand the right hon. Gentleman's concern that it is a salami-slicing process and that an initial decision can have many knock-on effects. A substantial number of services could be dramatically changed. It is important to mention that the national review is looking at the links between those various services. It aims to establish whether the accepted view that such services are inextricably linked— and cannot
298WH
under any circumstances be considered differently— is the right approach. In the context of that range of services, that would be a significant change.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about the move toward centralisation and bigger services. Within the NHS generally, there is a view that some of those issues should now be reconsidered, that they are not automatically given and there may be different ways of organising services. As a result, more services could be provided safely, closer to people's homes and communities. It is difficult to strike a balance between safety and excellence, clinical quality and local access. However, it is important that we examine those issues and do not accept the idea that because they have been carried out in a certain way in the past, they must continue in that way indefinitely. We must therefore look at the long term and the national picture as well as the local picture.
We must also be aware that there is a large commitment from the Government to increase the number of midwives in maternity services in many local areas. Midwife-led units are extremely popular. They have had excellent outcomes, especially with low-risk births without complications. Local women certainly appreciate midwife services. We are on target to recruit a further 500 midwives by the end of next year, and an extra 2,000 midwives by the end of 2005. It is important to ensure that we not only recruit new midwives, but retain the existing midwives.
I want to deal with the issues raised by the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden and my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) about funding for maternity care. The funding was recently announced as a result of the £100 million of capital investment nationally, but Hemel Hempstead did not receive its allocation. I understand how my hon. Friend could feel that that reinforced the permanent nature of the removal of maternity care services from Hemel Hempstead.
I firmly refute that position and say that West Herts community health NHS trust received £622,000 for Watford General hospital. There was an allocation of £240,000 for Hemel Hempstead general hospital. That allocation still exists; it has been deferred until 2002. That decision was made immediately before the decision to relocate the special care baby unit, so it would have been inappropriate to allocate the money to Hemel Hempstead. However, I am assured that that allocation has not been set aside. The money is still available, and has not been used elsewhere. Hemel Hempstead has not lost out with regard to those allocations— but any capital allocation will need to be supported by a robust revenue situation in the broader health economy.
As a period of change is under way, the allocation has been deferred until 2002–03.
Mr. Lilley: Will the Minister elaborate on that? One of her colleagues published a list of all of the sums, hospital by hospital. Hemel Hempstead received nothing, so it is interesting to learn of that £750,000. Has it been plucked out of thin air? If the hon. Lady possesses the power to magic money out of thin air, we would like her to exercise it more frequently.
Ms Blears: I do not have a magic wand, and I do not cast spells.
I am assured that the eastern region has had its allocation, and the figures are as I have stated— £622,000 for Watford, and £240,000 for Hemel Hempstead. However, because the decisions to institute the changes were made at the same time, the allocation of those sums has been deferred to 2002. This morning, I sought an assurance that that money is still provided for, and I received it. However, I understand that hon. Members might have seen that their hospital had no allocation, and that they might therefore have assumed that that was confirmation that the decision to move services was permanent, rather than temporary. The situation is still fluid; there is still an allocation for Hemel Hempstead general hospital.
The right hon. Gentleman also referred to his constituents' concerns that there might be a proposal to move the maternity service from the QE2 to the Lister hospital. There are no plans to do that, at present— although a general strategic review of acute services is being conducted. I wish to reassure people who live in the area that there will be sufficient capacity for mothers-to-be and families to have access to high quality maternity services in the future.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned transport problems such as congestion, and the time that it takes for patients to travel to the site of the alternative provision. I am aware of those problems. Discussions have taken place with the ambulance services in the area, and the midwifery service, to try to ensure that patients are informed of the preparations that they will have to make, should they need to travel those distances. They should be told how long the journey is likely to take, so that undue distress is not caused to people who are going into labour, who need swift access to a hospital.
300WH
There have been other discussions, in particular with the ambulance services, about what to do about the possibility of increased 999 calls from women who are going into labour, to ensure that the best possible service is provided.
The Dacoram primary care trust, and Harpenden and St. Albans primary care trust, are undertaking a feasibility study of the possibility of establishing low-risk maternity services provision in north-west Hertfordshire. That study is separate from the acute review that is also being conducted, and if it finds that it is possible to provide a midwife-led service in the area, that would benefit local people.
Concerns have been raised in the local media about the cost of the proposed transfer, and about whether resources might be wasted if the independent review panel were to change its decision after improvements had been made at Watford. I assure local people— and hon. Members— that the vast majority of those improvements would have been carried out in any event. We are not in the business of spending money unnecessarily: we are focussing on certain necessary safety improvements. If there are to be any permanent changes that affect maternity services and services for families in this area, they will be the subject of proper public consultation, so that all the people in the community who have raised proper concerns about those issues will have a full chance to get involved and make sure that they have their say on shaping services for the future. I hope that the independent review will be able to look at the proposals that have been made, and ensure that they are robust and properly reflect the clinical and safety concerns in that community. Those concerns must be given the highest priority, but must always be balanced with trying to ensure that services are as close to home and as accessible for local people as possible.

Children's Society
1 pm
Julie Morgan: I am pleased to have secured this short debate today, but I am sorry about the circumstances that have brought it about. My purpose in asking for the debate is to raise concerns about the Children's Society's decision to withdraw from Wales, and the deep feelings of anger and disappointment that that has produced, not only in Wales but in Westminster.
Early-day motion 443 has been signed by 74 Members of Parliament: only 26 of them are from Wales, and the rest are mainly from England. That shows the depth of concern about the work of the Children's Society in Wales and England. I am pleased that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears) is replying to the debate today. The Children's Society's reputation is on the line, and it is therefore important that a Minister who has responsibilities in England should reply to the debate, as the issue affects England as well as Wales.
Before I became a Member of Parliament I worked in the voluntary sector. I was an assistant director of Barnado's. I worked with the Children's Society, with which we collaborated on different projects. I was a member of many multi-agency groups in which the Children's Society was involved.
Mr. Win Griffiths: My hon. Friend mentioned that the Children's Society is involved in multi-agency work. There is one such project in my constituency, which is working with children who desperately need help. Will she make an appeal for the Children's Society to reverse its decision on Friday, and get down to the difficult job of serving children in Wales?
Julie Morgan: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is essential that the Children's Society reconsider its decision at its emergency trustees meeting on Friday. We know the importance of its work in Wales, and I am appealing to the society to change its decision.
The Children's Society has a long history in Wales. It began its work in 1887, initially to save children who could fall into moral danger from prostitution or crime. It has always worked closely with the Church in Wales. For many years, the Children's Society in Wales worked with disabled children, and found foster parents for vulnerable children. Subsequently, it moved into community work, and in the 1990s it stepped into a child-centred role running advocacy projects, which has been its main work.
Mrs. Betty Williams: I am sure that my hon. Friend will be aware that, in the 2002–03 portfolio, more than £100,000 was allocated for work in Gwynedd and Ynys Mon. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Mon (Albert Owen) would wish to associate himself with my remarks. Such advocacy work is desperately needed in Bangor and parts of Ynys Mon. I am sure that my hon. Friend will make that point on
302WH
behalf of north-west Wales, as well as the rest of Wales, when she makes her case to try to persuade the board to reverse its decision when it meets on Friday.
Julie Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. I will put the case for all the projects throughout Wales. I am very pleased that so many Members of Parliament are here to support me today.
There are 13 projects all over Wales. The eight advocacy projects were set up as a result of the Waterhouse report, and act as independent voices for some of the most vulnerable children in Wales. I am sure that we all remember the horrors described in the report. It is essential that the advocacy projects continue to be run by an independent body, such as a charity. Such a body should not be linked to the social services or the Assembly, and should give an independent view. The Children's Society runs the projects and provides an independent voice, but it is helped financially by local authorities and the National Assembly.
The charity is pulling the plug on the children it was set up to serve. Many of the advocacy partnerships still had years to run. No one is criticising the society's good work.
Mr. Wayne David: My hon. Friend will know of the project in the Caerphilly county borough area. I used to work in the youth service and know full well the excellent work that it does. Does she agree that it is highly regarded and is seen as an example of very good practice?
Julie Morgan: My hon. Friend is right. I know that the project is of a high standard. Indeed, at an event held by Community Care at the Hilton hotel last Thursday, the society's work in Torfaen and Blaenau Gwent won an award for innovation. There is no question about the quality of its work.
The community development projects are located in the valleys and west Wales, both of which are objective 1 areas, and in Powys, which was savaged by foot and mouth disease. Compared with England, Wales is a poor country. Does the charity intend to work only in areas where people are wealthy enough to give donations? It is inexplicable that it should withdraw from a poor area such as Wales.
We all understand that the society has financial problems.
Chris Ruane: To what extent does my hon. Friend think that responsibility for this dire situation and for the society's potential withdrawal from Wales rests with decisions taken by the board of trustees and the management? They went on a £12 million spending spree, but failed to appoint a fundraiser for two and a half years. How much responsibility should they shoulder?
Julie Morgan: There are problems with the financial management of the Children's Society, and I hope that the Welsh Affairs Committee will have an opportunity to go into that when it summons the managers to its meeting.
One of our greatest concerns is that the society reached its decision without consulting children, staff, partner agencies, local authorities, the Church or the

303WH
National Assembly. The society has pulled the plug with no warning and without attempting to ensure that provision continues. Jane Hutt, who is the Minister for Health and Social Services in the National Assembly, has made a statement that is worth repeating. She said:
"When the news that the society was pulling out of Wales broke, no application for grants was made by the Society to the National Assembly. We have not turned down funding for them, as no request was ever made. Before making the announcement that they were pulling out of Wales they should have come to the Assembly and discussed their concerns".
The society made no attempt to sort out the issue.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing time for this important debate. Does the behaviour that she has aptly described befit a charitable organisation?
Julie Morgan: Certainly not. Many of us respect the society's work, but we are concerned about its actions on this issue. It did not try to sort matters out before the crisis arose. It announced that it would withdraw, but made no attempt to secure services, yet it is supposed to be listening to children. Taking up the point made by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), the society is supposed to be concerned about children, yet it was prepared to end services in Wales without trying to obtain more money. It did not even approach the Assembly, which was the obvious place to go. The chief executive, Ian Sparks, was given a column in Community Care magazine to explain the society's reasons. He said:
"We had no alternative but to withdraw from Wales".
It is a matter of great concern that he could say that when he did not ask for help to remain in Wales.
Kevin Brennan: Does my hon. Friend agree that the decision to amputate Wales from its work will damage the society's reputation beyond Wales, especially in its work in England? That will seriously affect its credibility when making representations in places such as this.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Order. Before I call Julie Morgan to continue her speech, I apologise to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) for not identifying him when he made his intervention. I say that for Hansard's sake.
Mr. David: Apology accepted, Mr. Winterton.
Julie Morgan: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan). One of the reasons for having this debate in Westminster Hall is to highlight the fact that the Children's Society sets great store by its ability to influence Governments, and to point out that its actions in Wales will damage that influence in its work in England and Wales.
I applaud the efforts of the staff in trying to create a package that could enable services to continue. I am pleased that the Children's Society will hear from a small group of children and staff from Wales at an emergency meeting that the trustees are holding on Friday, which shows that they are finally being forced to listen. The voices from Wales were not heard when the society made its decision. Only one Welsh representative
304WH
was present when the decision was made. Three young people were there also, but none of them were from Wales.
I am concerned about a report in The Guardian this morning, which has been confirmed by the Children's Society. It says that the society will listen to two children and two members of staff on Friday on condition that there are no demonstrations or banners outside the society's London office.
Dr. Hywel Francis(Aberavon): Does my hon. Friend agree that the volunteers should be able to make representations, as they work hard to assist the society in Wales, especially in my constituency? I know that both Church and community organisations assist the society in its work.
Julie Morgan: Yes, and they do not have a voice. Two young people and two members of staff is the smallest number that could be asked to make representations. The society does not want people to demonstrate and is not prepared to let young people show their feelings. That reflects badly on the society, which seems to be stifling democratic debate.
The most objectionable aspect of the society's decision is that Wales seems to be dispensable. How is it possible, when a funding crisis hits a charity that covers England and Wales, for one arm of the organisation to be chopped off? I know that savings have been planned in England, but to penalise a whole country is objectionable. Why should Welsh children be discriminated against?
There are many issues related to the current situation in Wales. For instance, how can the Society's fundraising continue? I know that Ann Jones, Assembly Member for the Vale of Clwyd and Chair of the Assembly's Health and Social Services Committee, has written to the Charity Commission querying the legality of the society's fundraising in Wales. The situation is distressing and a mess, and I am interested to hear the Minister's views on it.
The Children's Society has the opportunity to change its mind on Friday. I hope that it will consider its reputation in respect of its operations in England as well as in Wales, and its influence on Government. I hope that it will reconsider its decision. I know that it has received many representations from all sectors of Welsh society and from people in England asking it to change its mind. I am appealing to the Children's Society to change its mind on Friday. I hope that it will do that and restore its credibility. It can then continue to influence Government policy and the Welsh Assembly's policy, as it has done in the past, and its valuable work can continue without this stain.
1.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) for raising the issue. I am also very impressed by the number of hon. Members in attendance. That signifies to me the depth of their concern and the importance of these issues not just to hon. Members but to their constituents throughout Wales. The House is sending a powerful message.

305WH
There can be no bigger priority for any of us than to try to improve services for children in need in general, and for looked-after children in particular, who comprise one of the most vulnerable groups of children in our society. In the past there has been poor management, inconsistent quality and a wide variation in the services available. My hon. Friend mentioned the Utting report of the review of the safeguards for children living away from home, the Waterhouse report and the risks that children were exposed to when living away from home in the 1970s and 1980s. Those risks were seriously underestimated, and it is only in recent years that the experiences of thousands of children have come to light.
The Government seek to ensure that all children have the love, care and support that they need for the whole of their childhood, and that they are protected from abuse and neglect. We seek to ensure that the children for whom social services are responsible gain maximum life chances from education and other opportunities so that they manage to reach their potential. All my hon. Friends share those goals for children.
The voluntary sector, including the Children's Society, has for many years been a key partner in what the Government are trying to achieve. The quality protects programme in England and the children first programme in Wales, which have been very important, are examples of that. The Government have not sought to abrogate their responsibilities and push them on to the voluntary sector.
Working in partnership involves recognising that in many communities the voluntary sector is a more appropriate agency to deliver the priorities of Government. Working with local authorities, the voluntary sector can deliver innovation on the ground, which the Government are not in a position to do. We seek to gain the maximum added value from involving the voluntary sector, and that has been vital. That is why a large part of the programme under the £450 million children's fund is to be delivered deliberately through voluntary sector agencies, and why the role of organisations such as the Children's Society is so important in the delivery of Government priorities as a whole— not simply in Wales, but throughout all areas for which we are responsible.
In the review of the position of vulnerable children we highlighted the need to listen to children themselves. That has been at the heart of all the policies that we have developed. The Waterhouse report recommended that
"recourse to an independent advocacy service is available to any complainant or affected child who wishes to have it".
That was a fundamental decision. The Utting report made similar recommendations. As well as listening to children about what they want to happen, we should allow them to influence the development of policy itself. Sometimes the best and most creative solutions come from children's ideas, because they are at the sharp end and they know what works and what does not, and how services could be better organised. We all learn from children's input.
Kevin Brennan: Does my hon. Friend agree with the view I have formed from listening to evidence, in sittings
306WH
of the Special Standing Committee on the Adoption and Children Bill, that the credibility of the Children's Society in purporting to speak for children in Wales will be seriously undermined if it goes ahead and withdraws from its work in Wales?
Ms Blears: I understand my hon. Friend's view on that matter, and I am sure that it will be reflected by other hon. Members, showing the depth of their concern for their communities, and particularly children. It is crucial that organisations not only speak for children but find out their views before doing so. Organisations should not be a proxy for children's views, but should be in touch with children so that the views they communicate are a true reflection of the situation in communities. That is a priority for us.
Advocacy is important; local authorities plan to spend £9 million this year on advocacy schemes. I think that £750,000 is being spent in Wales this year on schemes such as those outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams). The voluntary sector has shown that it has the capacity and experience to provide the services in question. The my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North was keen to stress that the quality of the Children's Society's services is not at issue, but that there is a need to ensure that those services continue to support young people.
In the past few years, the Children's Society has been a key partner, with the Government and local authorities in England and Wales, in making progress with some of our programmes. For example, last year it worked with more than 40,000 children and young people through 100 projects in England and Wales. The Government are currently funding, through section 64 project grants, three Children's Society projects in England, helping to improve children's participation. Those totalled £120,000 this year. I understand that there is also Youth Justice Board project funding of approximately £100,000. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North was right to say that the Children's Society is very much involved in influencing Government policy and the development of projects. We would clearly want that to continue, but I certainly recognise the concerns expressed by hon. Members from Wales about the continuation of the society's role in the present circumstances.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: The Minister has expressed the concern of people in Wales and their representatives about the society's decision. Does she believe that the Children's Society is wrong to decide to cut Wales off from its work?
Ms Blears: Decisions made by charities are matters for their trustees. We have a concordat on work with the voluntary sector and charitable organisations, which makes it clear that charities and voluntary organisations are independent bodies. Sometimes the added value that they bring to Government programmes is due to that independence and to responsiveness to certain factors, which national statutory organisations may not have. Their independent status and diversity are valuable.
Although the matter is for the trustees, I can record my concern at the decision. The Prime Minister has also said that it was disappointing. He is aware that discussions are going on and hopes that they will be

307WH
satisfactorily concluded. It is important that hon. Members have raised the matter before the meeting due to take place shortly, at which the matters will be considered. Trustees are legally an independent body and must arrive at decisions in the appropriate legal framework, but they are also partners in Government policy and projects and must be aware of the atmosphere in which they carry out their partnership work on projects that are important to the Government.
Mrs. Betty Williams: Given my hon. Friend's long experience and the way in which she has responded to the debate, does she agree that, as the Children's Society did not approach the National Assembly for Wales for additional funding, maybe— I emphasise the word "maybe"— it had been planning the amputation for a long time?
Ms Blears: I am not in a position to comment on what was in the mind of the Children's Society. I know that it has had a financial deficit for some time, and that it needs to take steps to address that, which it is doing.
The policy responsibility for children's services in Wales rests with the National Assembly, and Jane Hutt, the Minister responsible, expressed her disappointment with the Children's Society's decision. She wrote jointly with the Archbishop of Wales to the society seeking an assurance that it would support the efforts of staff in establishing a new charity in Wales to ensure that the services continue.
The National Assembly has also asked Children in Wales, the umbrella organisation responsible for voluntary and statutory sector interests in Wales, to establish a taskforce to secure practical arrangements to ensure that the services provided by the Children's Society continue to be provided. That taskforce will report early in the new year. The Children's Society has decided to consider its services from July next year, so some interim arrangement is needed to ensure that all services are not withdrawn immediately, as that would mean that the taskforce had nothing to continue with until July. That is an important consideration.
The taskforce is chaired by Christine Walby, who is a trustee of Children in Wales and an honorary research fellow at the university. The taskforce includes representatives of service user interests, the Children's Society staff group, local authorities that sponsor projects, the Assembly and the Church in Wales. It is also vital that children are heard in the process of drawing up the taskforce and making sure that it gets its priorties right.
I hope that the Children's Society's trustees give careful consideration to all the representations made by hon. Members. I am sure that communities are also
308WH
making representations, along with those who have been involved in the society's services over the past few years. The Children's Society must hear from a wide range of people who are concerned and have been involved in projects on the ground, and I urge the society to ensure that its decision making is as open and transparent as possible. I understand that the society faces difficult financial circumstances in ensuring that projects continue.
Mr. Martin Caton: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a sad irony that the Children's Society recognises that it has two roles? First, it provides projects in Wales and England and, secondly, it has an advocacy or influence role. Everyone accepts the value of the projects, but the society's ability to communicate and influence is in question.
Ms Blears: It is my experience that the most effective lobbyists of Government, who influence the development of policy, are often also involved in projects. The best and strongest cases are made from the evidence that people find on the ground in communities. That combination of issues is, in my experience, the most powerful base from which change can come. Simply lobbying in isolation, without the links and routes to project work in communities, can be far less powerful than the combination of lobbying and project work.
The Children's Society has combined those things in the past. Doing so puts organisations in a strong position because, although both roles are valuable in themselves, they give added value when they are linked. Organisations can suggest to policy makers that they consider an idea, because they know from their real-life experience that it works, and that it enables people to have a voice and services to be developed in a direct and focused way. That link is important.
I hope that when the Children's Society trustees consider those matters they will listen to all the representations that have been made. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, we hope for a satisfactory outcome from those discussions, one that ensures that children in England and throughout the United Kingdom are properly protected. Those children should be heard, and they should be able to influence and shape the services that we provide for their future.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): I congratulate the Minister on her reply and congratulate so many Members from Wales on attending such an important debate. It has been a learning curve for the Chair as well.

Railtrack
1.30 pm
Miss Anne McIntosh: I am delighted to have secured this debate on the implications for the railway system of Railtrack being put into administration. I take this opportunity to declare my interest. I hold minor shares in Railtrack, First Group and Eurotunnel, and am a frequent user of the Great North Eastern Railway service on the east coast route.
The shock waves felt when Railtrack was forced into administration are still reverberating around the railway industry. At a time when the Government are inviting private companies to bid for the public-private partnership contracts to run the London underground, the implications of forcing a solvent public limited company into administration are still being assessed. Under the new management and leadership of Steve Marshall as chief executive and John Robinson as chairman, Railtrack would have undertaken a number of savings this autumn, such as a redundancy programme. Those savings were made impossible by the administration procedure and, regrettably, delays on the railways have increased by 45 per cent. since 1 October 2001. It is worth noting that morale has collapsed among the management and employees, many of whom were shareholders.
I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) and look forward to his reply on why the Government have stopped publishing monthly punctuality figures. The Minister could not admit that they had stopped publishing those figures and simply said that they would publish quarterly figures. That will not be sufficient to enable parliamentarians and others to monitor the huge and regrettable increase in delays.
The net effect of the Secretary of State's decision to force Railtrack into administration is a cost to the taxpayer of £2 million in administration fees and £3.5 billion in the loan facility that was drawn down. That has dented investors' confidence in investing in the railways in future, and has increased the public sector borrowing requirement well into 2002.
The future of the railways will depend heavily on the injection of private capital, especially through the 10-year transport plan. Of the total spending of £63 billion envisaged under that plan, £33 billion— over half— was due to come from the private sector. It will be more difficult, expensive and risky to raise that capital in future in view of the increased risk.
I welcome the opportunity to debate those issues and draw the Minister's attention to what appears to be a climbdown by the Secretary of State in Select Committee evidence given last week. He seemed to say that public-private partnership management contracts with London Underground to run three of the lines would not go ahead if the value for money and safety criteria were not met. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that the Government have taken that on board, and that those lines may stay in the public sector.
I regret the huge uncertainty about the future of the son of Railtrack, Railtrack's successor, which remains in the balance. Even today, we do not know what shape it will take.
310WH
I turn to a regrettable episode from which we must draw experience, while asking the Minister how the Government will learn their lesson. Many of us prize the role of the independent regulator, which has implications for transport, the health provisions that the House is considering and the Ofcom Bill, which it will consider. Do the Government intend to wave a magic wand to remove the rail regulator's independence and bring him under the Secretary of State's powers of direction?
I regret that the Strategic Rail Authority's strategic plan will be further delayed because the new chairman wants to put his mark on it. Regrettably, the main result will be a deterioration in the railway system, a collapse in staff morale and a dip in performance. As I said, delays have increased since Railtrack went into administration, and the Government have used a regrettable procedure to prevent the SRA from publishing monthly figures.
In preparing for the debate, I consulted two train-operating companies that run services to and from North Yorkshire and have a connection with my constituency. I asked Virgin Trains whether the passenger timetable had been changed since Railtrack went into administration. Their representative confirmed that there had been no changes, but that completion of phase one of the west coast main line development, which will provide a 125-mph service, will slip from September 2002 to May 2003. He said:
"Talks continue on the future of Phase 2 which would have provided 140 mph in 2005."
Railtrack will have to pay considerable penalties as a result. I am sure that the Minister agrees that that is deeply regrettable, and he may care to tell us what the penalties are. He might also like to comment on whether the delay would have happened if Railtrack had continued as a company in its own right rather than going into administration.
The representative of Virgin Trains concluded:
"Punctuality remains a problem and Railtrack is currently responsible for about 75 per cent. of our delays, against a norm of about 50 per cent.
Having said all this, Railtrack has now completed 68 per cent. of the Phase 1 work, our first new trains have been delivered and I am confident that passengers will soon be riding on the pilot services."
I was fortunate enough to receive a reply from the chief executive of GNER, who also says that the timetable has not been altered as a result of the administration process. However, I have travelled north by train for the past four weekends and I have suffered an average delay of 40 minutes, which was not the case when the system was recovering after the events of Hatfield and, most recently, Great Heck.
GNER's chief executive says that all the train-operating companies are worried about Railtrack's morale, and about how we can ensure senior management's continuing involvement and support. He says that Railtrack and its administrators, Ernst and Young, plan
"to bring forward some sort of incentive arrangement ensuring that the senior management and others in Railtrack stay totally committed to the business during this very busy period."

311WH
He concludes:
"Clearly there is a difficult balance to be struck between wanting to get the right solution for Railtrack and not rushing into a fudge. On the other hand, if it drags on for ages it would be disastrous for the railway industry in terms of falling morale."
Everyone— this is an apolitical point— hoped and expected the Government to aim for an 80 per cent. increase in rail freight by 2010, and they did. However, they will not achieve that, because Railtrack has gone into administration and because of the new security arrangements at the Channel tunnel. I urge the Minister to tell us how the Government expect to meet that target.
The Minister may also want to comment on today's news that the Government, who are having difficulty finding a replacement management team, have now approached John Prideaux, an ex-senior manager of British Rail, to act as interim chairman. He joined Angel Trains and made a sizeable sum out of privatisation, for which I am sure the Minister would applaud him. The press has suggested today that the approach shows the Government to be duplicitous, as they have said that they do not want fat cats to operate companies such as Railtrack, but have turned to someone who is much more of a fat cat than the existing executives.
The cost of administration has run to £1.2 billion in the past two months, which has been largely composed of £450 an hour for the senior administrator and £350 an hour for the others. One wonders why we are Members of Parliament and not administrators. One or two years could be taken up with administration, which was surely not the Secretary of State's expectation. Ernst and Young now says that £3.5 billion will be required by the end of March, and the Railtrack group has said that that sum includes several costs that would not have been incurred if the Secretary of State had not forced its subsidiary into administration. That £3.5 billion includes £118 million of losses on the close-out of interest rate swaps, £79 million provided for utility companies such as electricity firms, and £50 million on professional fees. Those figures are worrying, and the Minister needs to tackle them.
Another worrying development in today's reports in the press relates to safety. Will the Minister explain why on earth the Secretary of State insisted that a new provision be added to the Cullen declaration before he was minded to sign it yesterday? It will push back the date of entry of the automatic braking system beyond the 2010 date originally intended by Lord Cullen. That development is highly regrettable, and we all deplore it. Why did Ministers refuse to guarantee to meet Lord Cullen's 2010 deadline for high-speed trains to have automatic train protection when they have made a commitment to do so on many occasions in the House?
There appears to be some confusion about the status of Railtrack. In reply to a written question, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury reported:
"Railtrack is a private sector company. During administration it will continue to be classified to the private sector in national accounts. Its debts will be recorded as a financial liability in the balance sheet of the private corporations sector."—[Official Report, 10 December 2001; Vol. 376, c. 694W.]
312WH
The Minister will be aware that a written question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), who is the official Opposition's spokesman on such issues, drew the following reply from the Government:
"On 5 October 2001 provisional advice was given, based on the provisional information provided, that borrowing by RenewCo.… would be classified as public sector borrowing".— [Official Report, 4 December 2001; Vol. 376, c. 207W.]
Will the Minister confirm that that is why his Department failed to bring Renewco into being? That sole omission— that failure to act— was probably the decisive reason why Railtrack went into administration.
There was an important exchange of letters between Sir Alistair Morton, chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority, who wrote on 1 October, and Sir Richard Mottram, permanent secretary in the Department, which exonerated the SRA of any responsibility for failing to bring Renewco into effect. Will the Minister confirm that that was a regrettable decision, and could be one reason why the Secretary of State brought Railtrack into administration?
I deplore the uncertainty for the rail industry, all the parties involved and the railway system caused by the Secretary of State's actions, but we must be positive and move forward. Will the Minister say what shape the successor body— son of Railtrack— will have? How long will Railtrack be left in administration? Will its successor be a company limited by guarantee, or will the Secretary of State confirm that private bidders will be eligible?
Shareholders and parliamentarians have a common interest in holding the Secretary of State to account for his actions. I deplore the fact that we were unable to receive many of the documents needed to throw light on how Railtrack was brought into administration. I refer to the recent legal action brought by the Railtrack shareholders' action group, whose lawyers asked the Secretary of State for documents relating to legal claims over his decision to force Railtrack into administration. They say that they have been hampered in their attempts to obtain all relevant facts, most notably by the Secretary of State's inconsistent account of events.
I look forward to the Minister's response. I hope that he will give a positive, forward-looking account and say that Railtrack's period in administration was deeply regrettable and will not last longer than six months. I hope that we will today find out the shape of Railtrack's successor.
1.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. David Jamieson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) on securing the debate. It allows us once again to run through the issues, and I am always pleased to do that. It is your imperative, Mr. Winterton, to ensure that Ministers give full and clear answers to questions, and I shall endeavour to do that.
I was perusing the Yorkshire Evening Press of 28 November, in which the hon. Lady complained that a written answer that I had sent to her was not clear enough. She said:
"I asked a simple question about what is a very important subject. What I expected in return was a simple answer."

313WH
It appears that the hon. Lady did not understand the answer. If at any time today she does not understand what I am saying— if she wants me to slow down or stop— I should be happy to assist her.
Miss McIntosh: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Jamieson: If the hon. Lady does not understand what I am saying, I shall certainly give way.
Miss McIntosh: As the Minister has referred to the written answer, perhaps he would explain the difference between sections 26 and 26(c) of the Railways Act 1993.
Mr. Jamieson: If one of the hon. Lady's bright young advisers— provided with the help of the Short money that a Labour Government generously voted through— cannot help her with her query, I should be happy to refer her to my officials, who could talk through those important matters with her.
The hon. Lady asked a few important questions. I shall give a generic view of Railtrack and the future of the railways. She said that Railtrack was forced into administration. Railtrack attended the hearing, but did not oppose the order. Perhaps the hon. Lady— a shareholder herself— would like to reflect on why the order was not opposed.
Miss McIntosh: I am surprised that I am not on the Government Benches and the Minister is not on the Opposition Benches, as I am answering all the questions.
It is clear that Railtrack did not oppose the petition because the Secretary of State had prepared orders that would have prevented the rail regulator from applying for an interim review. It is complete nonsense to suggest that Railtrack could petition the court; it could not.
Mr. Jamieson: I am grateful that one of the shareholders of the company has put on record why Railtrack did not oppose the order. I understood that the company could have opposed it.
The hon. Lady said that morale has collapsed and that there has been a dip in performance. For many years— both before Railtrack existed and recently— we have tracked a dip in performance at this time of year. The quarterly figures give a better guide than monthly or daily performance figures.
The hon. Lady mentioned the Secretary of State's recent comments about PPP and London Underground. She said that the Secretary of State told the Committee on which the hon. Lady sits that PPP would not go ahead if it were not shown to provide value for money. I should have thought that the hon. Lady would question me if the Secretary of State had said the opposite— that PPP would go ahead regardless of whether it gave value for money.
The hon. Lady asked further questions on issues such as investor confidence. It is nonsense to suggest that what happened to Railtrack will deter future investment in private finance initiatives or public-private partnership initiatives. It may disappoint her to know
314WH
that a dozen or more leading banks are working with bidders to support our plans on a number of schemes. That may be bad news for her, but it is the case, so she can change her script from now on.
The hon. Lady asked about the regulator. As she knows, in other utility sectors, regulators have the dual role of balancing shareholder and consumer interests. That would not be the case if the company were under the limited guarantee model. The Government intend to introduce legislation to streamline the regulatory regime by creating a single strategic and economic regulatory body. I hope that that helps the hon. Lady. I assure her that any new body would be a non-departmental government agency and would be charged with developing and executing an industry strategy that was derived from our 10-year plan. The powers and responsibilities will be set out in legislation.
There has been considerable debate on Railtrack in recent weeks, but the railway is important to the general public and to frequent and regular users, such as me. I passed through the hon. Lady's constituency on a Great North Eastern Railway train yesterday— I did not stop because I was on my way elsewhere— and I am familiar with issues involved in railway use.
Let me make this clear from the outset: the Government are committed to the rail system. We pledged funding of more than £30 billion over the next 10 years to maintain and improve the network. That pledge stands, and nothing that has happened during the past few weeks changes that pledge in any way.
The decision to take Railtrack into administration was right and proper. I assure the hon. Lady that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State took no pleasure in submitting the petition to the High Court in October. I remind her of the judge's comments at the time. He made it clear in granting the petition that he considered the administration order to be
"not only appropriate, but absolutely essential."
That is probably why the order was not opposed at the time, contrary to the hon. Lady's comments.
We should not be in any doubt: Railtrack was a company that had failed totally to control its costs and deliver the service that was demanded by its customers, despite billions of pounds of extra investment from the Government. I thought that the hon. Lady shook her head when I suggested that Railtrack had not delivered the service demanded by its customers. If she is suggesting that Railtrack was delivering such a service before October this year, I will be interested to hear that because there has not been a substantial change over recent weeks.
Railtrack's proposal for additional assistance was for an open-ended funding commitment from the Government with no guarantee of improved performance. Without such assistance, the company was clearly insolvent, contrary to what the hon. Lady said. At that point, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that enough was enough. He was not prepared to make such a commitment from the public purse.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was clear about his duty to rail users and the taxpayer. He had to act. If he had not petitioned for a railway administration order, there was a real danger that the operation of the whole network would have been placed in jeopardy. Rightly, he was not prepared for that to happen.

315WH
It is vital that we use this opportunity to ensure that the future of the rail network is properly secured. In the meantime, the administrator's responsibility is to ensure that the company's railway-related activities are carried out on a business-as-usual basis, while preparing recommendations for the Government on how best to transfer Railtrack out of administration. We stressed our wish to the administrator that, during administration, safety and services for passengers and the position of employees should not be affected. Under section 59 of the Railways Act 1993, the administrator has a duty to manage the affairs, business and property of Railtrack plc for the achievement of the purposes of the railway administration order in a manner that protects the interests of the members and creditors of the company in railway administration. The Government are doing their bit by providing adequate funding to enable the administrator to discharge his responsibilities. In those circumstances, it is extraordinary that the hon. Member for Vale of York suggested that, not only should we not have applied for the administration order, but now that the administrator is in charge of the company, he should not have sufficient funds to carry out the work. The railway system would collapse if the Government did not step in and provide the administrator with the funding that he needs.
The hon. Lady asked about the timetable for administration. Ultimately, that is a matter for the administrator. We share his hope that the process can be completed as quickly as possible. His initial estimate was that it could take up to six months to transfer Railtrack plc out of administration. It has become clear that the state of the company, combined with the time needed for bids to be formulated and considered and for a transport scheme to be approved, makes a six-month timetable practically impossible. I assure the hon. Lady that we share her worries that such matters should come out of administration at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Jamieson: I shall not give way. We have little time left and it is only proper that I should answer the hon. Lady's questions. I am sure that I will be talking to the hon. Gentleman at another time.
The hon. Lady expressed her concerns about safety. I assure her that we remain committed to keeping safety paramount and at the heart of our policies for revitalising the railways. Railtrack plc, in administration, remains responsible for the safety of the rail network. The Health and Safety Executive is working closely with both Railtrack plc and the administrator to ensure that safety is maintained. Alan Cooksey, the Health and Safety Executive's former
316WH
deputy chief inspector of railways, has been recruited by the administrator to ensure that technical issues are given proper and expert consideration while the company remains in administration. Furthermore, no train operating company has raised safety concerns with the HSE since Railtrack was taken into administration.
It is true, as the hon. Lady said, that performance has worsened recently. Obviously, I am disappointed to see any increase in delays on the rail network, but I totally refute her suggestion that they are a result of Railtrack being taken into administration. I assure her that any dip in performance is a replication of what has happened in previous years. It is not due to the administration of Railtrack, but probably to more seasonal matters.
When the SRA publishes its passenger performance measure— the standard measure of rail performance—we will have a clearer understanding of the issue. The PPM will be published in due course, and 1 expect that any dip in performance will be no greater than that of recent years. The matter will be examined carefully, but the hon. Lady's allegations are premature in the extreme. That is not to say that we are complacent. We are working with the administrator, and will continue to discuss with him the best way in which to ensure that Railtrack delivers an improved performance while it remains in administration. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is in regular contact with the train operators and discusses such matters with them.
The hon. Lady referred to staff morale. Since the company went into administration, it is hardly surprising that the uncertainty has affected Railtrack staff. However, it would not be right or accurate to lay the blame on the staff for any delays, as she was suggesting. There are many dedicated, efficient and effective people in Railtrack and, while administration will no doubt have come as a shock to many of them, I am sure that they will work hard with the administrator to stabilise the company, will continue with its daily business and will keep its programmes moving forward. The railway business will continue. The country needs a rail network and good people to run it. The staff— both current and potential— can be sure that they have a secure future.
This has been another opportunity to set out many of the important issues that were raised by the hon. Lady. If she considers that some matters have not been covered today, perhaps she will jot me a note. I shall certainly respond to her expeditiously, clearly and in plain English. I cannot guarantee that it will be the Janet and John version of matters as they stand, but I shall give her a clear explanation.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Two o'clock.