My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to enable a competent adult who is suffering unbearably as a result of a terminal or a serious and progressive physical illness to receive medical help to die at his own considered and persistent request; and to make provision for a person suffering from such a condition to receive pain relief medication. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time

My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

The Bill has two functions. First, it will put in place a mechanism by which the number of United Kingdom Members of the European Parliament can be reduced to accommodate the effects of the enlargement agreed at Nice in 2001. Secondly, it will enfranchise the people of Gibraltar to vote in European parliamentary elections, following a ruling of the European Court of Human Rights which we have accepted.

Part 1 of the Bill will introduce a mechanism to allow the total number of United Kingdom MEPs to be altered to take account of enlargement. It was agreed in Nice that most existing member states would reduce their MEP numbers to make room for the new members. That will ensure fair representation while keeping the European Parliament to a manageable size.

For the UK, that involves a reduction from 87 seats to a final minimum of 72. That reduction will not happen in one go, but rather, as agreed by the Treaty of Nice, as new states accede. The first group, which will accede on 1st May 2004 and must therefore be accommodated in the 2004 European parliamentary elections, consists of 10 new member states. At the Copenhagen European Council in December last year, it was decided that the United Kingdom should reduce for the 2004 elections to 78 seats. However, the United Kingdom will continue, with France and Italy, to have the second largest allocation of MEPs—after Germany—in the European Parliament.

When considering how best to implement the reductions, we concluded that to alter the boundaries of the existing European parliamentary electoral regions would run counter to the regional agenda to which the Government are committed. The approach we have therefore adopted is to redistribute, whenever a reduction is necessary, the number of MEPs across the 12 existing regions of the UK. In order to ensure that any redistribution will be accepted as equitable by all concerned, we have proposed taking the decision out of the hands of the Government and asking the independent Electoral Commission to make recommendations.

However, restrictions are placed by the Bill on the Electoral Commission's deliberations, so that each electoral region should have a minimum of three seats, whatever the voter population, and that otherwise the ratio of voters to MEPs should be as nearly as possible the same across the regions. That will provide the best balance between proper representation for all regions and a fair distribution of seats across the country as a whole.

The Electoral Commission's recommendations will be implemented by order by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor under the affirmative resolution procedure. Any order made by him must implement the recommendations of the Electoral Commission or, if Parliament has previously considered and rejected an order containing those recommendations, have its consent and he an outcome that it could have recommended.

The mechanism that I have outlined is a crucial part of the process for enabling new member states to be effectively incorporated into the EU, to which the Government are firmly committed. We should strongly welcome the advantages that enlargement will bring for the accession states, which have worked so hard to meet the criteria for joining the European Union. More widely, enlargement of the European Union will bring improvements to stability and security across the whole of Europe. We must not underestimate the positive effects that enlargement will bring at home. For example, the economy will benefit from the expanding market, and we should see important environmental benefits as countries from the east of the continent are brought into the European fold.

Part 2 of the Bill serves to enable the enfranchisement of Gibraltar for European parliamentary elections from 2004 onwards. In 1999, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the European Parliament formed a part of Gibraltar's legislature and held that the UK was bound by the convention to secure the right for the people of Gibraltar to take part in European parliamentary elections. The UK accepted the judgment of the court, and the second part of the Bill is the means of meeting that obligation by enabling Gibraltarians to have their interests directly represented in the European Parliament for the first time.

Gibraltar has a relatively small electorate—around 20,000 voters, as compared with the United Kingdom average for a European parliamentary region of around 3.7 million voters. That makes it not feasible for Gibraltar to form its own region. It will therefore be necessary to combine Gibraltar with an existing electoral region.

As with the issues covered by Part 1 of the Bill, we believe that the most suitable way of deciding with which electoral region it would be most appropriate to combine Gibraltar is to give that task to the independent Electoral Commission. The only limitation that the Bill puts on its deliberations is that the combined region must be either an English region or Wales. That is for purely practical considerations. Given the need to put into place secondary legislation to make the combined region work, we need to know now which set of detailed electoral rules to apply. The commission must report on its recommendation by 1st September 2003. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will then present an order—again, subject to affirmative resolution—to give effect to the Electoral Commission's recommendation.

The underlying principle behind combining Gibraltar with a UK electoral region for the purposes of European parliamentary elections is that UK electoral law, as it applies to the European Parliament elections, should apply as equally as possible throughout the combined region. This is a question of ensuring fairness and equity for all voters in the European Parliament elections throughout the United Kingdom and Gibraltar.

Therefore, the Bill provides for the application to Gibraltar of the relevant provisions of UK law, modified as necessary. Modification is necessary in some cases to ensure that, in practice, the law makes sense in Gibraltar and still makes sense in the United Kingdom.

We believe that the most appropriate and, given the complexity of electoral law, only practical approach is for the detail of electoral law to be applied by orders and regulations. The Bill includes enabling powers to provide for that. This is very much in line with the way that electoral law is applied to European parliamentary elections in the United Kingdom. Importantly, that approach enables us to develop with the Government of Gibraltar the best way to apply the complex detail of electoral rules and to discuss and agree with them which elements it might be appropriate for Gibraltar itself to handle.

The Bill therefore addresses the key issues: the requirement for Gibraltar to maintain a register of electors for the European Parliament elections; the basic franchise and entitlement to be registered, in much the same way as is the case under the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002; and it leaves the complex detail for orders and regulations.

The Government are considering a moderate number of amendments to this part of the Bill in order to address points raised in another place about giving a clearer role to the Government of Gibraltar in ensuring enfranchisement for the European elections. Those amendments will not affect the substance of our proposals or our overall approach.

I have already pointed out that the Bill allows for a number of measures to be implemented by means of secondary legislation, as is already the case for European parliamentary electoral law in the UK generally. The Bill ensures that these enabling powers can be exercised only by the Lord Chancellor after consultation with the Electoral Commission. We have already amended the Bill to ensure that the powers we are taking are no wider than necessary and that they can be used only for the purpose intended.

Your Lordships' Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee reported its considerations on the Bill to this House on 12th February. Noble Lords will know that it made recommendations about the powers to be exercised by the Lord Chancellor—in particular, the degree of parliamentary scrutiny to which the exercise of such powers is subject. We are taking steps to ensure that we respond swiftly and positively to those recommendations. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor wrote yesterday to the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, who is the chairman of the committee.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. At this stage, I interrupt only on a point of procedure and not of substance. As the noble Baroness said, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee's report was issued on 12th February and, by chance, some of us alighted on it. About four minutes before the start of this Second Reading, a copy of the letter to the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, which I believe was issued late last night, was made available to some of us who are taking part in the debate. That makes life very difficult for those of us who seek to assist in improving this legislation and comment sensibly on it.

Is there any way that, in future, the whole issue can be approached in a slightly more ordered manner? Frankly, having been involved in legislation, both in this House and another place, for the past 37 years, I cannot remember legislation being approached in quite such a last-minute way. It makes matters very difficult for us.

My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says. The noble Lord will note that the committee produced its report on the 12th. It was very detailed and required careful consideration. It was thought important to try, if possible, to give noble Lords the first taste of the noble and learned Lord's response in relation to the committee's approach. We could possibly not have issued the letter yesterday but kept it until after Second Reading and made it available before Committee. Every effort was made to give a comprehensive response as soon as was reasonably practical. I assure the noble Lord that that was done in order to assist and not to make matters more difficult. I am very sorry if the noble Lord feels that it has. We shall have an opportunity to discuss the matter at length, if necessary, in Committee. We merely thought that it would be helpful.

I have indicated that we have taken on board the committee's suggestions and have sought as far as possible to endorse them. I hope that that will be greeted with pleasure as opposed to approbation. Of course, I always stand surprised by your Lordships.

I return to what I was saying. I hope that the steps we have taken and intend to take will reassure the House that the approach set out in the Bill is appropriate. Not only is this legislation consistent with the UK's international obligations but the changes that the Bill is designed to enact are important. They allow new member states a voice in the European Parliament, and enable the people of Gibraltar to vote for the first time in a European parliamentary election.

We believe that the approach set out in the Bill is both appropriate and sound. I urge all noble Lords to support it. I commend the Bill to the House.

My Lords, we, on these Benches give a warm welcome to the Bill. As the Minister has explained, Part 1 gives effect to one of the side effects of the enlargement of the European Union; that is, a reduction in the number of Members of the European Parliament who represent the United Kingdom. That is in itself regrettable. However, we are strong supporters of enlargement. After the accession of all the candidate states, the European Parliament will have 732 Members. That figure is greater than the present size of your Lordships' House. We accept, therefore, the necessity to avoid a large increase in the number of MEPs. We also accept the corollary, which is a reduction in the number of MEPs from the United Kingdom.

We have a number of more detailed comments on Part 1. First, in order to keep proper proportionality of membership within regional constituencies, we believe that each constituency, except for Northern Ireland, should have a minimum of four Members and not three as proposed by the Government. That will in particular affect the north-eastern region. Its present number of four Members will, under the Government's proposals, probably eventually be reduced to three. There should be a floor of four Members for constituencies in Great Britain.

Secondly, we regret that the Bill is not being used as an opportunity to revise the voting system for European elections. The closed list system now used in Great Britain is extremely unpopular and should be replaced either by the singer transferable vote system, which is used in Northern Ireland, or by an open list system. We hope to table an amendment on that issue for debate. We observe that such an amendment was tabled and debated in Committee in the House of Commons, although it is a little doubtful whether it fell within the Long Title.

Thirdly, it is curious that the member of the Cabinet responsible for overseeing the implementation of' the Bill, when it is enacted, will be the Lord Chancellor. That point was raised in Committee in the House of Commons when it was explained that the responsibilities for electoral law and administration have been transferred to the Lord Chancellor's Department. Apart from the oddity of the Lord Chancellor—who is not elected by anyone—being responsible for the election system, that illustrates that the Lord Chancellor's Department is now a fully-fledged government department, and that the claim of the Lord Chancellor to a special status, which is distinct from that of the heads of other departments, can no longer be sustained.

Fourthly, as the Minister mentioned, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee had concerns regarding Clause 4, which allows the Lord Chancellor to make orders in consequence of changes in Community law. The Delegated Powers Committee considered that Clause 4 should be limited to treaties already ratified by the United Kingdom. That, we understand from the letter, has been accepted, which is welcome.

I turn to Part 2 of the Bill. We welcome the extension to Gibraltar of the right to vote in elections to the European Parliament. We congratulate Denise Matthews on her victory in the European Court of Human Rights, which forced the Government to take overdue action on the issue.

We agree with the principle that Gibraltar should be attached to an existing regional constituency. As its voters amount only to some 17,000, it would be unreasonable to make Gibraltar a single Member constituency. Gibraltarian voters will therefore have to vote for British political parties in order for their votes to count. However, it is true that in a close race their votes could make the difference.

We accept the principle that Gibraltar must under the Bill be attached to an English region or to Wales and not to Scotland or Northern Ireland. I suppose that there is an argument to attach Gibraltar to Northern Ireland. Indeed, Lady Hermon, an Ulster Unionist MP, proposed that in a debate in the House of Commons. But the likelihood that Gibraltarians would give overwhelming support to unionist parties would make the decision controversial and therefore not appropriate. There is no ground for attaching Gibraltar to Scotland. We are therefore content for the Electoral Commission to recommend to which of the remaining 10 constituencies Gibraltar should be attached.

We wish to see the Electoral Commission's consultation duty go beyond the Governor and the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, as proposed in Clause 9 of the Bill. Of course, we accept that those consultations are mandatory and do not prevent the commission also taking wider soundings, but we should like to see that matter on the face of the Bill.

We have serious criticism of some of the delegated powers in Part 2 of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee's report. I shall not enter into detail regarding those criticisms, because that is not appropriate at Second Reading. Basically, the Delegated Powers Committee said that in its view some of those powers were not appropriate for delegated legislation and should in any event be covered by the affirmative procedure if they were to be dealt with by secondary legislation.

The Government's response accepts that those powers should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, but they are not prepared to go so far as saying that they are not suitable for delegation. The Government have set out their arguments at some length on that point. I have not had an opportunity to study them. While their arguments on the matter may possibly be justified, the issue should certainly be further debated in Committee, so that it can be considered in more detail.

I was glad that the Joint Committee on Human Rights found no problems with the Bill and I welcome the full explanation in the Explanatory Notes of its possible human rights implications and the reasons why the Government were advised that no problems arose. That is a welcome development and a departure from the Government's original practice of simply stating baldly that they believed Bills to be compliant.

So although certain matters remain to be dealt with in Committee, we are happy to give the Bill a clear general welcome.

My Lords, at first sight it may seem a little odd that anyone other than Front-Benchers should want to speak in the Second Reading debate on what is, on the face of it, a highly technical, run-of-the-mill measure—the simple fulfilment of obligations derived respectively from a ruling of the European Court of Human Rights and from the Treaty of Nice, now ratified. Yet this debate provides an opportunity to consider some slightly wider issues relating to the European Parliament and elections to it.

First, on Gibraltar, which will not be the main focus of my remarks, I welcome the righting of a long-sustained wrong by which the voters of Gibraltar, as European as any of the rest of us, were denied the right to vote in European Parliament elections. It is good that the Government have found a way to right that wrong—and in a way that does not prejudge the outcome of the talks between Britain and Spain on Gibraltar's future. It is useful to remember that Gibraltarians are Europeans and will have the right to vote in European elections whatever direction they may decide that their future should take—whether to remain, as now, a British colony or whether to participate in some sharing of sovereignty with Spain.

On the parts of the Bill that address our arrangements for European elections, like the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I very much regret that the Government have not taken this opportunity to change the method of proportional representation under which we vote in this country. Every five years, when European elections are held, it is conventional to bemoan the low level of participation of the British electorate—and, incidentally of other electorates, but none as shamefully low as us. Much is said about the difficulty of explaining complex issues of European policy to ordinary people; about the remoteness of Strasbourg; and about the tendency for such elections to be hijacked by ephemeral issues and by a desire to have a go at the Government of the day.

All those are perfectly valid points that contribute to the low turnout, but we seem seldom to ask ourselves whether the method of election that we have chosen may also be contributing to the shamefully low level of participation. Yet it almost certainly does. Why should people worry to vote when their vote has little chance of influencing the outcome and virtually none of deciding who goes to Strasbourg on their behalf—that decision having been substantially taken by the party organisations when they rank their candidates in order of preference?

The closed list system we use is, surely, part of the problem we face over participation, not part of the solution. I regret that the government spokesman in another place simply swatted aside the suggestion that now is the moment to reconsider that stultifying system. After all, we in this country are used to knowing for whom we are voting to send to Parliament and to having a choice between individuals, not just parties. So would it not make more sense to restore such possibilities for European elections too? I hope that the Government will reconsider that point.

It is perhaps odd to welcome a measure that reduces the number of British MEPs. Yet, representing as it does a necessary consequence of enlargement, it is genuinely to be welcomed. To continue simply adding MEPs to the existing number at Strasbourg as each enlargement takes place—we should not forget that a further substantial enlargement to include Turkey is now firmly on the European Union's agenda—would be to condemn the European Parliament to a process of elephantiasis that could only weaken it and expose it to criticism and ridicule. In fact, the same is true of other European Union institutions—in particular, the Commission.

We will just have to get used to a smaller British presence, both numerically and proportionately. Willing the end—enlargement—means willing the means—a reduction in our presence. But that puts a premium on quality. I hope that the Government and political parties will bear that in mind in any decisions that they take that have a bearing on who goes to Europe's institutions.

Looking a little wider, next year we shall have to consider decisions on the role and powers of the European Parliament of the future. The Convention on the Future of Europe, which will be completing its work and presenting its proposals to governments in June, will certainly propose ideas for reform of the European Parliament. The intergovernmental conference that will then be held will need to take decisions on those proposals and any others that come before it. It is no good sticking our heads in the sand and hoping that no such proposals on the powers of the European Parliament will be put before us. Nor should we hope that.

It may be a forlorn hope, but I still express the hope that the debate in this country will not simply crystallise around the simplistic proposition that more powers for the European Parliament must be by definition bad or good and will instead consider the issues on their merits. If we are to strengthen the powers of the various European institutions in different ways—for example, giving more scope to a fully European Union approach to issues of immigration, crime and homeland defence—surely we must at the same time consider carefully the issue of democratic control over and legitimisation of those powers.

In some cases, that may point towards the strengthening of the collective role of national parliaments, as may be the case for subsidiarity and for the Union's common foreign and security policy. In other cases, that may point to a strengthening of the role of the European Parliament. In others still, it may point to the creation of some hybrid arrangements, such as I suggested in our debate on the convention in January, when I made the case for a foreign affairs committee of the Union, which would consist of parliamentarians from both national Parliaments and the European Parliament. It is too soon to go into any of those issues in depth, but we must think about them now, because not too far ahead we shall be asked to take decisions on them.

I hope that we shall not fall for that other simplistic argument that more powers for the European Parliament must necessarily mean fewer powers for this House and another place. In many instances, European Union business simply falls between two stools—not being properly scrutinised or held to account in either national Parliaments or the European Parliament. For example, that is the case with expenditure on agriculture, and we all know that that is substantial and excessive. But the European Parliament has few powers over that and we have none. So this need not be a zero sum game, and should not be considered as such.

Anyway, there will be time enough to return to those issues later in the year to consider them in more depth. Meanwhile, it is worth noting that this measure is the precursor for the need to think more widely about how we want the European Parliament to develop.

My Lords, the two principal issues covered by the Bill appear to command a general consensus of approval. Affording the people of Gibraltar the right to vote in European Parliament elections appears now to be a widely accepted principle, although there are regrets about the time that it has taken to address the issue, the route by which we have come to it and the process through which it is being established. The other principal issue covered by the Bill—reducing the number of UK MEPs—is not in itself welcome but is recognised as a necessary precursor to enlargement of the European Union, which is widely supported here and, perhaps more importantly, in the future member states.

There is no dispute that Gibraltar constitutes part of the territory of the European Union and should have direct representation in the European Parliament. It is affected by the directives of the European Union in a way that Westminster legislation does not generally affect its domestic affairs. But the long time that it has taken to address the issue is a source of regret to many. Furthermore, it should not have been necessary for an individual citizen such as Mrs Denise Matthews to take the case for Gibraltar's representation in the European Parliament to the European Court of Human Rights. But the fact that she did so is commendable, and her success shows the value of such institutions.

In upholding the democratic rights of the people of Gibraltar, it is also right that the Electoral Commission should consult them on the region with which they should form a combined region. The rules of the electoral process should also be subject to consultation with them. There was considerable controversy in another place about precisely who should be consulted. My honourable friend David Heath and others used the term "neo-colonial- to describe the provisions in the Bill for consulting solely with the Governor and the Chief Minister. The Governor is the representative of the Crown in Gibraltar, not the people. The Chief Minister is more a representative of the people of Gibraltar, but not, of course, of all the parties there.

It is therefore somewhat incongruous that the proposed changes to our electoral mechanisms would be made through the auspices of the Electoral Commission, consulting widely with all the parties, while consultation with Gibraltar would be solely through the Governor appointed by our Government and the Chief Minister, but not with the House of Assembly and other parties. We no longer allow the governing party in Britain to set the electoral rules unilaterally. Consistency of principle requires wider consultation on the rules for European elections in Gibraltar. I note that the Minister in another place, Yvette Cooper, undertook to lock further at amendments on the issue in this House. I look forward to hearing more about them from the Minister at a later stage.

I shall now discuss the reduction of the number of UK representatives in the European Parliament. The principle of enlargement is widely supported, even among those less keen on things European. Enlargement will mean greater regional stability and economic security as well as significant environmental improvement, as accession states will give increasing priority to tackling pollution. However, it has been recognised that a necessary consequence of enlargement is a reduction in the number of MEPs from current member states. Those who may have wished for more MEPs for the UK than the 72 to which it could eventually be reduced must recognise that that would mean a European Parliament significantly larger than the proposed ceiling of 732. Some Members in another place suggested that the Bill should determine the number of UK representatives rather than follow what was agreed in the Treaty of Nice. But surely it would be absurd for each member state to determine its own level of representation in isolation from the others.

Broadly, the number of MEPs in a member state should reflect the number of voters in that state, while the number in each region of the UK should reflect the number of voters there. But special provision is made for smaller member states to have slightly greater representation than their voter numbers alone would suggest is their entitlement. As my noble friend Lord Goodhart suggested, similar provision should also be made for the smallest regions for which we are responsible—Northern Ireland, which has three MEPs, and the northern region, which has four. That is necessary to ensure that the voice of smaller regions is not lost and that the basic principle of proportionality can be sustained.

The use of the single transferable vote system in Northern Ireland means that broad proportionality can be achieved with three representatives. But the regional list system—especially when used with a mathematical quota system that is significantly less proportional when applied to small lists—does not achieve a reasonable measure of proportionality where fewer than four Members are elected. The principle of proportional representation was debated at length in 1998, before my introduction to this House. But it followed a long-standing commitment by both the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats to the use of proportional representation for European elections. We will fail to maintain that principle if we allow the regional list system, with the current quota system, to be applied where there are fewer than four Members on a regional list. It is an issue to which we will return. In the mean time, I should be grateful if the Minister would indicate whether she thinks that the Electoral Commission should look not only at roughly equalising the number of voters per MEP, but also at the need to ensure that the numbers on each list are sufficient to assist the achievement of the agreed aim of proportionality across the UK and—perhaps more importantly—within each region.

Other issues could, and should, have been raised in the Bill. In particular, it should have been an opportunity to revisit the contentious issues of the precise system of proportionality required, in the light of our experience of the closed list system in 1999, as both my noble friend Lord Goodhart and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, argued. Some of us would have liked to use the Bill as an opportunity for the introduction of a uniform system across the UK.

In the light of the 1999 experience, it could be argued that the STV system applied in Northern Ireland was far more popular and democratic than the closed list system imposed on the 11 other regions. At the very least, we think that the Government should look again at whether a little more trust could be placed in the hands of the voter by revisiting the closed list system and allowing people at least the opportunity to reorder the lists proposed by the parties. It would do much to suggest that this is not a government overwhelmingly committed to control-freakery.

My Lords, we on these Benches also support in principle the aims of the proposed legislation. As noble Lords and the Minister pointed out, it comes in two parts: one is concerned with the reduction of UK MEPs from 87 to 72 as required following the Treaty of Nice; the other relates to the enfranchising of Gibraltar for the purpose of European parliamentary elections.

The Bill gives us no opportunity to look at the broader question of the dreadful closed list system of European parliamentary elections, let alone the European Parliament's present powers, which need to be closely circumscribed and watched. But I endorse the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and the points that he makes. We will return frequently to those matters, because they are of central concern in determining the balance of power between the central institutions of the European Union and the nation states. In turn, that balance determines the nature and genuineness of democracy, as opposed to the more remote, so-called democratic patterns used to pass for democracy, which are out of touch with most people in everyday life. We cannot deal with those matters in this Bill. I shall therefore discuss the details of the Bill.

As is obvious, we on this side strongly favour the enlargement of the European Union and, therefore, the arrangements necessary for new members' participation in its institutions. Frankly, we did not think that the Treaty of Nice, with all the bells and whistles attached to it, would be the best and easiest way of putting in place the necessary machinery. We were nearly proved right when the Republic of Ireland got indigestion and had to have a second referendum on the matter. But, one way or another, the Treaty of Nice provisions got through—not in the best way. The Bill must now respond.

The Bill must cope with the uncertainties of enlargement. The commitments that each of the countries listed will accede and will, therefore, be entitled to the extra seats in the Parliament are not yet in the bag. There are difficulties ahead even now, although agreement in principle has been reached. There are referenda to be held in the candidate countries, and it is possible that the membership after the next phase of enlargement may not be as planned. Having heard the language that was used at the weekend between senior existing member states and the new countries—the applicants were told to "Shut up" and replied in lusty terms that that was not the kind of union that they had thought they were joining—I hope that the uncertainty has not increased. Those issues exist, and they give rise to some of the difficult points that the Bill must address in giving the Government powers to respond to events that have not yet occurred. As my honourable friend Mr William Cash said in another place, the Bill is, in a sense, based on a hypothesis.

Several of the issues that I raise now will give rise to more detailed discussion in Committee. First, as your Lordships have already observed, under Clauses 2 and 4, the Lord Chancellor has significant powers to make orders and to repeal primary legislation by order. The powers go so far as to allow the Lord Chancellor to make orders relating to any future treaties dealing with the number of Members of the European Parliament. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, said, other countries are coming along the line: Bulgaria and Romania are in the queue, and Turkey, presumably, lies further ahead. There will be several more treaties, and we must ask whether it is entirely right that all the matters should be handled using secondary legislation. In effect, the Bill says that powers of secondary legislation can be used to make decisions in ways that are not yet decided and must be anticipated. They are considerable powers.

On page 7 of its excellent report published the other day, the Delegated Powers Committee said that the scope of those powers must be limited. I gather from the last-minute missive from the Lord Chancellor's office, which we got a few minutes before the debate, that the noble and learned Lord agrees to that. They are Second Reading issues, and I do not accept the noble Baroness's view that it would have been nice to have that information for Committee stage; we needed it for this debate. I am sorry if' it was a rush, but it was a rush for all of us. That is a bad way of conducting effective legislative processes.

Under Clause 4, the Electoral Commission will make a recommendation, and the Lord Chancellor will give it effect by order. I want to know what happens then. That is a Second Reading point. Are the orders just for rubber-stamping? Are they immutable? Will it be within the scope of our Parliament to reject them? That is one set of issues arising from Clauses 2 and 4. I hope that the difficulties will be eased by the amendments that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will put down. We will have to wait and see how it works out.

The role of the boundary commission is another issue that is appropriate for Second Reading. Will there be a reallocation of Members of the European Parliament in each region? Are we sure that boundary issues will not be involved? There is no mention of the boundary commission in the Bill, although, in another place, the question of how the boundary commission connected up, whether it would be informed and what view it took, was raised. We want to know more about that.

The noble Lords, Lord Rennard and Lord Goodhart, and others referred to the fact that we will have a sharply reduced percentage of seats in the European Parliament. The percentage will be reduced from 13.9 to 10.1, from 87 seats out of 626 to 72 out of 732. That allows for 197 new seats to be squeezed in, assuming that all the candidate countries make it. That is a big percentage cut, and we want more from the noble Baroness on why it is so large. Why have we and our neighbouring countries been sliced down to that level? On what principles will Members of the European Parliament be allocated? The question of their distribution is a matter for the UK alone; it is not a Community matter. We will need to know more about how the regions will be affected and who will get what number of MEPs.

It would also be useful, at this stage, to learn more about how the Community calculations were made, giving France and us 72 seats each. At Second Reading in another place, it was pointed out that Wales—I shall come to Gibraltar in a moment—gets, I think, six Members of the European Parliament, while Denmark, which has the same population as Wales, gets 12. Is there some sort of weighting that is based not on population but on communities, regions or nations within nations? Parliament ought to know more about how such odd disparities are justified.

There is also the question of who is in charge. With the Bill as it stands, the Lord Chancellor is very much in charge. However, in Clause 6, it is suddenly the Secretary of State who is in charge. Clause 6 is shockingly confusing, and we need elucidation of who is in charge. Will the Lord Chancellor call all the shots or will the Secretary of State come into the procedure at some point? That should be clarified.

The Government have been pushed to address the issue of Gibraltar by the Matthews case. We welcome the outcome of that case. Previous governments, including those of whom I was a member, tried and failed to settle the matter of the enfranchisement of Gibraltar. We can say that it is everybody's fault, but, in the end, it took a private individual to bring a case in the courts to push the Government to act. The chief problem is the lack of provision in the Bill for consultation with the people of Gibraltar. The Lord Chancellor, the Electoral Commission and the Governor of Gibraltar will decide matters of enfranchisement, including the question of the region to which the 17,000—perhaps, as the Minister said, it is 20,000—Gibraltarians should be attached. That is not a satisfactory way of linking up with the people of Gibraltar.

I will put some questions to the Minister now, as I think that it is the right time, and we will pursue them in Committee. First, does the fact that the Gibraltarians will vote in European parliamentary elections extend any additional provisions of the EC treaty to Gibraltar over and above those covered in the original Treaty on European Union? How will the need for Gibraltar legislation—there will be a need for some—be satisfied? I presume that it is not seriously intended that it should simply be imposed from London in colonial style. The question of how Gibraltar fits in to all that is not a matter for the Governor; it must be for the elected Government of Gibraltar. That approach must change.

The Delegated Powers Committee report and the comments of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor suggest that there will have to be detailed consultation with Gibraltar about many aspects of the change. Clearly, that must be specified and codified in a more satisfactory way than so far. I hope that can be clarified in Committee. Maybe the Government will move amendments; maybe we shall. One way or another, the Gibraltarians must be more properly involved.

It is unsatisfactory that under Clause 22 the United Kingdom effectively is allowed to authorise expenditure from Gibraltar's consolidated fund. That cannot be right. Gibraltar's consolidated fund is under the auspices of the Government of Gibraltar. A raid on it, by order, from London seems inappropriate.

Gibraltar's judiciary, which exists but receives little attention in the Bill, is specifically excluded from playing a part under Clause 21(4A)(c). That is an area in which there are concerns about the suitability of delegated legislation to handle those matters. At the very least, all the delegated legislation in Part 2 should be subject to affirmative resolution, as requested by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I believe it should be more than that; that these matters should come before Parliament for proper discussion and primary legislation. In the last-minute document that we received just prior to this debate, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor half-conceded that all these matters should be handled by affirmative resolution. Will the Minister confirm that? Obviously, that is especially important if Gibraltarian law has to be adapted, as it clearly does under Clause 11.

There are a number of concerns about the Bill, although the principle is right. Generally, in another place, outside and in Gibraltar, the Bill has been described as rather colonial in flavour and mentality. After what the people of Gibraltar have been through, the difficulties concerning non-involvement in the joint sovereignty discussions and so forth, it is important that now the people of Gibraltar must be brought in and involved and not merely be the recipients of the Lord Chancellor's regulations. Those are the points of concern which we shall be pursuing in Committee. In the mean time, the principle is right but the methods raise a lot of questions.

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate, not least for welcoming the Bill so warmly. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, raised a large number of issues to which we shall give attention in detail in Committee. At this stage, I reiterate the affirmation I gave earlier. The response to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has been positive. I endorse what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that the affirmative resolution procedure will be adopted in relation to this matter. As noble Lords know, that will allow both Houses to have a say in relation to the orders that are brought forward. If those orders were to fall, it would be necessary to bring other measures before the House for affirmation. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, greets that with a degree of pleasure.

It is a matter of regret that the response to the committee's report could not have been received sooner, but it was done as quickly and comprehensively as possible. When the noble Lord has the advantage of reading it in detail, he will see that there are a number of proposals which I hope will allay his concerns.

Turning to issues raised by noble Lords in the debate, I welcome the warm support from the Liberal Democrat Benches. First, I shall speak to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. He said that it was curious that the member of the Cabinet appointed to deal with this issue should be the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. It may be that it is appropriate that he should be the person to do that because he brings a degree of independence and objectivity to that role which may be of great use. That does not detract from the special status that he enjoys; some would argue that it merely reinforces it.

The Bill provides for the Lord Chancellor to ask the Electoral Commission to recommend a course of action which he must follow. There is some merit in the process being dealt with both by the commission, which is independent, and by the Lord Chancellor in the discharge of this responsibility. On that theme, I turn to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, referring to how Clause 6 comes into play because it refers to the Secretary of State. Noble Lords will know that Clause 6 was inserted into the schedule to the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002. That Act still refers to the Secretary of State, although by virtue of the Transfer of Functions (Transport, Local Government and the Regions) Order 2002, the power to exercise those functions of that Act now are conferred on the Lord Chancellor. It is really only for that purpose.

The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, commented on Clause 4 and the limitation to the treaties. I have already said that we have accepted the recommendations made in that regard in relation to the affirmative resolution procedure. I believe all noble Lords who spoke—including the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick—raised questions about the Electoral Commission. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, asked whether consultations could go wider. Of course they can. It will be for the commission to decide how properly to discharge its duty. It is open to the commission to consult as broadly as it thinks necessary to make a properly informed decision on how the balance should be drawn.

The Government are looking for parity and equity in the drawing up of boundaries. Three have been adopted in order to provide for a minimum, and to enable the commission to look more widely in deciding how proportionately to make that division. Therefore, we hope that there will be a greater degree of equity in terms of population between Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland, in a proper way.

The noble Lord welcomed the endorsement by the human rights element. I endorse that too. We are pleased that that has been possible. A number of noble Lords, not least the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, raised the issue of the closed list. I acknowledge that there was very hot debate in relation to the most appropriate procedure to be adopted when the matter came before the House in 1998, prior to the 1999 election. A decision was made that the closed list should be adopted. The noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Howell, accept that this is wide of the Bill and have expressed regret that those provisions are not included. But they are not. The Bill looks at the implementation of the Nice Treaty and the redistribution that must take place as a result.

The noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked for more information about the reduction of MEPs and how it was done. I shall say a little in response to that matter. He is right, in Committee, there will be more time to look at the detail.

The whole European Union is preparing for the accession of the new member states. Almost all current members are facing a reduction in the number of their MEPs, according to the numbers agreed in the Treaty of Nice, to produce as fairly as possible representation according to population size. That was the methodology adopted. Furthermore, it was agreed that Germany's representation will remain at 99 MEPs and that Luxembourg will retain its current total of six seats. The number of German MEPs did not increase after reunification, although the size of the population represented in the European Union increased significantly. Historically, Luxembourg has always had six seats, despite its relatively small population. In the course of the negotiations at Nice, Luxembourg was able to ensure that it retained that number of seats.

Until 1992, the number of MEPs per member state was determined on the basis of the 1951 equality agreement between Monnet and Adenauer. It provided that France, Germany and Italy would have 18 seats each and that the Benelux countries would share 18 seats between them. Following the reunification of Germany, in May 1992 the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the number and distribution of Members. That report used a regressive proportional method of allocation based on population size. It established a quota of six seats for Luxembourg as the point of departure of any calculations. At the December 1992 European Council meeting in Edinburgh, member states agreed to increase the number of MEPs in line with the proposals. The same formula was applied in 1992 in relation to the forthcoming accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden, although to a minor extent the numbers were manipulated by political agreement. That brought the total number of MEPs to 626. So representation is roughly in line with population size. The final numbers were agreed after negotiation and are set out in the Treaty of Nice.

During the early months of last year the House spent a significant period debating the Treaty of Nice prior to the legislation receiving Royal Assent in the spring. I do not believe that its merits and detail need to be debated again; they were dealt with exhaustively on the last occasion.

The UK now has 87 MEPs out of a total of 626 directly elected MEPs. Currently that number is distributed as 71 in England, eight in Scotland, five in Wales and three in Northern Ireland. The UK will be entitled to a minimum of 72 seats, representing a reduction of 15 seats. However, as I pointed out in my opening remarks, we are among the three countries with the second largest number of MEPs. Indeed, there are those who might even argue that perhaps we did a little too well.

Perhaps I may turn to the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, on the boundaries of the electoral regions and whether they are to be changed. The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, also raised the matter. We have thought carefully about the best way in which to incorporate the reductions. We do not believe that it would be in the interests of the electorate or that it is necessary to alter the boundaries of the electoral regions across the United Kingdom to account of the change. The existing regions have some geographical and social identity. To change them would run counter to the regional agenda which the Government have set out and are already pursuing. Thus, may I say, the boundary commission does not come into it. The Bill therefore provides for the number of United Kingdom MEPs to be redistributed across the existing 12 electoral regions each time a reduction is necessary because of new accessions.

The noble Lord, Lord Howell, also asked why the breadth of discretion given to the Lord Chancellor was so wide, bearing in mind that it would take into account new treaties. At present we do not know precisely how many states will accede; it looks as though the 10 states that are likely to come in for 2004 will do so, but obviously we cannot guarantee that until each state has held a referendum and we know the result. The terms of the Treaty of Nice provide that, in the event of non-accession, the Council of Ministers must take a decision to bring the total number of MEPs as close as possible to the required 732. Making such an adjustment would be a pro rata correction, communicated by a Council decision. The United Kingdom would of course be represented in the European Council and would be party to any treaty or subsequent decision.

The Bill has been drafted to ensure that it includes such treaties as well as any resulting requirement or decisions; hence the use of the term, "Community law" in Clauses 2 and 4. It is our view that if the Bill had been drafted to be any more specific, certainly in respect of Clause 2, there would be a risk that future decisions by the European Council, which would rightly affect the number of UK MEPs, might not be covered by the Bill. Further legislation would then be required, which would not be an effective use of parliamentary time and resources.

The House of Lords Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform expressed a view on the scope of Clause 4, but not of Clause 2. The powers should be limited to changes arising out of those treaties which have already been subject to an Act of Parliament. As I said earlier, we have already agreed to that limited change to Clause 4 and propose to table a suitable amendment in Committee.

I hope that I have dealt with the major issues raised in the debate. Of course, the situation relating to Gibraltar is one that will excite more attention in our deliberations in Committee. In another place my honourable friend Yvette Cooper gave certain indications that the Government would look sympathetically at many of the issues raised. I too indicated in my opening remarks that, in their response to those concerns, the Government are considering bringing forward appropriate amendments in Committee. While I am not in a position to give noble Lords the precise nature of those amendments because they are still being considered, I should certainly like to assure noble Lords that the commitments made in another place are now actively being looked at.

I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this short debate. It has been warming to note that the Bill will be welcomed in the majority of its terms, although of course there are issues that we shall need to consider carefully in Committee.

My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, would she address the question I raised about the precise remit of the Electoral Commission in relation to determining the number of MEPs per region? Surely it would not require the huge apparatus of the commission to make a simple arithmetical calculation in order to equalise the number of MEPs per voter. However, the skills of the Electorial Commission could be usefully employed to try to determine that the broad principles of proportionality are achieved across the UK and within each region; that is, as a part of its remit, the Electorial Commission should be asked to ensure that there is a sufficient number of MEPs in each region to ensure proportionality of representation within the region itself and across the country.

My Lords, I have already indicated that the minimum number of MEPs to be allocated to each region is three. The commission will be charged with ensuring that there is parity of treatment between the 12 regions. I am sure that it will be anxious to see that justice is done and that proportionality between the regions is a point that it will bear in mind.

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The issues of decentralisation and democratisation have been at the heart of the Government's agenda since 1997. There is no doubt that any assessment at that point would have found the UK to be one of the most centralised systems of government in the western world. It was a system which, by and large, ignored the aspirations of different parts of the UK. It was one where "Whitehall knew best". I am the first to admit that Whitehall does not know best. It never knew best in the first place and it certainly does not today.

The Government have sought to give power and responsibility back to the people and to make our politics more open, more accountable and more inclusive. I fully accept that there is a price to pay for a government who introduce more openness and more accountability. It is a price that we are willing to shoulder.

In the previous Parliament, the people of Scotland, Wales and London chose to take more decisions for themselves. They were each given that power by way of referendum, and legislation followed.

The White Paper, Your Region, Your Choice, which was published in May last year, set out our proposals for giving people in the English regions the same opportunity. The Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill is the first step in taking forward these proposals. It will allow the people of the English regions to choose whether they want more say over decisions taken in their region. The Bill does not decide whether there will be elected regional assemblies. It is a paving Bill, a preparations Bill, and that is its sole function.

In terms of regional policy, the Government have already done much to decentralise decision making to the English regions in any event. We have set up the strong, business-led regional development agencies to drive economic growth in the regions and we have helped to create a network of voluntary regional chambers to scrutinise those agencies. But there are limits to how far responsibility should be devolved without an increase in democratic accountability. That is always a dilemma. One wishes to devolve as much as possible but, ultimately, if there is no democratic input, it is inevitable that Minister's will decide that responsibility must stay at the centre because someone has to be accountable to Parliament.

The Bill is the next step in the democratisation of existing structures and bodies. It is designed to increase democracy at the regional level and to give people a choice over the way in which they are governed. It gives them an opportunity to vote, through a referendum, whether or not they wish to have an elected regional assembly. They can vote to have one or vote not to have one: it is their choice. They will not be forced to have a regional assembly or pushed to vote "yes"; it will be their decision.

We believe that elected regional assemblies would give people a distinct political voice and a real say over decisions which matter to them. We mean them to have substantial powers to make a difference on key issues such as economic development, skills, planning, housing, transport, health improvement, culture and the environment. They will be able to deliver tailor-made regional solutions to regional problems. The whole point of devolving decision making is that problems and solutions are not the same everywhere.

Elected regional assemblies will also be able to improve co-ordination and efficiency at a regional level, which will lead to a reduction in bureaucracy. There is no earthly reason why bureaucracy should be extended by regional assemblies as proposed in the Bill.

If it is decided to establish regional assemblies, all their powers will come from central government, central government agencies and central government quangos; they will not come from local government. I wish to make that absolutely clear. No new functions will be created. The central government agencies, functions and quangos are operating at the moment, but they are not democratic at a regional level.

The Bill is about choice. A referendum will not be held in a region if there is insufficient public interest in holding one. As I said, no region will be forced to vote "yes"; it will make its own choice. Some regions may well take the view that, because of their political make up, their geography and democratic factors, they prefer to stick with the arrangements already announced for government offices, regional development agencies and regional chambers. They may feel that those organisations are sufficient to provide the influential regional voice they desire without having what they may perceive as new power structures created in parts of their regions.

The Bill itself will not establish regional assemblies—that will come later—but the precedent has been set in Scotland, Wales and London.

People voting in a referendum are entitled to know what the consequences will be of voting "yes". We have set out in the White Paper, Your Region, Your Choice, our proposals for elected assemblies. Before any referendum takes place, we intend to publish a summary of our proposals for both the assemblies and for any local government reorganisation in the region. I shall come to that fairly crucial point later. I wish first to give a quick summary of the Bill.

An open meeting was held last week for any Members of your Lordships' House who are interested in the Bill. I shall recap for those who were not present. Part 1 of the Bill enables referendums on elected regional assemblies to be held and sets out the conditions which must be met beforehand. The first condition is that the Secretary of State must have considered the level of interest in the region in holding a referendum. The Government do not intend to hold a referendum in a region if there is insufficient interest. Soundings are currently being taken in the regions about this interest, and again I shall come to that in more detail later.

Part 1 also sets out what will be the referendum question. The Electoral Commission has a statutory duty under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 to comment on the intelligibility of a referendum question and any preamble to it. The commission published its views on the question in the Bill on 25th November. It was broadly content but made some small suggestions in regard to the structure and the wording of the preamble. In the light of that advice, the Government amended the wording of the preamble to the referendum question at Report stage in another place. I can tell your Lordships that the commission is now content with the wording provided.

Part 2 provides a power to direct the Boundary Committee for England to review the structure of local government in a region before any referendum. The second condition that must be met before holding a referendum is that the Boundary Committee has made its recommendations following such a review.

The review must recommend the best wholly unitary structure for those areas that currently have both a county and district council. We intend to implement the recommendations only where we propose to establish an elected assembly in a region following a referendum. In other words, if a region chosen for a referendum went through the process of the Boundary Committee looking at what would be the best unitary structure, and the decision of the people of that region was not to proceed to an elected regional assembly, the plans for local government reorganisation would fall. The plans are there only in the event of there being an elected regional assembly. In other words, this is not a back-door method of establishing unitary local government.

Part 3 requires the Secretary of State to seek the Electoral Commission's advice on one or more matters concerning electoral matters for regional assemblies. Because of concerns expressed in the Standing Committee in another place, the Bill now makes it clear that the Secretary of State is obliged to seek this advice.

Part 4 provides a power to make grants in respect of the activities of the existing voluntary regional chambers. Part 5 covers general provisions such as commencement and expenditure.

As I mentioned earlier, the Government are currently conducting a soundings exercise on the level of interest in each region in holding a referendum for an elected assembly. The closing date is 3rd March, a week next Monday. The level of interest will be the main factor in deciding in which region or regions to direct a local government review with a view to holding a referendum. We want to hear the views of the people in each region and of the existing regional chambers, local authorities, MEPs, Members of Parliament and others. They have been requested to send in their responses by 3rd March.

In some regions the level of interest may be inconclusive—that is, it may not be high enough to justify holding a referendum, but not low enough to rule it out. It may be the case that so many regions have a high level of interest that we shall need to look at whether to "ration" the number of reviews conducted at once. The Boundary Committee's resources are being examined, but factors will arise such as not reviewing too many regions at the same time. In such instances, we may want to consider the effects on local government in the region of conducting a review. These factors are set out in Clause 12.

There was much debate in another place about regional boundaries. Under the Bill, elected regional assemblies will share the same boundaries as the Government Offices for the Regions, the regional development agencies and the many other regional bodies that operate to these increasingly accepted boundaries.

I freely admit that there is a debate to be had. People will argue—and indeed it is my personal view—that some counties seem to be in the wrong region. But that is not an issue. On the other hand, it is not foreclosed for the future. The plan is to use the existing boundaries and all the quangos and agencies that go with them; but it has not been ruled out that in the future the boundaries could be looked at. But for the purposes of the Bill, if there is a freely expressed choice in favour of a regional assembly, it will be set up and operate on the existing boundaries.

An aim of regional assemblies is to draw together the work of existing regional bodies. So we do not want to re-define these now, with the massive upheaval and cost that would be involved, before getting to the point of setting up regional assemblies.

The current regions are a reasonable size. They are set out in a succinct fashion in the White Paper in terms of population and other factors. They are all different. The population differences are substantial, but they are, in our view, of a reasonable size in terms of population, geography and economic weight to justify the creation of elected assemblies and to differentiate them from local government—so that the function will be different; so that one can clearly see that it is not local government in any particular geographical area.

The local government review that is required before a referendum can be held in a region is worthy of reference. The review will be required to recommend the best unitary structure for those parts of a region that currently have both a county and a district council.

Concern was expressed in another place, and will no doubt be expressed in this debate, about linking local government reorganisation to the establishment of regional assemblies. I must tell your Lordships that unitary local government is an integral part of the regional assembly package. If there is not unitary local government, there will be no regional assemblies. We are not going to separate them out. Frankly, it would be very difficult to defend an extra tier of government, which is what would happen if that were the case. By definition, to have a structure of local government—that is, elected regional assemblies—is a new level, a new layer. We are not going to go down the road of imposing extra layers of government on people where there is no justification for it. Therefore, if the regions choose to have that extra layer of government, unitary local government will be an integral part of the package, not two-tier local government. We are not prepared to add an extra tier. There will be a great deal of debate on this point today and in Committee. But I have to disabuse your Lordships. It is not possible for us even to contemplate separating the two. We are not going to be accused of introducing an extra layer of government. That is the prime purpose of the package concept of the Bill.

Moving to a wholly unitary structure where an assembly is to be established will ensure that government remains streamlined. Our policy is about reducing bureaucracy, not increasing it. It is important that people understand the implications for local government before they vote in a referendum. That is fundamental.

I shall not go into too much detail in a Second Reading debate, but if the Bill receives Royal Assent, let us say during this Session—and let us say that a number of regions are chosen—it will take about a year for the Boundary Committee to do its work of examining a structure for the best kind of unitary local government at that level. So we are some way away from the referendum. In that period of time, the implications for that particular region will be fully explored, both by those involved politically in the region and by individual citizens, business, the voluntary sector, the communities and religious groups. So there will be no misunderstanding at the point of voting in a referendum as regards the implications for local government in that region. It is fundamental that that should be clear. We shall publish a summary and make sure that it is well publicised. People must not vote in the dark for a regional assembly, unaware of the consequences for local government.

Reorganisation will go ahead only where people vote "Yes". It will be by simple majority. It is not possible to invent any thresholds that we believe we could defend. People will have a simple choice. We cannot allow people who do not vote in effect to have a veto.

Under existing unitary authorities, any region where there is a referendum will not face structural or boundary change. This will be part of the advice to the Boundary Committee. There is, of course, a mixture in every county and there are obvious exceptions such as the unitary county of Herefordshire. But where there is an existing unitary body it will not be "messed about with" in terms of further change. That would make no sense.

I accept that there will be debate about the future of the counties. We have no plan to abolish the counties. I do not want to think aloud on particular areas and be totally wrong; however, it may be that in examining unitary structures in an area where a referendum is held, in some counties there could be another unitary county. I do not know. We have no agenda to abolish counties—or, for that matter, the districts. It is up to the Boundary Committee, which is wholly independent of government, to recommend the best wholly unitary local government structure for the region.

The Government have published their draft guidance to the Boundary Committee on local government reviews. Comments on this are requested by 3rd March this year.

I want briefly to refer to Part 4 of the Bill. This creates a new power for funding the eight existing regional chambers. The Government helped to set up these chambers to contribute to the preparation of regional economic strategies by the regional development agencies. The chambers are made up of local authority representatives and key regional stakeholders from the social, economic and environmental sectors in the region.

The regional chambers have been a success story, and have taken on an increasingly significant role. All chambers now scrutinise the work of the RDAs. Many are now involved in the production of regional sustainable development frameworks and the preparation of regional planning guidance.

Five of the eight chambers have taken on the role of the regional planning body. In the light of the positive responses that we have received to our planning Green Paper, we now believe it is right for all eight regional chambers to carry out this role in the absence of an elected regional assembly.

At present, the chambers receive most of their funding from local authorities. As the role of chambers expands, in particular on planning, a more general funding mechanism is needed. That is the reason for Part 4 of the Bill.

Before concluding, perhaps I may make one further point. One gets advance notice of contributions in a Second Reading debate and this may avoid having to answer it later. There is no requirement from Brussels, the European Union or anywhere else for England to have a structure of regional government. We are not implementing some plan or plot hatched up by Johnny Foreigner to seek to bring in EMU by the back door or in some way channel funds into different regions. There is no EU requirement that member states should have elected regional government. This is a United Kingdom policy to meet United Kingdom needs.

The Bill provides an opportunity for the regions; it is up to them to take it or not. That is the point—it is their choice. It is the most significant constitutional prospect for the regions in a generation, and it is a key component for the programme of decentralisation and reform. A referendum is the first step—it is such a change that the people must make the choice whether to go down that road. Regional solutions for regional issues are important, but this is about choice.

The Bill comes to this House after extensive consideration in another place, and I look forward to the debates in this House. After that, we continue the debate in the regions and if sufficient interest is shown—the test is in the Bill—it will be up to the people to choose, through the ballot box, whether to proceed. I commend the Bill to the House.

My Lords, perhaps I may bring one moment of unity to the debate—it is likely to be the last today—by welcoming the Minister back to the Dispatch Box. There has been a great warmth of feeling for him over the past month, and we are delighted to see him back. I also declare an interest as a member of a local authority.

The Government's thirst for modernisation and reorganisation of local government, as well as innumerable other aspects of our corporate lives, seems completely unquenchable. Their pursuit of regional government is just the latest. Following devolution in Scotland and Wales and the increasingly unpopular Greater London Assembly, there is little evidence that, so far, England's electors are as engaged with that prospect as the Government. That may be because they have not read with breathless enthusiasm the White Paper Your Region, Your Choice: Revitalising the English Regions or because there has been no proper consultation and no debate in Parliament or elsewhere on what regional government's role, structures and powers would be.

Is it not absurd that the Bill, with all its implications, comes in advance of a regional assemblies Act which would have enabled these matters to have been decided before electors were asked to take part in a referendum on whether they wanted elected regional assemblies? I hear what the Minister says about that information being available where the electors say they want regional assemblies, but that seems to us far too late. At least if that debate had taken place now, they would have been aware of the limited responsibilities which are being proposed for these bodies.

The only legislation to date, therefore, to give authority to any part of the Government's ambitions for the introduction of a further tier of local government is this Bill. Since it has not, by a long way, completed its parliamentary scrutiny, on what are those bodies, which are currently being consulted on the level of interest, to base a rational decision? In the absence of such detail, is it not reprehensible that the Secretary of State embarked in early December, a mere three weeks after the Bill's introduction in another place, on a soundings exercise in each of the regions which will enable him to consider the level of support there might be for holding a referendum on regional government? As the Minister says, such a consultation will be concluded before 3rd March—before the Committee stage in this House has even been reached.

It is particularly notable that the Bill contains no criteria against which the Secretary of State is to make a decision on the level of interest for an order being made or on which his judgment can be challenged, other than those in Clause 1(8), where he must consider

"views expressed and information and evidence provided to him".

That provision is so wide as to be meaningless. I advise the Minister that we shall put forward proposals for constraints to be imposed on the Secretary of State's sole discretion.

That is particularly important, as it is on the information which he gleans from this exercise that the Secretary of State will be able to unleash the Boundary Committee to undertake a complete review of local government within a region concerned and provide a framework for unitary authorities from the existing county and district structure, but in that region only. Any existing unitary authorities in the region will remain as such, although whether they could be split into larger or smaller units is left unclear. Perhaps the Minister will be able to clarify that when he replies.

It is here, of course, that the Government's position becomes incoherent, for it is not intended to introduce regional government countrywide—which might be a comprehensible policy, at least—but only if an unstated proportion of the electorate in a region votes in a referendum in favour of it being established. It is already clear that there will be no comprehensive regional support for regional government, so the result of what will surely be a long-drawn-out exercise will be a mishmash of local government tiers across the country, which neither meet nor match in their structures, duties or responsibilities.

However, the clearest implication of what is proposed is that the creation of unitary structures, except in the rarest of circumstances, will, despite what the Minister has said, result in the county councils being abolished, leaving only a unitary tier and a remote, inchoate region. That hardly increases democratic legitimacy.

We have already had a number of debates in this House which have drawn attention to the lack of common identity and incompatibility between urban and rural areas and their widely differing needs and characteristics in all the large regions. We remain extremely concerned at that and at the threat to the county councils, the oldest tier of self-government, predating the Domesday Book. But then, I fear we know that the Government's view of any structure which existed prior to 1st May 1997 is that it must go.

There is, too, the very possible danger that a vote in regions with sizeable metropolitan areas could be distorted by the greater number of electors who live in the cities and towns against those who live in the less populated rural parts of the region, although it is they who will suffer the burden of local government reorganisation. Agreement for a referendum to be held under such circumstances could cause the most bitter conflict if a way is not found to enable those areas affected by a rearrangement of the county and district structure to vote on that alone.

We shall want to test rigorously at Committee stage not only the rationale of the piecemeal nature of this reform but the desirability and necessity of another major reorganisation of local government. It will consume a vast amount of resources without delivering a single additional nurse, teacher or policeman. Nor will it improve the future delivery and quality of services such as planning, housing, transport and health. Experience and common sense say that those practical things are what matter, and that the nearer the Government are to the people, the better. That is something others are learning. In many parts of Europe, for example, government is being passed down from the regions to lower tiers, not up from the lower tiers to the regions.

So to enable voters to make up their minds whether to support the proposal or vote in a referendum, what exactly will regional assemblies do? How, if at all, will such a change improve the democratic legitimacy of what is currently being carried out by the regional development agencies and regional chambers, which have barely had a chance to bed down? These are already made up of a majority of elected local councillors from associated local authorities. They also include representatives from business. It is instructive that business leaders believe that the proposed reforms will not enhance, but will only damage economic growth.

The soundings exercise paper says:

"they would have a significant influencing role, including scrutiny powers and making appointments to regional public bodies".

That barely sounds a major reason for major change. The paper also says that the functions will be taken from central government, but it does not say what functions, though we know that even if the county council happens to survive under such reorganisation, it will lose its responsibilities for strategic planning. That is not going down from the centre, but going up from local government. The White Paper says that there will be responsibility for—wait for it—overseeing strategies on transport, economic regeneration, tourism, and a few others. That information is available only to those who have read the White Paper. It also hardly seems to justify a huge, expensive reorganisation.

What about increasing democratic legitimacy? Each assembly will have between 25 and 35 members, each of whom will represent 160,000 to a quarter of a million electors—at least double the size of the constituency of any Member of Parliament. Some of those members will be elected, but some will be selected from an additional list, as in London and the Scottish Parliament. They will all be paid. The leader and six or seven cabinet members, who will presumably do most of the fun stuff, if local councils are anything to go by, will be paid handsomely, but they will hardly be able to say that they are close to the people.

The boundaries of the regions were originally set up for economic regeneration purposes. They are arbitrary by nature and unsuitable for these new structures. I hear what the Minister says, but despite that, they should be sorted out more coherently before any other reorganisation is commenced.

The concern must be that this will be another major constitutional reform implemented with the participation of only a minority of the electorate. Fewer than 30 per cent of those eligible voted in elections for the Greater London Assembly, with just 17 per cent in favour. Thus, a new tier of government was created with the support of far fewer than 20 per cent of the electorate. That is highly unsatisfactory. We want to ensure a reasonable threshold of support.

So far, the Government have been silent on the potential costs of their proposals. Before any referendum, it will be essential that they give estimates of the costs relating to the structural reorganisation, the set-up costs of the regional tier infrastructure, the ongoing revenue costs and the charge to council tax payers. We shall seek to ensure that that is part of the information available to the public in the lead-up to any referendum.

In those regions that choose to have regional government, will there also be a cry for new regional palaces to house the new assemblies? In that respect, the experience of devolution in Scotland and Wales is not reassuring. The new Scottish Parliament building has now cost £338 million, against the original estimate of £40 million. The Welsh Assembly costs almost £150 million a year to run, against the old Welsh Office arrangements, which cost £72 million in their final year. The Greater London Assembly foglamp cost £125 million to build. Its precept has soared by an incredible 82 per cent in the three years of its existence. In my local authority, which has one of the lowest council taxes in London, that now costs £224 for every band D payer and nearly £500 for those in hand H. Those who are being encouraged to consider other devolved government should beware.

Finally, there is the exclusion of legal proceedings under Clause 10, which means that there could be no challenge in court to the result of a referendum. That seems an extraordinary provision, to which we shall certainly return.

There remain other concerns, but they will be picked up by other noble Lords. I believe I have said enough to indicate that we consider not only that there are enormous flaws in the proposals, but that they are ill considered, bureaucratic and expensive. I promise the Minister that the Bill will be given thorough consideration throughout the Committee stage.

My Lords, it is good to see the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, back in his place. We have been thinking of him.

I have never fought a "Yes, but" or a "No, but" campaign, but the Government are proposing referendums that weld together the separate issues of regional government and the structure of local government. In doing so, they propose a question that many will find incapable of a single straight answer. I am sorry to say that, given the thoughtful and measured introduction by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, but I believe that the Government have taken a good idea and are in danger of making a mess of it.

All of us in this House will be passionate about democracy, despite being the objects of patronage, either in our own persons or our ancestors'. My party is also passionate about celebrating diversity. No governmental area is a monotone, whatever its sphere or size, but to different extents in different parts of the country there are feelings of regional identity. Some of these are evidencing themselves in growing partnerships between cities whose history includes considerable rivalry, such as Newcastle and Gateshead or Liverpool and Manchester. We welcome the acknowledgement in the Bill of diversity between the regions.

The Government would say that they are passionate about devolution. Their record supports that, even with the criticism that many of us feel that in some aspects the Government have been too timid. They risk that record with a question that is essentially bipartite, complicated and confusing.

My enthusiasm is because I believe that government is best where it is appropriate, and it is appropriate to have strategic government for what is regionally strategic on a democratic basis. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, regards the Greater London Assembly—which she may be distinguishing from the Greater London Authority as a whole—as increasingly unpopular. I assure her that we are doing our best. She also said that government is best when it is closest to the people. That seems to be an argument for devolution, not against it.

In declaring an interest as a member of the Greater London Assembly, I shall try not to be diverted into rebutting criticisms of it, but I note the noble Baroness's comments about cost. One also has to look at the services, many of which have had to be provided by whoever. On her comments about the precept, I am sure that, with her local government background, she will recognise that most of the costs are met by central government grant.

I should have preferred to see what the Deputy Prime Minister announced recently in his community plan developed in the context of democratic regional government. That is just the sort of thing that should be attended to. In fact, we have government at regional level—we have central government at regional level at the moment. There are government offices, learning and skills councils, regional offices of government agencies and quangos and so on.

My second criticism of what is essentially a good idea is that form should follow function. Indeed, I believe that electoral engagement will follow function by way of powers and the delivery of services. We are disappointed that the Government are, for instance, proposing to retain direct control over the learning and skills councils. Regional assemblies should have direct powers on transport and a real role in public health. However, I do not want to be wholly negative. We welcome the decision to give assemblies housing powers, for example.

That is not the point for today, however. The real point is that we should be having a proper debate. I should like to think that we might learn from London's experience. The Mayor has identified the need for a city-wide approach to dealing with waste. I acknowledge that the current Mayor has a tendency to offer us a solution to every problem—the transfer of power to himself. The devil is often in the detail, but even if the Government think that in London the devil is in city hall, that should not block the full knowledge of the assembly's powers being debated and disseminated before the referendum takes place in any region. We should have a debate on that subject. The Minister tells us that people will know what powers are proposed, but the Government may not have got it right.

If we are not to have full legislation, I am attracted by the notion of pre-legislative scrutiny of a draft Bill. That could be assessed, for instance, against the Local Government Association's six tests of regional democracy. The tests are: enough clout to make a difference; accountability; the devolution of powers based on a consolidation of subsidiarity—that will probably raise some hackles—flexibility; transparency; and building on existing strengths. I am curious that the legislation on powers is to be left until there is at least one "Yes" vote, because that will mean regions voting at different times on different bases.

It is essential that there should be a debate on the size of each assembly. My experience of chairing the London Assembly suggests that the dynamics are much more important than I had appreciated before May 2000. An assembly of 25 is too big for a comfortable plenary meeting at which everyone feels that they can have their say and, critically, too small to be fully representative.

The representative nature of assemblies is bound up with the boundaries of regions. The Minister in the Commons said that reopening the issue of boundaries was not productive. It may not be welcome to some, but the issues of the boundaries of a region and the local government structure within each region are not, to the minds of those on these Benches, being addressed properly.

We know how high feelings run in the South West. In this House, we recently heard the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Truro saying that London was an awful long way from anywhere. Many Cornish people say that Bristol is a long way from anywhere, too. Different feelings run high in the North East, and were my noble friend Lady Maddock able to be here, she would have said so. In the South East, the administrative boundaries established by the Conservatives are wholly artificial. Of course, different feelings run high in each region. I assume that the Government will not simply adopt what one might regard as the logical solution and propose the boundaries of the television regions. I will not make that proposal, because I have not checked with my noble friend Lord Greaves whether he regards the North West as Granada land.

The Minister addressed forcefully the issue of local government within the region, which is a point of fundamental disagreement between the Government and us. It is a different issue from regional government and, probably, a matter for democratic regional government. I do not understand how it can be for the Boundary Committee to consider excluding the retention of two-tier local government. The United Kingdom is not over-governed, or not at the political level at any rate, when one compares us with many other countries, including our European partners. We may be over-governed administratively, and in London the Government Office has grown since the establishment of the Greater London Authority.

Will the Government contemplate whether the "extra tier" should in fact be regarded as an "extra sphere"? They should contemplate that point, first, because it should not mean extra bureaucracy and, secondly, because a vote in this House may require them to contemplate it. The Boundary Committee should be able to consider all the options. If the soundings suggest that several referendums should take place early, the Boundary Committee's resources need to be able to support what is required in order not to delay democracy.

If the measures go forward as proposed, the Government must tell us why the votes of those in a unitary area may, because of their numbers, impose that structure on those who have and want to retain two-tier local government. The Government have not told us how they will interpret responses to soundings that amount to, "Yes, we want regional government but not on these boundaries", or, "Yes, but we want to keep our county and district".

I am forgetting that the soundings relate not to whether there should be an elected assembly but whether people want a referendum—but even Ministers sometimes forget that. I attended this House's Select Committee on the Constitution, when the Minister, Mr Raynsford, gave useful evidence. He said that,

"if the current soundings exercise demonstrates a strong appetite in four regions we would certainly pay close heed to that".

I quote that not to be snide but to point out the difficulty of sounding out whether people want a referendum as distinct from whether they want regional government. The Government will publish the responses, but it will not be easy to explain the judgment that is made.

There is too much in and around the Bill that is confused and confusing. In Committee, we will explore issues of information to voters, intelligibility and accessibility. We will include issues that are properly raised by the RNIB and Mencap, on which noble Lords will have received briefings. We want information to be available that will enable voters to make an informed decision. That was a problem in London and remains one—although those of us elected to the GLA now have responsibility for that.

The Minister dismissed the thought that these measures were some cunning EU plot. My noble friend Lord Tope, who is a member of the Committee of the Regions, tells me that the most publicity that the committee gets is from the leaflets issued by UKIP, which regards the committee as having far more power than my noble friend has ever managed to identify. He is delighted by the attention and publicity.

When people want regional government, it should be promoted and supported with enthusiasm. The Bill is called, a little inelegantly, the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill. One might almost regard it as the Regional Government (Procrastination) or (Stringing Out) Bill. That is not what the Government really want. Let us make it, in spirit if not in title, the Regional Government (Facilitation) Act.

My Lords, I begin by declaring somewhat of an interest. I am a member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which produced the report that was the basis of the 1990 Act on referendums and party political funding. In that context, the committee will have a crucial meeting later today on our latest report on standards in government, special advisers and all that sort of thing. Therefore, I hope that the House will forgive me if I have to absent myself briefly to take part in that discussion. I am also a member of the Constitution Committee which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, has had very useful evidence from Nick Raynsford on this issue. However, at the end of that, a considerable number of questions were still unclear or unanswered. I should like to concentrate on those now.

I am opposed in general to regional assemblies in most parts of the country, but most particularly in my own region of East Anglia. I have always suspected that we have reached the current position on regional assemblies largely because they are the Government's answer to the still unresolved dilemma of the 'West Lothian question in Scotland and, to some extent, to the demand from regions such as the North East, seeing what is happening in Scotland, to have more funding for themselves, which they think they will get through a regional assembly. If that is so, and I believe that there is a large element of that in it, I suspect that we will get into the same muddle as we have on House of Lords reform, where the desire to get rid of hereditary Members has led to the present constitutional and political muddle. The desire to appease the West Lothian question will lead to exactly the same on regional assemblies.

There is a key difference, however, which is relevant to this Bill. In Scotland—and I speak as a Scot—Wales and Northern Ireland, there is a national identity, a national history and a national awareness. Many things are done differently there. There is no such identity in most of the regions of England. In my own eastern region, for example, there is no identity of interest between the people of Chelmsford and the people of Cromer. There is no identity of interest between the people of Epping and the village of Earsham in my former constituency in Norfolk. There is simply none. They do not see themselves as part of the same region, in the way in which the Scots and Welsh see themselves as part of the same nation.

I share all of the concerns in the excellent speech of my noble friend Lady Hanham. I should like to embellish some of them under three headings. The first is the pre-referendum stage. The Secretary of State is given sole discretion to decide which regions most want to have a referendum. On what basis will that be done? I am very worried about the whole issue of how the decision will be made and about the Secretary of State's lack of accountability to anyone else for his decision. Will he give more attention, for example, to ambitious local government officers who see this as an opportunity for them than to the people of the areas that they are supposed to serve? Will it be to those who are enthusiasts for a regional assembly, but who may be in a very small minority and are already well geared up to respond to the consultation period?

I am deeply concerned about the shortness of time for the consultation period, to 3rd March. Those who want a regional assembly, and they may well be in a minority, are already preparing all their responses and will submit them heavily. However, the vast majority of the people in these regions do not even know about the consultation period. In evidence to the Constitution Committee, Nick Raynsford said:

"We have recently received the result of a survey conducted by Durham County Council which has highlighted still a degree of lack of knowledge about our arrangements"—

you can say that again—

"so we are considering whether there should be more effort to inform the public".

I should like to know the result of that consideration and how it will have an impact before 3rd March.

So clearly, and certainly in the region that I come from, people do not know about this consultation period. So how are the Government going to decide the level of interest in a referendum? I suspect that that may be one of the reasons why we have paragraph 40 in the Explanatory Notes, which states:

"The level of interest in holding a referendum does not equate to the level of interest in having an elected regional assembly".

So we may end up with a referendum that most people do not want, at great cost, with further work by the Boundary Committee to decide how we are going to have unitary authorities in that region, but that then does not proceed. It seems a complete muddle.

Then there is the question of parliamentary involvement. We are told that the decision to hold a referendum will be made by affirmative resolution. As we all know, however, an affirmative resolution cannot be amended. So if there is a general feeling in a region that some of the aspects really bother them and they want a different arrangement for the unitary authorities in that region, there will be no way of testing or expressing that view. They can just take it or leave it. That is what will happen if we give sole discretion to the Secretary of State. Who else, therefore, will be able to comment on the issues that come to the Secretary of State? Will the Electoral Commission? Will Parliament have any opportunity to amend any of the proposals? It seems to me a very dictatorial power.

My second heading is the referendum itself. I have a number of questions, which I shall put later because of time, about how the yes and no groups will be decided and what funding will be available for them. That point is not at all clear. Of course, it will be said that it is for the Electoral Commission. However, it would be helpful to know the type of criteria that will apply in the setting up of the yes and no groups.

I want to concentrate on three key factors in relation to the referendum itself. The first is a simple question which covers an enormously complex range of issues. I am concerned that, in coming to this referendum, the voters will simply not be aware of most of the implications and most of the issues. It is said that in a case where there are no two clear sides, the Electoral Commission will be responsible for giving information. Frankly, however, the Government must be responsible. The Government have still to put before us an enormous amount of information about the basis on which the decision will be taken.

Although the White Paper goes into some detail, it is unclear in many ways, and very many powers overlap. In very many areas, the White Paper talks about "consulting", "proposing", "reviewing" and so on. It is not at all clear how some of the issues—health, transport, social inclusion and crime reduction, all of which are mentioned in the White Paper as powers for the regional assembly—will interrelate with the unitary authorities or other authorities, such as the police authorities, health trusts and so on. So I hope that, before a decision is made at any referendum, the Government will bring forward the Bill specifying the powers and the financing thereof. Although I recognise that Parliament can change the Bill, the Bill will provide a much clearer basis for the region to make known its views and make its decision.

I come to the question of finance. In another place, there have been many comments about the Barnett formula and about the exact financing in relation to this Bill. The Government say that there will be no change in financial arrangements based on whether an area chooses to have a regional assembly. In other words, an area that goes for a regional assembly will not have a financial advantage over areas that do not. That will come as a bit of a surprise to many in the North East who expect that a regional assembly will bring them additional financing—indeed, that is one of the reasons why it is so attractive to them. So will the Government make it absolutely clear and explicit from the beginning that no extra money will flow from central Government as a result of setting up a regional assembly? Although that seem to be what the White Paper, the Explanatory Notes and Mr Raynsford say, that is not yet clear to the electorate as a whole. I think that it is vital that that is done.

I think that there will be all sorts of problems in how the division of financing is done between the unitary authority and the regional assembly. The White Paper apparently sets out all sorts of new powers and responsibilities which the regional assemblies will have but which are also the responsibility of the unitary authority. It seems inevitable that that will have to lead to higher costs for the assembly itself. I have already referred to the number of times that the words "advice", "consultation" and "review" occur in the White Paper. All of that will have a cost.

My noble friend Lady Hanham has already referred to the experience in London, and particularly in Scotland in relation to the new Scottish Parliament building. We all know perfectly well that any estimate of such costs brought forward now by the Government will almost inevitably be doubled or trebled. There is going to be a substantial cost there. Who will pay for all those new activities and facilities? Will the costs be met through the regional assemblies' limited powers to raise funds? Will all that be made clear before the referendum so that voters know what they are letting themselves in for in terms of extra financing and precepts? The last point on the referendum, which was discussed in another place, is that it is important for there to be a threshold to indicate the level of interest in regional assemblies.

That brings me to the local democracy point of which the Minister made a good deal in his opening comments. I believe that local democracy means that decisions should be taken at the lowest sensible level, which in most cases will, in rural areas like my own, be the county councils or the district councils. In that respect I cannot see how the proposals will enhance local democracy. If East Anglia—Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire—votes one way in a referendum, making it clear that it does not want a regional assembly or a unitary authority, but the southern parts of the region opt for an assembly, it is clear that the wishes of a large part of that electorate will be denied. Their wishes as regards local democracy will be thrown in their faces. They will have a regional assembly that they do not want and that they will not believe will reflect their interests in any way.

Another aspect of local democracy, as mentioned by my noble friend, is the size of constituencies. If decisions are to be taken by members who have constituencies of 160,000 to 250,000 electors, local democracy will be lost. The Scottish Parliament has 129 Members elected by a population that will be a good deal smaller than that in some of the regions in England, and yet the number of elected members in a regional assembly will be smaller. If we are to have a regional assembly in the eastern region, it is possible that there will not be a single elected regional member from Norfolk. That will lead to the kind of nonsense that at present we have in the European Parliament. I do not see how that aids democracy or local democracy at all.

My time is up, but those are just a few of the questions to which we need answers. Those who are consulted on whether they want a referendum and those who are to vote in a referendum will need much more information.

My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, and having been a passionate supporter of regional devolution as far back as the introduction of the Redcliffe-Maud report on local government in 1969, I support and welcome the Bill. My last speech to the Labour Party conference before I joined the staff one month later was to oppose that report. I had a number of reasons for doing so. The main one was the undemocratic method for establishing the regional bodies—the so-called provincial councils. There were not to be direct elections, the members being drawn from the local authorities and other organisations in the area, similar to the current position of RDAs.

My second reason was that the provincial councils would constitute another tier of local government when the opportunity should have been taken to devolve functions and powers from central government downwards. A group of friends and I were so cross about the Redcliffe-Maud report that we drew up a document on how we could declare UDI in our region. We felt that we had a regional identity. My noble friend Lord Woolmer was part of that process. We were stymied by the next local government reorganisation which, arbitrarily, took away great pieces of Yorkshire and put them into Lancashire. So that was the end of our UDI. I make that point to stress that people have a regional identity, as it has been suggested otherwise.

I have always believed that politics in every sense should be open and accountable. This paving Bill is the start of the implementation of the Labour Party's manifesto commitment to provide directly elected regional assemblies for those areas that want them. I shall return to that point. There has been some criticism of my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister and his motives. Like me, he has long been a supporter of regional devolution. I admire him for his tenacity and for the many years of commitment that he has shown. He is finally able to achieve his aim.

Reading the debates in another place and in your Lordships' House on the subject, I could have been mistaken for believing that the idea of regional governance was a new one plucked out of the air by this Government and that it creates a new level of bureaucracy, which is not so. Regional government structures have existed for many years. The present regional government offices were established by the Conservative government in the mid-1990s, presumably because they recognised the importance of the regions, the existence of regional identity and the fact that the regions had been neglected and ignored for far too long.

As the Minister said, since 1997, RDAs have been established, the functions of GOs have been increased, regional chambers have been established and a plethora of regional agencies have been set up. That has happened alongside regional offices being set up by the TUC, the CBI—represented on every RDA—the chambers of commerce and many other voluntary organisations. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford said on 9th May 2002 in your Lordships' House, regionalism has drawn together the voluntary sector and the faith communities.

Now we have a proliferation of regional bodies for which we need coherence and co-ordination. The proposed regional assemblies should, as my noble friend said, cut out a great deal of the current regional and sub-regional bureaucracies, giving greater clarity and clearer lines of accountability. Importantly, the establishment of regional assemblies will counter the present and continuing regional democratic deficit. That is the crux of the paving Bill and ultimately of an assemblies Bill.

I believe that the regions are the most appropriate level at which strategic decisions should be taken. It is an opportunity for regional solutions to be found to regional problems. Economic development, transport, the environment, planning development, land use, house building, public health and training and skills have to be considered regionally and on a regional scale. Such functions cannot be carried out at a local government level. The assembly has to be a strategic body, not a service delivery one.

Equally the actions of an assembly have to be accountable and transparent to the people affected by them. For example, currently there are no means for the people of a region to scrutinise, to challenge and to influence spending or to question the consistent under-spending by the RDAs when so much remains to be done. I understand that the regions will continue to receive a block grant, as now, but underpinned by high level targets and national standards. I know that there has been some criticism of that, but I believe that it is right. National standards are needed to drive up standards and to guarantee equity.

While the functions of the assemblies, as mentioned in the White Paper, are broadly understood, I accept that there is concern that the powers will not be outlined before referendums take place. I appreciate that that follows the same process as for Scotland, Wales and London and is based on the principle that referendums are purely advisory and not binding on Parliament.

In the debate in another place on 26th November, at col. 270 the Minister said that the Government were not necessarily opposed to a draft constitution Bill outlining powers but that there were problems relating to timetables. He said that the matter would be kept under consideration. Can my noble friend indicate whether there have been any outcomes from that consideration?

Before looking at the process itself, I wish to refer to the ultimate loss of some county councils. With the greatest respect, it seems a little pious for a party that removed county councils without any consultation with the electorate suddenly to use them as a reason to oppose the Bill. In 1985, six metropolitan county councils were abolished and replaced by unitary authorities, a move that as a principle I personally supported, being a supporter of unitary authorities, but it was achieved with little or no discussion among those involved. The Conservative government repeated the exercise in 1992 when they abolished four further counties and a number of districts. Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I have no problem welding the establishment of regional assemblies with a review of local government.

I believe that the Government are right in removing one tier of local government where currently there are two, so long as it is done with the approval of the electorate and not as it has been done in the past.

Having extolled the virtues of regional government and the principles that lie behind the Bill, I want to deal with the process itself, about which I am not so confident. Like the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, I am a member of the Constitution Committee and had the advantage of discussing my concerns with my right honourable friend Nick Raynsford when he gave evidence to us on the Bill. However, I still ended up with reservations.

I have no queries about the conduct of the referendums, or about a threshold, as the process will follow the procedures laid down in the PPER Act. However, I believe that the question would have benefited from the word "directly" being inserted before "elected". Nor do I have a problem with the variable geometry that will result from the introduction of unitary authorities. My reservations relate to Clause 12, to which so many noble Lords have referred.

The clause provides for the Secretary of State to take soundings about the level of support in each region as to whether there should be a referendum, taking into account and comparing the different aspirations in different parts of the UK. It is partly because we are also concerned about democracy that we are concerned about the clause. My concern, along with that of so many others, is about how the assessment will be made and how the decision will be taken. Who other than the statutory bodies that the Minister outlined has been consulted? Will the findings be published, indicating why a decision has been taken for or against a referendum?

Nick Raynsford made it plain to the Constitution Committee that there was no reason why a number of regions could not hold their referendums at the same time—except administrative ones. At page 9 of the committee's report, he states that,

"there is certainly no arbitrary limitation to the number of regions that can progress".

I have a real problem with the scenario that in one area regional decisions will be accountable while in the neighbouring area they will not. We may even find that that applies to two sides of the same street.

If one examines the polling evidence on the level of support for assemblies, the Secretary of State will have a difficult job deciding which regions should be allowed to go ahead. The BBC poll conducted in March last year showed that in all regions but the South East there was majority support in favour of assemblies. Even in the South East, the figure was 49 per cent. If I get out of the House in time, I shall attend a meeting this evening in the South East to look at the question of promotion of a regional assembly, so there certainly is some support there.

I appreciate that polling is only a guide, but it has to be taken into account as an indication of support. The polling also indicated that the main reasons for support were that the regions would have a stronger voice in Westminster and Brussels, and that regional development, transport policy, education and the police would be improved by having a democratic regional input. As we have heard, to build on that support, five regions—the North, Yorkshire and Humberside, the North West, the South West, and the West Midlands—have set up constitutional conventions to prepare for the introduction of their assemblies. Expectations have been raised.

If the stumbling block to a number of regions holding referendums at the same time seems to be that the Boundary Committee could not cope, I do not find that a legitimate reason. The resources have to be found in order for it to be able to cope, and for it to carry out thoroughly and impartially the reviews that need to take place. That is particularly important, because the process is a long one. If the number of referendums is limited in the way planned, it could be 2010 before the second wave of elections takes place, even taking into account that, as Clause 25 suggests, Parts 2 and 4 of the Bill will come into force as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent.

It is right and fair that the English regions are given the opportunity to have a new democratic voice, as given to Scotland, Wales and London, so that the people in those regions can be part of the decision-making that affects their daily lives. There will be an interesting debate in Committee, and a lot of detail will be raised and questioned. As I said at the start of my speech, I have supported the English regions having a voice for a very long time. I am glad that decentralisation and democratisation is finally coming to fruition.

My Lords, I think this may be a convenient moment to adjourn the debate on Second Reading. I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Given that heating and cooling buildings consumes approximately half of all the energy used in the United Kingdom, what targets they have for making changes in building regulations to ensure that future designs will use less energy and become more sustainable.

My Lords, in October 2001 we made significant improvements to the energy provisions in the building regulations, which took effect in April 2002. The changes affect both heating and cooling demand. An announcement about further changes will be made in the forthcoming energy White Paper. As well as targeting the construction of new buildings, we are applying the regulations to more work on the existing stock.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. How are the Government and their agencies helping to reach their targets soon through their own procurement programmes and through sponsoring and applying research into new techniques for energy saving and alternative energy systems for buildings?

My Lords, an energy White Paper will be published in a few days' time and it will contain some major announcements. It is axiomatic that the Government want to do what they ask others to do; that is, we want to ensure that our own procurement policies are centred on buying products that do not waste energy. We waste some £5 billion worth of energy a year in this country, and the Government, as a public procurer, must set an example.

My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that, in addition to savings that could be achieved by improved standards for new buildings, a great deal of energy could be saved in existing buildings, but that, due to the low level of energy prices, there is little incentive to do so? Therefore, some stimulus is required. For example, have the Government given thought to the proposal in the PIU report issued a year ago that there should be a 20 per cent saving in energy in domestic premises and have they thought about how that is to be achieved?

My Lords, the answer is "yes", but I ask the noble Lord to await the publication of the energy White Paper, which will contain a robust response to the PIU report. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is right: in some ways, it is trivial to concentrate on new build. There are 25 million dwellings in the country and we build only some 160,000 or 170,000 new ones each year. It is crucial to concentrate on existing stock.

Much to my surprise—things happen in government which Ministers do not always know about—in researching for this Question, I discovered some advice for noble Lords who may be thinking of doing some do-it-yourself at Easter, perhaps replacing windows and so on. Apparently, replacement windows were covered by the building regulations that came into force in April last year. Today, it is not possible to buy, either for do-it-yourself purposes or through contractors, wasteful energy windows. Therefore, work is being done in that respect. That may not be the incentive to which the noble Lord referred, but it is an incentive in that regulations are being used to ensure that good, low-energy products are available for people to use in their homes.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is a problem with the planning authorities so far as concerns listed buildings? Many of us would love to replace our "wasteful" windows, as the noble Lord calls them, but are not allowed to do so. Have the Government given any thought to that?

My Lords, there is always a problem with planning authorities, as I am constantly being told. I do not accept that, just because a building is listed, it is possible for someone to say, "You have to keep the old junk—the wasteful energy windows". Good planning authorities issue advice to owners of listed buildings—they are not always large buildings; sometimes they are small cottages—saying that, if they want to replace windows, they can conform with the structure and history of the building and, at the same time, save energy.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the average householder might well respond to such initiatives if more information were available? Can the average householder be given more information so that, as individuals, we can try to make our houses more energy efficient?

My Lords, in some ways the information is made available through people not having a free hand. People cannot now replace a boiler or change the heating controls on a boiler in a slapdash way that wastes energy. Similarly, the regulations ensure that products on the market force people to comply. It is one thing to explain to people the savings that they can make; it is another to explain that it does not involve rocket science.

Together with my noble friend Lord Whitty, the other day I visited the BedZED project in South London. It is a low-energy use development of some 80 flats organised by the Peabody Trust, and it is a beacon development. Nothing that it contains is rocket science. Yet the household heating and energy bills are infinitesimal compared with those of the dwellings that surround the development.

My Lords, does the noble Lord agree with the statement in the Question that heating and cooling buildings consumes about half of the energy generated in the United Kingdom? Does he accept that?

Yes, my Lords. It is estimated that about 47 per cent of carbon emissions come from buildings: 27 per cent come from dwellings and 20 per cent from other buildings. Therefore, 27 per cent of carbon emissions come from the 25 million dwellings in this country. Thus, the premise of the Question is absolutely correct and we accept those figures.

My Lords, I declare an interest as a non-executive director of the National House Building Council. I agree with the noble Lord. Lord Ezra, that attention needs to be paid to old buildings. However, does the Minister agree that it is important, in particular, to control the use of energy in public buildings such as this palace and museums? It seems that at a certain time of year the central heating goes on and at another time it goes off, and we sweat at the beginning and end of that period. Then the summer comes and the air conditioning goes on and off arbitrarily. There is no regulating control whereby thousands of pounds worth of energy could be saved.

My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord says. In a way, that is because, in the past, the concentration has been on new build. Now, the emphasis is on existing stock. The energy savings possible from new build will always be trivial in comparison with those possible from existing stock—whether public buildings or dwellings. If people took the time and trouble to think the matter through, particularly in relation to public buildings, they could save a fortune, whether in light bulbs or through controlling heating systems.

My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that what he said about the possibility of changes to listed buildings either has been, can be or will be communicated to local councils?

My Lords, my answer to the question was off the cuff in that I have seen leaflets from local authorities put through the doors of listed buildings saying, "If you want to change your windows, here is the kind of design to use"; in other words, there is no ban on changing the windows. People must think through the matter in terms of energy. I do not know whether every local authority deals with the matter in the same way, but I shall be happy to make inquiries.

My Lords, can the Minister reassure us that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not thinking of reintroducing the window tax?

My Lords, I have no comment whatever to make about what might be in the mind of the Chancellor or of anyone else in the Treasury.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they are satisfied with the level of savings and provision of pensions.

My Lords, the Government provide targeted support for the poorest pensioners on top of the foundation of state support for all. Above that foundation, individuals are responsible for deciding the level of income on which they wish to retire. Most people are saving for their retirement in pensions or other assets. But around 3 million people could be seriously under-saving for their retirement, and perhaps 5 million to 10 million people may wish to save more and/or work longer. The Green Paper set out proposals to help those of working age plan more effectively for a secure retirement.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and declare an interest as a former chairman of a company pension scheme. Are the Government not incredibly complacent on the issue of pensions and savings? There is a crisis, which is in danger of turning into a disaster. As a result of the Chancellor's ACT raid on pension funds, many companies have abandoned final salary schemes and are having to top up their funds instead of investing.

Lack of confidence and the Chancellor's obsession with multiple tax credits and means testing is deterring saving. Is it not true that the savings ratio has almost halved under the Government? The Green Paper, to which the Minister refers, is almost universally regarded as a damp squib; so the Government certainly have not provided time to debate it. Can the Minister say what else will be done to solve these problems?

My Lords, I suppose that I should have declared an interest as a former chairman of a company pension scheme, but one cannot do so all the time.

The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is just wrong about the savings ratio. First, the normal definition of a savings ratio is household savings and not national domestic savings, which is a much more useful figure. But, secondly, the current annual savings rate is 6.1 per cent, which must be set against the long-term average of 8.1 per cent. The rate has gone down, but it is still close enough to the long-term average not to be what the noble Lord calls a crisis or a disaster. Of course there are savings problems, but they are not a crisis and they are not a disaster.

My Lords, as we are all declaring interests this afternoon, I declare mine as a pension fund manager. Has the Minister seen the devastating analysis by Credit Suisse First Boston this week, which calculates that 91 out of the top FTSE 100 companies have an accumulated pension fund deficit of £77 billion? That is 93 per cent of their total operating profits last year.

Does the Minister agree with CSFB that the situation looks very bleak and that many companies will have to make additional payments into their pension funds? Will the Department for Work and Pensions and the Treasury now urgently estimate and tell us in the Budget how big a hole those extra payments into pension funds will blow in the corporation tax receipts for the Exchequer?

My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Rooker, I shall not forecast what the Chancellor will say in his Budget. I have read the report by Mercer Human Resource Consulting, which I think is part of CSFB. If I am wrong, I apologise. But it does not make any difference to the fundamental point: we are not in the business of predicting the future of the stock market and how it affects pension funds. The fundamental drivers of a successful economy, which are high employment, low inflation and low interest rates, are in place. They are delivering a secure environment that is conducive to investment and to long-term saving.

My Lords, does the noble Lord recognise that one of the measures to which the Government have attached great importance is the stakeholder pension? Do the Government further recognise that almost universally those who have tried to sell stakeholder pensions have discovered that the cost limit allowed by the scheme simply does not enable them to remain solvent? Will the Government urgently look at the matter?

My Lords, I have reason to doubt the figures of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. There are 335,000 employers involved with stakeholder pensions; 1.5 million stakeholder pensions have been sold; and, rather than cutting down on the benefits of low-cost schemes such as the stakeholder scheme, it is our intention, following the Sandler report to bring the stakeholder pension scheme into what is called the "Sandler suite"; in other words, to extend the range of low-cost products which are to the benefit of savers and investors.

My Lords, is not one of the main reasons why so many final salary schemes and company schemes have gone wrong that the actuaries and the fund managers have got it wrong?

My Lords, there are many reasons why some employers are moving from final salary—defined benefit—and towards defined contribution. Some reasons are good and some are bad. I ran a final salary scheme that was fine for me and my fellow directors but not so good for young people who left the company after a few years. The critical point is that employers should be putting money into their employees' pensions schemes, whether DB or DC. It is in their interests as employers to provide a decent package of employment in a period of high employment.

My Lords, I bear in mind the Minister's statement that he is not in the business of forecasting the mind of the Treasury. He really shrugged off the £77 billion hole in the FTSE 100 companies. To what extent will the pension situation affect the take on corporation tax? There is no question, as the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, said, that it will not affect it: it must.

Secondly, the Minister also said that the savings ratio was not really too far adrift. It has only dropped from 8.1 per cent to 6.1 per cent. That is a 25 per cent reduction. I am afraid—and I should like the noble Lord to deny this—that that reeks of complacency.

My Lords, I still shall not forecast what the Chancellor will say in his Budget. In view of' the renewed interest in the savings ratio, I say look at the economics. The savings ratio is normally counter-cyclical with consumption. It is not necessarily true that a high savings ratio is the best of all possible outcomes from all possible points of view.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it remains their intention to introduce legislation on corporate killing.

My Lords, the Government are committed to introducing legislation to increase corporate liability for manslaughter. We are currently conducting a regulatory impact assessment. This is a routine measure which is undertaken on all new proposals. We shall legislate when parliamentary time allows.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that welcome reply. He will know that in the past 10 years, 3,000 workers and 1,000 members of the public have died in work-related accidents, but that only 11 companies have been prosecuted for corporate manslaughter, and that only four of those prosecutions have been successful. Is he aware how much support there is for the introduction of a new law in this area, which includes not just the national safety organisations, such as the one with which I am associated, but also the TUC, the Law Commission and the Institute of Directors? Can he give an assurance that the regulatory impact assessment will be published when it is complete and, if so, can he indicate when that will be?

My Lords, I am aware of the widespread support to which the noble Lord refers. I can give him an assurance that the regulatory impact assessment will be made public if, when legislation is brought forward, there is evidence of more than negligible costs to businesses, charities or voluntary sector employers. The RIA will accompany the legislation when it is presented to Parliament. Of course it will be placed in the Library of both Houses and it will, reassuringly, be available on the Home Office website.

My Lords, I ask for the law to be changed urgently. It is 10 years since a former constituent of mine was driving along the M1. He was beside a lorry in the adjoining lane, the engine of which disintegrated. Part of it came through the windscreen of my constituent's car and instantly killed him. His wife was able to steer the car into the hard shoulder. At that time, 10 years ago, as the driver was not responsible for the appalling state of maintenance of that vehicle, there was no significant penalty. The law was an ass then. Can it soon be made sensible?

My Lords, the Government's intention is to bring forward legislation, as I have made plain. One of our manifesto commitments was to legislate on this matter. It is a very complex area of law. The whole concept of "controlling mind" behind those kinds of incidents and accidents is a very difficult one to resolve. That is why we have been very careful to consult and to ensure that we get the matter absolutely right. We recognise the benefits of continuing to improve levels of health and safety and reducing the number of accidents. This legislation can contribute towards that.

My Lords, while accepting the tragic case to which the noble Lord opposite referred, does the Minister share my concern that we may be entering into a field of extremely expensive and time-consuming litigation involving a great many safety interests whereas the Government's money would be much better spent in making some modest improvements to the road safety regime, which would save far more lives than this legislation might?

My Lords, statistically the noble Lord may be right. I am not well versed in the number of fatal accidents on the road annually, but about 400 fatal accidents each year arise from work activities. Research by the Health and Safety Executive indicates that in about 200 of those cases, there was likely to be cause for joint investigation that might lead to a prosecution for charges of corporate manslaughter being brought. People will be reassured by the fact that the legislation will be in place and that it may contribute to improving people's health and safety in future. I take the noble Lord's point. We in this country have a good record of dealing with road fatalities and ensuring that their number has been slowly reducing.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the legislation is likely further to increase the claims culture that has grown in this country, having spread from the United States; that it will place considerable increased costs on corporate enterprises and money into the legal system; and that sufferers will benefit little?

My Lords, it is interesting that the noble Lord makes that point. The Confederation of British Industry and the Institute of Directors are broadly in support of the measures being brought forward. As I said, the number of cases will be significant—200 a year. However, I cannot see that dealing with those cases in the way in which we may propose in legislation will lead to an explosion of the claims culture. On the contrary, it will be of great benefit in dealing with health and safety issues and making companies and corporations feel greater responsibility for those whom they employ and the public, who may be adversely affected by an accident at work.

My Lords, bearing in mind that we are talking about the criminal law and not civil claims, can my noble friend tell us what representations the Government have received from the Health and Safety Commission on the matter, and over how many years?

My Lords, the Health and Safety Executive and the Health and Safety Commission fully support the notion of corporate manslaughter and have supported the Government in bringing forward proposals.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the great advantages of strengthening the law in this field would be to ensure that the so-called "controlling minds" of the company will have a strong incentive to introduce compliance schemes whereby all employees clearly understand—better than they may do now—the safety needs of the community?

Yes, my Lords, that is the argument in a nutshell. Many companies support that view, because they, too, want higher levels of responsibility.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

For what purpose personal information about parents is to be included in application forms for higher education.

My Lords, application forms for higher education are a matter for universities. Application for full-time undergraduate study is usually made through the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service, although some universities accept direct applications. It is a matter for UCAS, which is an independent body, what information is collected through the application form.

My Lords, the Government must stop dancing on a pin on the subject. Does the Minister accept that the pursuit of academic excellence, by accepting the most able students, irrespective of creed, colour, background or postcode, is being compromised by the Government on the altar of social engineering?

My Lords, I could not disagree more with the noble Baroness. The Government agree that applications should be judged on merit. There is no question of social engineering. The Government are in favour of people's entry to higher education on merit.

My Lords, is the Minister not aware that moneys are now being allocated on a means-tested basis, which is based on a postcode address? Surely that is unfair and certainly does no justice to the poorer student.

My Lords, the noble Lord is right. Universities recognise the limitations of the postcode address as an indicator. Universities—and UCAS—are therefore discussing a better strategy than that of postcodes. But I reiterate the point: the Government are in favour of access to university education on merit. Our contention is straightforward: large numbers of potentially meritorious students are at present insufficiently considered for higher education.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is something of a contradiction at the heart of their White Paper? On the one hand, they congratulate themselves on making students independent of parents—charging the student, rather than the parent, on a post-graduation basis; on the other, they are making access dependent on parental income. Is that not a contradiction? How do they reconcile it?

My Lords, we are not making access dependent on parental income. As the noble Baroness said, in the White Paper we state that we are concerned to extend opportunity. She is right to say that the new financial arrangements remove the obligation from parents and place it on students in incurred debt over a period. But student opportunities are based on clear applications on merit. The Government need information on parental background to discover whether strategies are being pursued sufficiently to tap into applications on merit forthcoming from those sections of the community that are at present significantly under-represented in higher education.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that because we are not attracting all of the most able pupils into higher education under the present system, some new initiatives are needed that will lead to greater excellence and achievement on the part of the academic community, which is the objective of the Government's policy?

My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend. Let me emphasise a point that I know is well known to the House: it is three times more likely that a student from a middle-class background will cuter higher education than a student from a working-class background. No one denies that applications should be on the basis of merit. The problem, which we all recognise, is that students with merit from working-class backgrounds are not at present applying in sufficient numbers. We are urging higher education to respond to that obvious need, for the sake of both the students and wider society.

My Lords, under the Scotland Act 1998, human rights are reserved to Westminster. How do the Government view the human rights of a young Scots person who finds that his parents and his school—neither of which he chose—block his application to a place at, say, Edinburgh University? I ask that because it was reported in yesterday's press that Edinburgh University is abandoning five centuries of Scots tradition and planning to use entrance requirements other than academic excellence. Will the Minister comment on how the Government view the human rights of such young people?

My Lords, I find it difficult to understand that as being an issue of human rights, given the long commitment of British universities—all British universities—and government policy to the principle that applications should be judged on merit. The noble Baroness is confusing that principle with the position in which the actual achievements of students at 18—for mature students, perhaps somewhat later—should be the sole criteria for entry into higher education, when we all recognise that universities also seek to examine and understand potential. A-levels are an extremely successful guide to higher education potential. However, they are not the only guide.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that when he speaks of full-time students, it is impossible effectively to be a full-time student without parental support over and above the student loan stretching well into four figures? Is he further aware that that is a bigger obstacle to selection on merit than any capable of being created by all the universities in the country? If he believes as strongly as he says he does in selection on merit, will he put his money where his mouth is?

My Lords, the Government are certainly putting their money where their mouth is by significantly increasing the allocation to higher education in this country over the next three years. I understand what the noble Earl says about deterrents to young people entering higher education. Students have always required some degree of support outside the maintenance grant ever since the mid to late 1970s. I agree with him that debt is an important consideration for students. But the noble Earl will recognise that we have introduced a system that guarantees that the student repays over time when able to do so through salary rather then parents being demanded to pay up-front fees.

My Lords, in any case, it would have been a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, with whom I collaborated in 1989 on the details of by-election expenses and overseas voting rights to be included in a Bill that summer. It is not merely a pleasure, but also a privilege, given that she is one of only two Labour Back-Bench Peers who have found it possible to assist the Minister at Second Reading by supporting the principle underlying the Bill.

Some of us are revisiting territory that we covered recently in a similar but more general debate on local government. Had we had a third opportunity, we could have applied the well-known test of the Bellman in The Hunting of the Snark that,

"What I tell you three times is true".

But I doubt whether there will be much change in the asseverations delivered between the two debates.

Although the Bill is about preparations only, the very concept of a regional referendum implies the necessary possible consequence of a regional assembly; thus, the latter is as much a part of the principle of this Bill as the preparations. I have a handful of observations on the latter principle before concluding on the former. I put the cart before the horse, since without the cart the horse would be irrelevant.

First, I appreciate that the Prime Minister's antagonism to Conservatism carries the implication that one cannot learn from the past. In this context, that seems an error. I cite as a single example, recently confirmed by devolutionary experience and alluded to by other of my noble friends, that re-organisation expenditure always dramatically exceeds budget.

Secondly, the Government believe that they have provided a framework for regional development through the regional development agencies. I would be happier to apply the learning-from-the-past thesis if the Government believed that they have also provided a springboard as well as a framework for future regional reorganisation. That would imply a review of the regional development agencies' success to date. DTI figures last year show that RDA target achievement is so far unproven.

Thirdly, the Government believe that regional assemblies will accelerate regional regeneration and reduce regional economic disparity. The doughnut shape of France, which is not without regional development, with the wealth at the centre and poverty on the perimeter, is not only a paradigm of my own concern about the euro Europe-wide: it is a rebuttal of the Government's optimism. Academic work such as the Rowntree Foundation study—I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Best, in his place—also reinforces scepticism about the issue. It is an irony, both on cost and on economic opportunity, that a scheme intended to promote economic expansion has not managed to secure the CBI's support, but, rather, has provoked its opposition.

Fourthly, again in ignoring lessons from the past mode, the Government seem to have forgotten the nation's opposition to the removal of old landmarks and the creation of bland homogeneity. It was not only rural Rutland that objected to its obliteration. More appositely, urban areas such as Avon and Humberside resented their removal from their roots. For incidental and extraneous reasons, I am a minor authority on the Humber and its hinterland. As a small boy in 1947, when the Labour parliamentary majority was of a scale approaching that of today, a schoolmaster rebuked a misdemeanour of mine by handing me copies of Bradshaw and The Times guide to the general election and telling me to devise a railway journey from Edinburgh to where I was at school in the south of England that avoided passing through a single socialist constituency. It turned out that the only feasible such journey involved taking a train to the station on the north bank of the Humber nearest its mouth, walking to the shore and engaging a ferryman to row one across, and then walking from the southern shore to the station nearest to the river mouth.

Fifthly, a rule-of-thumb calculation in another place, which has been echoed by my noble friends today, is that regional representation will comprise one representative for around 150,000 voters. By British standards, it is a pretty remote representation. I acknowledge that European Parliament practice has now moved from individual constituencies to closed regional lists, but I do not think that anyone would argue that that reconstruction has been, to put it neutrally, anything other than unfortunate. The fact that the elephantine regional list is to be maintained in another Bill receiving Second Reading in the House today is another incidental example of the Government ignoring experience. Meanwhile, if we are to have 150,000 voters required to elect each representative, planning considerations will move much further from the individual citizen.

In all those matters, there is a whiff of dogma in the Government's proposals. In that regard, we are lucky that the Minister in charge of the Bill in your Lordships' House is the very antithesis of dogmatic. I can imagine him good-humouredly and relevantly pointing out to me, as he did to the House in his opening speech, that no region is obliged to have a regional assembly unless its citizens so vote in a referendum, and even then the Government retain some discretion.

I conclude, therefore, with two observations about the envisaged referendum procedures. Again, to some degree, I follow paths already taken by other noble friends. The first is the initial hurdle at which the Government will need to be convinced that there is in a region sufficient interest in a regional assembly to justify a referendum. I am less well informed than some noble Lords about the Government's soundings and am mildly surprised that they are going on while the Bill is still before Parliament. But, in response to other noble friends' questions, I shall be interested to hear how the Minister envisages that that interest—what might be described as sufficient interest—will be ascertained and calibrated. I shall be concerned if the Government rely on opinion poll data or their proxies, when voters will know so little of the detail of regional assemblies, and given that incremental costs have an historical record of ballooning. I also recall the Greater London Assembly Bill mushrooming from 270 clauses on introduction in another place to 413 clauses when it passed Third Reading in your Lordships' House.

I always have in mind Enoch Powell's response on "Any Questions?", when, as a capital punishment abolitionist, he was confronted on the panel by the observation that there was an 80 per cent majority vote in national polls in favour of retention of the capital penalty. He said that such data was collected by people with clipboards from people standing at bus-stops—I must allow for mutatis mutandis. He said that, if he had been standing at the same bus-stop with a retentionist, he would have guaranteed, provided that no bus came along for a quarter of an hour, that he would turn the retentionist into an abolitionist by the time that the bus arrived. I agree that the late Enoch Powell was an unusually effective and well-informed advocate. But the principle still applies, especially when interest in the proposition is still general.

My second point on procedure relates to the unfettered right of the Secretary of State to determine the period of the referendum prior to which the Government also have the right to campaign for the principle of the proposition. I speak as a member of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. In its 11th sessional report, the committee said that no minimum or maximum referendum period was prescribed by the Bill. The absence of limits implies that the Secretary of State might vary the periods for different regions. Your Lordships may recall that holding the Welsh devolution referendum precisely a week after the similar Scottish vote may have affected the Welsh result. Thus, the apparently discretionary power pertaining to the Secretary of State is not necessarily insignificant.

All those matters will engross your Lordships' House in Committee, to which I already look forward. If I am briefly absent at any point in the afternoon, it is because the deadline for putting down amendments for the Report stage of the Licensing Bill falls today.

My Lords, the House will be relieved to hear that I intend to keep my remarks brief. I declare an interest as a county councillor of 10 years' standing, and noble Lords may be surprised to hear that I am, broadly speaking, in favour of the Bill—but only broadly. There are two areas of concern. The first is the unnecessary linkage between elected regional assemblies and local government review. The second is the fact that the range of powers envisaged for the assemblies has not been debated, explored and clarified, before the legislation enabling them to be created is considered.

The proposals in the White Paper Your Region, Your Choice still leave far too much power in the hands of Whitehall for my liking. The Government have made a lot of the so-called democratisation of the current plethora of regional bodies, but, in the context of the Bill, that democratisation is a myth. The truth is that all the major delivery agencies, such as the National Health Service, the learning and skills councils, the Highways Agency and the Strategic Rail Authority—to name but a few—will continue to be run strategically from a central location. They will continue to be subject to the baleful influence of Whitehall, with its mania for performance indicators and target setting. Local diversity will continue to be slowly strangled through a regime of government by performance indicator.

The balance of power has not changed. That means that regions will have to adapt their priorities to fit in with those of national government. Once again, we see the obsession with structures over powers. Just as local government is all too often local administration, so regional government will be regional administration. There is a danger that, as in local government, true accountability will be blurred because the people who are elected will be taking decisions that have already been made by central government.

I use transport as an example. A regional assembly with the power merely to recommend is not much of a step forward from the current arrangements, under which representatives of local authorities in a region are mandated to meet in regional fora. Work has been done recently on multi-modal studies. Regional groupings have worked together to create integrated transport strategies to meet the aspirations of the region, not just in transport but in land-use planning, economic regeneration and sustainability. Yet, having made those detailed recommendations, the delivery agencies, all operating on legitimate national targets, say that such regional aspirations do not meet with national priorities and will not happen. People in the regions wonder why on earth the Government asked them to do the job in the first place.

Worse still, the national bodies operate in isolation not only from each other but from regional priorities. They are simply not capable of delivering appropriate transport strategies in the regions. I am not the only person saying that. The Commission for Integrated Transport, of which I am a member, has come to the same view, as has the CBI. The creation of the regional assemblies as envisaged will do nothing at all to address that situation. It is clear to many people that the regional assemblies must have some of the powers that rest currently with the Department for Transport.

The referenda on elected regional assemblies have been linked with local government review. In the context of the Bill, it is irrelevant to debate the relative merits of unitary authorities and two-tier structures. However, I must say that, if, on consideration, the Boundary Committee believes that the best way forward for service delivery in any area is to have a unitary authority, that area should have a unitary authority, regardless of how it might feel about regional government. Conversely, if the committee thinks that two-tier is the best option, why should an area be denied a regional tier of government? If the Government believe, as I do, that the current regional arrangements require democratisation, why should people who vote to keep two tiers of government have to choose between having two tiers and having democratic regional arrangements? That makes no sense to me, nor will it make sense to other people.

What saddens me is that the White Paper made clear that there was no de facto case for local government review in the context of the Bill. There is simply a perception of over-government. Political leadership is about conviction and persuasion. If the Government believe in regional assemblies, they should seek to persuade us that it does not represent over-government. They should not act simply out of fear of that perception.

Shire counties such as Suffolk went through local government review in the early 1990s. It was a shambles because there were no underlying principles relating to the powers of the authorities concerned. It was all about structure. This process looks set to repeat many of the same mistakes and could end up in the same unsatisfactory mess. Councils will face potential upheaval, staff will be threatened and vital services potentially threatened, all to no discernible purpose except a dogmatic adherence to a one-size-fits-all view.

In many regions, including mine—the east of England—it is almost impossible to imagine voters choosing a directly elected regional assembly, if it means that they will lose the shire counties that they understand and trust. In other regions—for example, Cumbria and Northumberland—people risk having their desire to keep their county council over-ridden by other parts of the region that have had unitary government for a long time. That is riding roughshod over their needs.

Noble Lords may wonder why, having said all that, I support the Bill when I have such fundamental problems with it.

It is because you are a Liberal.

My Lords, the noble Earl is right. As such, I believe strongly in the principle of regional government and that it must be there for the right purposes. However, I am a pragmatist. If the Bill is the best that is on offer, I shall go along with it, in the hope that, given time and success, there will be a deepening of the regional dimension to our governance.

It is a pity that the Government did not choose to be bolder. With the Convention on the Future of Europe sitting, the role of this House under the spotlight, the failure of the Commons to deal with legislation as it progresses and the fact that it is unable even to debate the current international situation, the Government should examine the entire constitutional settlement, including regional and local authorities. There is a growing understanding that much of the failure to provide decent public services in this country is due to the fact that our institutions are set up in ways that are rooted in times gone by and are not suited to today. Such constitutional debates are not just a matter of academic discussion: the quality of people's lives—sometimes their lives themselves—depends on them.

My Lords, I am privileged to live in the county of Cornwall, and it is on that county and its future under the proposed regional assembly that I shall centre my remarks.

Cornwall has the strongest identity of all the regions of Britain. Its boundary is sacrosanct, and, throughout the implementation of its Objective 1 regeneration programme, it has shown that it can pull together effectively with its representatives. It is a poor county in money terms. The decimation of the fishing industry, in which my family and I earned our living for so many years, made it poorer still. However, the county is rich in identity. I appreciated the passion with which the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, spoke of her region; it struck a chord with me.

We have tourists, for our coastline is beautiful and our air is clean. They come and they go, putting a strain on our public services for short, hectic bursts, before leaving a county with an ageing population to watch its young people go out of Cornwall to earn a living. That is our problem, and we deal with it. Cornwall is used to being far away from the centre of things and has learnt to look out for itself and is proud to do so.

In the 1990s, the Conservative government set up the Local Government Commission. I was privileged to serve on that body for the whole of its term. As a commissioner, I travelled the length and breadth of England, offering a new option for local government—unitary authorities. I was lead commissioner for Cornwall. Painstakingly, the county considered the case for a unitary authority and, after a lengthy campaign with all sides airing their views on television, radio and in the press, and with the commission team taking the choices to town halls and villages explaining exactly what was on offer, the Cornish people voted overwhelmingly to retain their county and district councils. It was their right and they had exercised it with the choices clearly before them.

This time our people will be asked to vote in a referendum that intends to set up a new institution—a regional assembly. Our SW1 is based a long way from Cornwall where all its major decisions will be taken. Therefore, in our situation, a clear choice is a democratic essential. But how will Cornwall and the rest of the people of Britain know what they are voting for? What powers will the assembly have? How many members will there be? How many voices will there be for Cornwall, with its low population? How will the members be elected? Who will pay the costs? Who pays? We heard the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, speak on that subject in great detail.

Where is the plan? On what basis can anyone vote in a referendum before knowing what they are voting for? The Local Government Association—who should know—believes that coupling the issue of public support for regional assemblies with the requirement to establish a wholly unitary local government system is unnecessary and will distract attention from the overriding objective of improving local services. No evidence was provided in the White Paper as to the need for unitary local government to accompany regional assemblies other than the vague notion that an extra level of government would be one too many and overly bureaucratic—well, well! So why do we need another level over the head of that which we have already which is working rather well, especially in Cornwall where we are rather left to get on with things ourselves as we are too small and too far away to bother about and, like many rural areas, there is not enough votes in us?

Centralised anything is expensive, and slow—very, slow. The further away from the people, the fainter the sound of their voice. Sensitivity to special local geographic and democratic needs gets lost. Cornwall is a long way from anywhere. There will be little sympathy for us. Therefore, we want to see the plan first, so that we know what we are going to be asked to vote for.

I fear that there will be great nervousness and unhappiness over this whole upheaval. The debate in Cornwall now is already dominated by the demand of the Cornish Constitutional Convention for a directly elected Cornish assembly. Despite warnings from Nick Raynsford, the Minister for Local Government and the Regions in another place, that such an assembly would be too small to have strategic vision, the convention believes that there is a chance to achieve its goal.

For 1,000 years and more, Britons have been a free and proud people, a nation of individuals prepared and willing to take responsibility for themselves and their own. Given clear choices in a Bill—not just a consultation White Paper that carries no commitment—and given clear evidence of the need, again Cornwall can make a decision, as it did under the Local Government Commission those seven or so years ago. If not, Cornwall will reject the change. She will dig in and who knows, she might even achieve her assembly.

My Lords, I support my noble friend on the Front Bench. In doing so, I should like to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, that he under-estimated by 50 per cent the amount of support on his Benches. I hope that his other figures are more reliable. Before I begin to—

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I believe that I under-estimated by only one-third.

My Lords, 50 per cent—it depends on which way around one is looking at it.

I shall begin with declaring some interests. I am leader of Wigan; I am chair of the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities; and I am a former chairman of the North West Regional Assembly. Therefore, I have experience at three tiers of local government level. I believe that the North West needs regional government and I have been an advocate for some time. There is not a conflict between the needs of local government and regional government.

I believe in flexibility in government. The Bill gives that opportunity. Those regions which feel that they are not mature enough to move forward to a fully-elected regional government may take that choice. But those regions which believe that they are ready should not be stopped from moving forward in this way. That is important.

There is much debate about what is regional identity. In most cases, regional identity is somewhat stronger than people feel. During the adjournment, I opened an e-mail containing an unpublished MORI poll for the North West. In terms of identity, people identify, first, with the North West region; secondly, with the district; and, finally, with the county. It is an important unpublished report.

The important point is that the ultimate choice will be made by the public. I share some of the feelings of the previous speakers, that maybe the White Paper does not go far enough. But I believe that it is just the first stage. With devolution in Scotland and Wales—and I believe the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, was involved in some kind of devolution in Northern Ireland—the genie is now out of the bottle.

The regions of England will want something themselves—and they will want it for four reasons. A more powerful voice is wanted to represent the regions both in the UK and—dare I say?—in Europe. A great many issues concerning this country are determined in Brussels. Successful regions have good representation in Brussels.

We need to develop more effective regional strategies. I am a frequent user of the West Coast Main Line. I made it to the debate today by the skin of my teeth because the train was late again. I am relying on the train getting me home tonight, but who knows? Transport and other issues relating to the regions need to be addressed. It may be a surprise to Members opposite but, as my noble friend the Minister said, planning is already a regional matter. Powers are not being taken away from local government; a regional dimension in planning is already taking place.

Principally, we want to focus all the regional government that is taking place. It is not a new tier of government; it is happening already. As in every other region, in the North West a complex web is centred on the government office, other government departments and a great number of quangos set up by past and present governments, but there is not much joining-up. There is no public accountability. I want to see more working together. It is inefficient. I agree with the Minister that there could be efficiency savings, never mind costs. Certainly, it is not very effective. Working together will be better for the regions.

I should like to make a commitment, should I be involved, that there should be plans to improve regional economies. The North West has the third lowest GFP per head. It also has the highest number of deprived areas. We must do better. A regional dimension with local people who care about their community and care about the region will do a lot better than in the past.

The support for regional assemblies—despite what noble Lords opposite would like to think—is not just from political anoraks like the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and myself. It is wider than that—it is in the communities. The universities in the North West, now working together in the North West Universities Association, and the trade unions support it. The CBI has been quoted, but the North West Chamber of Commerce, which is a much more representative body of the business community, is in favour of regional government of the North West. Community groups now work at a regional level and public support is there.

My noble friend Lady Gould mentioned a BBC poll in which 72 per cent of the people of the North West were in favour. On analysing the detail of the poll, it was found that 81 per cent thought the region would have a stronger voice; 63 per cent thought that it would be closer to the people; 74 per cent thought that it would improve the economy; 42 per cent thought that it would just be a talking shop; but 49 per cent thought that it would not be a talking shop and would get something done.

We have heard a great number of fears about regional government which need addressing. The question is whether we have the capacity in the regions of the UK to make decisions about what should happen in them. Size does not matter; we all know that. However, the North West, with a population of just under 7 million, is bigger than four EU countries. What is most important in the regions is commitment. If people want it to work, then it will do so.

A number of noble Lords opposite have also mentioned fundamental problems between urban and rural areas in the regions. In the North West, it is feared that Manchester or Liverpool will somehow not allow rural areas to develop. But at the moment the choice is not whether Manchester or Liverpool would do that because London makes decisions in regard to the rural areas. Indeed, I question whether the statement is true. When I was leader of the North West Regional Assembly and foot and mouth disease was at its height in Cumbria, that body organised the first two lobbies of European Commissioners on tourism and structural funds to try to help the hard-pressed Cumbrian economy. We did not forget our rural communities, although clearly the outbreak was not a problem in the urban areas. The rural dimension is false.

Will regional assemblies end traditions? I think that there will still be a Lancashire cricket team. It will continue to play, as it has always done, in what is technically Cheshire across the Mersey and we shall still cheer whenever the team beats Yorkshire. That will not change.

A key question that reflects the fears of the Liberal Democrats is the linkage with local government reform. I agree with my noble friend on the Front Bench and the Government that it will add clarity to governance in local areas. Districts are closer to people than are counties. Ultimately, however, people will have a choice about what is to happen, unlike when the metropolitan counties were set up, which my noble friend pointed out. The strength of the Bill is that it will give people a chance to vote and to choose what is to happen.

Noble Lords have expressed many different opinions and quoted from opinion polls on regional government and so forth. The Bill, however, will provide an opportunity to ask people directly. I look forward to that challenge in the North West. If I felt, as do noble Lords opposite, wary of regional government, I would welcome the Bill and lend my support to it. I would support the referendums. If the proposal is going to be as horrendous as has been implied, clearly there will be no problem about persuading people to vote against it. But I fear that, just as noble Lords opposite were wrong in Scotland and wrong in Wales, they will be wrong in some of the key regions of England.

My Lords, in taking part in this debate, I hope that my contribution may be of some interest because of my lifetime association with the North East of England. I was born in the region and for a great many years represented a constituency there in another place.

The North East is said to be principal in desiring regional government. I hope to indicate that that is not entirely so and that when the full consequences of regional government become evident, it may be that people will not really desire it.

Recently a response was sought of the regional CBI, which indicated only modest interest. The main claim for regional governance, expressed by the Deputy Prime Minister, is that it will improve regional economic performance. I should like to say a word about the current economic performance of the North East. It has improved enormously over recent years from the post-Second World War position, when we saw the decline of major industries and unemployment rates were appalling. As a young MP in the late 1950s, I continually received deputations from people who had been made redundant, often at difficult times of the year such as Christmas. Today, however, the unemployment rate for the region stands at 6.7 per cent; many of us can remember it being very much higher than that. The figure is only slightly above the national average. Although economic performance is desperately important in any region, as the Deputy Prime Minister has rightly pointed out, at the moment the North East is not doing too badly with local government in its present form.

I turn now to the development agency for the North East. One North East has been remarkably successful in attracting new industry to the region. It has done so in conjunction with, and with co-operation from, existing local government. In his opening speech the Minister spoke of government offices and arms in the regions. To that end, the government arm in Newcastle-Upon-Tyne has also been successful and most helpful to the region, both to local industry and to individuals. Whenever I have approached it I have been given the maximum amount of advice and aid.

When regional authorities were first proposed, I joined in the strong reaction against a third level of government. That is not to be and it was good to hear the Minister confirm today that under no circumstances will there be a third layer of local government if regional assemblies are introduced. However, the realisation that one of the two existing layers will be removed is causing great consternation in the North East of England. Recently in Blyth, a town in east Northumberland, the leader of the council stated that he was urging his authority to re-examine its former pro stance for a regional authority because the proposed single authority system would follow a major shake-up of town halls in Northumberland, which is feared by many. I do not think that it is desirable or democratic under any circumstances to have a smaller government unit in the name of local people and local problems.

In the region we call the North East of England, 68 per cent of those entitled to vote in a referendum already live in unitary council areas. I make the point because the unitary council areas cover the densely populated parts of the region. The North East is peculiar in that it has certain densely populated parts along with great and expansive areas of open country. The population of Northumberland is 300,000; it is quite a small county. Indeed, it is the second smallest county after the Scilly Isles. If we have a local government review which deems that there will be a single local government authority in Northumberland, it may well be that Northumberland County Council will become a unitary council. Is not that enormously dangerous in a vast area with a population that is not high? The region is vast in terms of acreage, but not only sheep live there—although there are an awful lot of them—many people live there too, served by excellent local authorities. There is an obvious danger in removing local councillors, thus taking away democratic representation in particular from those who live in the county's rural areas.

What will happen in the region of my birth if a referendum takes place and a "yes" vote is successful? The North East has two county councils: Northumberland and Durham. Both councils are historic, highly regarded and have been in place for a long time. They will go, along with 13 district councils. The members of county councils invariably represent areas which they know and in which they are known. That is an important point. For many years my late father was a member of Northumberland County Council. He was also a borough councillor and his town's wartime mayor. Whenever I was asked how I got into party politics, I used to reply that I was brought up on county council minutes.

District and county councillors are well known locally—I know many in my area—and the advent of regional government would mean a substantial withdrawal from public life of so many who have served so well. People wish to be part of their community, but if we move to regional government, decisions that are now taken by district and county councils will be taken by a body consisting of no more than 30 to 45 members, which, in an enormous electorate, will be remote from local problems and local people.

If a referendum is held—and it is obvious from what the Minister said that it will not be held in a hurry and not until after the local government review—I hope that people will vote "no".

My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of a unitary local authority, Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council, in West Yorkshire. I approach the Bill by looking at it through Yorkshire eyes, although I hope I can see how it will affect other areas.

I speak as someone who is in favour of regional government in England. I believe that there is an appropriate level for decision making. It may well be that on informal matters it is possible to decide at street level where you will have the bonfire on 5th November and whether you will have a street party. There are other appropriate levels—parish, council and regional. We must make clear that there are now regions. The Bill does not introduce a fresh tier; regional levels exist. Above that there are the national, European and United Nations levels

In a way, this is a very odd Bill; it is a comical affair. We have been told that it follows what happened in Scotland, Wales and London. It is a precursor. Or is it an aperitif or mood music? Its title is the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill. To prepare or not to prepare? It is a Boy Scouts Bill. Be prepared—but be prepared for what?

The major element of the Bill concerns referendums—I am not keen on referendums but they took place in the other areas and we must live with that—which will be held to frank regional assemblies and regional government. The appetite for voting is not as high as it used to be. Voting seems to be going out of fashion.

However, the ability to vote is still in fashion and elected bodies are far more popular than appointed ones. Reference has been made to the debates in your Lordships' House in regard to whether we should be an appointed House or an elected House. I believe that a public opinion poll was published in which 3 per cent of those questioned thought that it was a good idea to have an appointed House, and rather a lot more were in favour of an elected House. People have a greater enthusiasm for election than for appointment, and a greater enthusiasm for elected bodies than for quangos.

There are two major elements to regional government. First, decision making is nearer home—and we need clarity in that regard. Secondly—this is a major feature in favour of regional assemblies—there should be fewer quangos. Democratic central government agencies will exist in the regions, not the fiefdoms that exist at present.

I have five questions on which the Minister may wish to ponder or, indeed, to answer. How many, and which, quangos will be put out of business? An answer to that question will raise the enthusiasm for regional government. I believe that the RDAs will be the first on the list, but there must be many more. The Minister referred to voting in the dark. We shall not be voting in the dark if we know how many quangos will be put out of business.

Secondly, when people are asked to vote, will they be clear about what powers will be devolved, how much democracy there will be and how much more can be done nearer home?

As to my third question, reference was made to the element of local government, local government reform and the desire for unitary authorities, agree that it would be better if there were unitary authorities in most places. I believe that there are areas which have been seeking unitary status but which have not yet achieved it. It is interesting to note that in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill reference is made to the Labour 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".

The Government should stick with the word "predominantly" rather than going for wholesale unitary regional government.

As I said, I speak with some understanding of Yorkshire. I am far from clear that North Yorkshire—which extends from Skipton and beyond in the west to Scarborough in the east—would be right for a unitary authority. There are exceptions. I hope that the word "predominantly" is carried forward and that there is not a wish to make every single area a unitary authority. I hope that many areas will want a unitary body, but that will not be the case everywhere.

As to my fourth question, the White Paper suggested that these regional authorities would have between 25 and 35 members. Reference has been made to the fact that in Scotland there are 73 constituency members and 56 top-up members, a total of 129. That is a far better basis for membership. It seems that we shall be grouping together four parliamentary constituencies and then adding some top-up members.

That may be all right for London, where people live just round the corner, but I am not certain that it is right to have so few people representing such vast regions. People in the country will say that if it is good enough for Scotland to have 129 members, surely we should have decent regional assemblies in Yorkshire, the North East, the North West or wherever.

My fifth question is whether, after the Boy Scouts Bill, we shall need another Bill—or will it be eight more Bills? It will be interesting to know what is to happen when we come to the real Bill. I suspect that improvements will be required to this Bill and I look forward to the debates on that. But we shall need to know the framework of the substantial Bill before anyone will be able to not necessarily vote but campaign and enthuse about a new kind of regional government.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland, has raised an extremely good point. The Bill basically says: you may vote. But vote for what? The noble Lord suggested that we might have some idea about what the regional assemblies should vote for. That is the first sensible Liberal suggestion that I have heard for years—since the Parliament Act of 1911.

The noble Lord, Lord Smith, said that it would be immature not to vote for regional assemblies. There are those who may take a different view. We may disagree with him, but the accusation of being immature is not totally reasonable.

Constitutional change is terribly easy. When I was a very young man, and had just arrived in this House, we had the 1971 local government changes. The point was that it could be done; no one was going to argue about it. Yippee! We would make a constitutional change, tear up local government, and change it all again.

We have gone through constitutional change after constitutional change, most of it ill-thought-out. We have had a wonderful example today. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, suggested that, if new regional assemblies are to come about, they should be hybrid—partly democratically elected and partly appointed. He totally fails to make any connection with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who thinks that hybrid assemblies are a bad idea and that they all have to be appointed. I look around me and say that according to the Lord Chancellor we all have to be appointed.

We democrats believe something slightly different—I know that my own side are not sound on this either. We democrats believe that a greater proportion of Members should be voted for. We also see no reason why there should not be some topping up from other sources. I have no difficulty with that. But the Government ought to make up their mind what they believe is right.

Equally, suddenly the Government says that we all have to have the Human Rights Act; and the Act is there because the House of Commons cannot he trusted not to pass tyrannical Acts or to protect an Englishman's liberties—which is what I, as an old-fashioned constitutionalist, thought was its purpose. Then, we pass the Human Rights Act, the judges interpret it in a way that the Home Secretary does not like, whereupon the Home Secretary goes ballistic, and he and the Prime Minister say that they are going to derogate from it.

There seems to be a total lack of cohesive thought in what the Government want to do about the constitution. I know what I want, but I am not in government—many of your Lordships will say what a blessed relief that is, and I would not necessarily disagree with them. But we must begin thinking seriously about this matter.

The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, says that the Bill has nothing to do with Europe. I think there is some cliché somewhere: "The lady doth protest too much". The noble Lord was like a lady protesting like hell. I am afraid to say that I believe that there is a European connection, and a perfectly understandable one.

Europe grew up without common law, without a unitary state. This country was a unitary state before the Conquest. It had a perfectly sensible local authority system very early on; namely, counties, shrievalties and chartered towns. That system worked. We managed to bring it gently up to date, to change it gradually and to make it work for a long time. We were a unitary state.

Germany was not a unitary state, because the French interfered and made sure that the Hapsburgs could not unite it. Spain was not a unitary state, because it was the junction of the kingdoms of Aragon and Castile. Italy was not a unitary state, because the papacy did not wish the emperor to impose a unitary state on it. So the balances of all those continental countries made sure that there could not be a unitary state.

We are a unitary state. We have common law, and it has served us enormously well. To mess about with it because someone has been to a polytechnic constitutional conference in Scunthorpe or wherever strikes me as not being a very intelligent way to approach these matters. We should develop the institutions that we have. We have county councils and district councils; some people want unitary councils, some want split-level councils.

Governments have persistently taken away from local authorities the powers that they had. Before the poll tax of unblessed memory, local authorities raised approximately 50 per cent of their revenue. They now raise some 7 per cent. If local authorities are allowed to use more of the powers that they have and to raise more of their revenue, we shall re-introduce democracy at local level. There is nothing democratic about these proposals. No one is suggesting that, the new regional authorities should have the power to raise tax. No one is suggesting that they should have real powers. It is suggested that 25 people, a few of whom are elected and others who are appointed, should be allowed to boss about some quangos. Only a tax-raising authority can have real power. That is why the Commons has power.

What is happening is this. Ethelred the Unready abolished the Heptarchy. The Heptarchy was a bad idea in 900. Now, John the Totally Completely All Over the Place wants to reintroduce the Heptarchy. That is what these regional assemblies are. They are another layer of totally unnecessary government which will not make any decent improvement in ordinary people's lives or give them any more control. Let us give hack to local authorities the powers to tax and the powers to take their own decisions. That will be much better than a recreation of the Heptarchy.

My Lords, I welcome the Bill. I look forward to a referendum in Yorkshire and Humberside and hope that the referendum supports an elected regional assembly.

Within the Bill there are a number of areas where legitimate points of concern might arise. I hope that the Government are still open to consideration of some of those issues. Your Lordships' Select Committee on the Constitution set out many of these in paragraph 4 on page 3 of its Fourth Report. We shall no doubt explore those issues, along with those raised today and in Committee.

The White Paper, Your Region, Your Choice, published last year provides a backcloth to the Bill. I believe that it does not go far enough. Many important issues concerning the scope, powers and funding of elected regional assemblies are unclear or merit further debate. Do the Government expect that paving legislation regarding the scope, powers and funding of the ERAs will be necessary before the first regional assembly is established?

Would it not be helpful in terms of public awareness, judgment and decision if such legislation were to be published, at least in draft form, before any referendums were held? If that is not done, it rather calls into question the bold claim in paragraph 3.6 on page 32 of the White Paper—repeated by my noble friend the Minister earlier today:

"The general approach to regional assemblies' functions has been to take power from central government bodies and quangos, not from local government".

That claim is central to much of the thinking underlying the Bill and, by implication, any subsequent legislation. Will the legislation to establish elected regional assemblies set out in detail what powers are to be transferred from central government to the elected regional assemblies? Will that Bill set out details of transfers of funding to the elected regional assemblies to support their regional strategic policies in the relevant areas?

I turn briefly to the question of local government, with reference to Yorkshire-Humberside. In terms of population, North Yorkshire represents a small proportion—500,000 out of some 5 million—but it is a very large county. If the purpose and consequence of the move to elected regional assemblies is to transfer power from central government bodies and quangos, not from local government, surely the regional assemblies will not duplicate or triplicate the work of local authorities. That is the Government's claim. Why, then, are the Government set, in principle, on eliminating a tier of local government, where it currently exists, in the event of establishing elected regional assemblies?

If an elected regional assembly is not established, the Government are perfectly happy for two tiers of local government to continue, presumably because it is an effective and appropriate way of delivering local services. If an elected regional assembly is established, taking powers only from central government, why is there the need to change the structure of local government as a principle? I simply do not understand the logic. However, I understand that if the Government had not put forward this proposal, Members on the Opposition Benches would be shouting that this would duplicate, triplicate and multiply costs. It would be encouraging to hear Conservative Front Bench Members saying that that is not the case and they are not arguing about extra costs. I accept that the Government's case is difficult politically, but I certainly do not understand the logic of their position, even if I understand the political imperative.

However, I believe the White Paper's claim to be a considerable overstatement of a transfer of powers from central government to the regions: it could raise expectations unduly. If people are to vote on real, effective regional devolution of power—art important constitutional reform I totally support—details of the scope, powers and financing of the elected regional assemblies should be transparent.

Regionalism is about power as well as general influence. There are whole swathes of public policy where the regional dimension is important and regional vision and drive can make a real difference. I am thinking of such areas as health services, education, learning and skills, transport, the environment and even planning, where recent changes are only a modest start in the right direction.

Increasing the regional sensitivities of Whitehall departments has been a welcome step, but that is not regionalism. It does not strengthen regional identity, regional commitment or regional self-development.

Kirklees Metropolitan Council undertook an exemplary public consultation exercise on the issues raised by the White Paper, and I commend it to your Lordships. It noted on page 4, paragraph 9:

"There is a plethora of organizations operating at regional and sub-regional level. This causes confusion even to those used to working on regional issues … It is not clear who makes decisions and where accountability lies".

The report also observes that if it is possible to divide a central Government budget into eight for regional development agency purposes, it should also be possible to divide it into eight for other key policy areas. But I suspect that the controlling hand of Whitehall and the political self-interest of Ministers are a powerful block on a vibrant regionalism in England. England is one of the most centralised unitary countries in the democratic world. The eventual Bill on the powers and funding of the elected regional assemblies will tell us if anything is to change.

I conclude with a few observations on opinions in the Yorkshire and Humber region. Many local councils have undertaken consultation exercises. Those have, without doubt, raised awareness of the possible referendum process, if not the issues that will lie behind a referendum decision. The Yorkshire and Humberside regional Assembly has undertaken a particularly thorough review of public opinion on whether a referendum should be held. The regional assembly considers those findings on Monday next, and I await its views and assessment with interest.

Most people know little or nothing about the issues of substance behind a possible referendum. For example, work done for the North Yorkshire County Council shows that 75 per cent of residents in North Yorkshire have either not heard of the Government's proposals or, where they have, are unable to explain them. If pressed, I believe that a quiet, if not totally silent and not too committed majority, would wish to have the opportunity to vote in a referendum. I think that people who desire a referendum are in the majority in my region, especially if other regions were to have a referendum, which would lead to the problem of timing.

If people are pressed on how they would vote if a referendum were held, the silence is even louder. There may be differences of views between the rural and urban areas in the Yorkshire-Humber region, but those differences may not be as strong as some might expect. In the study by North Yorkshire County Council 59 per cent of people in that county support the idea of a referendum. Based upon the minority of people who say they would vote, 61 per cent said they would vote for an elected regional assembly. That was in North Yorkshire, outside the big urban heartlands.

Interestingly, the effect of restructuring local government in North Yorkshire was as likely to cause people to vote for a regional assembly—46 per cent—as against—44 per cent. So although I have grave doubts about the principle underlying the Government's pragmatic, political decision to go for unitary authorities, it may come as a surprise to some that in North Yorkshire there is no overwhelming desire to keep a two-level, two-tier body.

If a referendum is to be held in my region—and I hope it is—there is a great deal to be done by proponents and opponents of the move to elected regional assemblies if a turnout is to be respectable and the electorate's decision a clear guide to the Government. The Bill is a paving Bill in that process. I wish it well, but I hope that the Government are able, even at this stage, to listen to some of the concerns expressed in this Chamber.

My Lords, I shall concentrate my remarks on the likely implications for economic performance at regional level if the Bill is enacted and regional assemblies are established.

First, I should like to comment on the Government's attitude to local and regional government in England. Unless we understand that, it is difficult to make sense of the White Paper. It uses some splendid language, to which the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, referred, and raises one's expectations for regional government. Yet when one looks at the powers envisaged for regional assemblies, one sees a great roar that has produced a mouse.

I was fortunate in getting a double insight into government thinking when I attended a meeting of the Campaign for Yorkshire in Leeds a couple of weeks ago. The speakers included Ed Balls, speaking for the Treasury, and Richard Caborn, who was of course largely instrumental in getting the idea of regional government in England moving in government.

Ed Balls talked about various small additional powers that local government might get and said something like, "local government has to earn greater powers". Richard Caborn, when describing with great satisfaction the fact that the RDAs now had greater discretion within the single pot, said that that had been possible because they had earned greater flexibility, and that the powers given to regional government would have to be earned. We on these Benches reject that approach completely. We believe, as a matter of principle, that maximum powers should be devolved to local and regional level. We do not take it as axiomatic that national government have earned all their powers. In many cases, they have simply grabbed hold of powers from local government, not least because, in some cases, the government of the day did not like the polices adopted at a lower level.

However, there is a silver lining in the Government's approach. The White Paper implies that if regional assemblies exercise their minimal powers wisely, further powers will be given to them. I hope that the appropriate analogy is that of the European Parliament. It started off with minimal powers and very low understanding but has acquired significantly greater powers because the logic of the European Parliament, and its role within the EU, has become apparent. Governments have given the European Parliament greater powers because they feel that it has a more powerful role to play.

To return to the economic case, one can see how elected assemblies would help the regions at regional, national, European and international levels. At the regional level, the RDAs have made significant progress, not least in developing regional economic strategies—concepts that, to the extent that they existed, were not put into effect before, but are now being produced as a result of a huge amount of consultation, involving the energies of large numbers of people. RDAs have been criticised in this debate for not yet having achieved a major shift in regional disparities. Given their short life and small budget, that seems unfair and misleading.

The problem with the RDAs as the main drivers for regional economic development is that many of the things that they wish to happen fall outwith their powers. An obvious example involving the Yorkshire and Humberside RDA's regional economic strategy relates to the role of culture in the region. The RDA has many powers, but it has no power or significant influence over cultural development, nor should it. Without a regional assembly, it will be impossible to bring together those other elements of regional life, which breathe life into and strengthen the economic strategies.

The role that the RDAs claim for themselves of knocking heads together at regional level to produce coherent delivery of economic policy is not best suited to a nominated body. If anyone is suited to that work, it is the elected politician who has a mandate.

Secondly, English regions currently have very limited ability to lobby effectively on economic matters at national level. When the Yorkshire and Humberside RDA launched its regional economic strategy a couple of weeks ago, I chaired a small working group on transport policy. Everyone in the room rapidly agreed that the major problem was that there was no body within Yorkshire that could lobby at national level for improvements in transport, whether it was the railways, airports or transport within the region. When I took that conclusion back to the plenary everyone nodded their head wisely, but it was clear that nothing was going to happen as a result of that conclusion because the RDA is not in a position to become an effective lobby at national level. The only people who can come down to Whitehall and Westminster and berate the Government are elected politicians with their own mandate. Only an elected assembly will be able to lobby for public economic goods.

There has been some discussion today about the Barnett formula. Does anyone believe that the Government will change the Barnett formula unless there is tremendous pressure on them to do so? How can tremendous pressure be brought to bear at the moment from the English regions when there are no regional bodies with any weight that can come to London and berate Ministers? Again, unless we have directly elected regional assemblies able to look a Minister in the eye and say, "We have a mandate", we shall not get a significant response from Whitehall.

Thirdly, regions need to be stronger in European negotiations. There will soon be a major renegotiation of the structural funds to take account of EU enlargement. The inevitable consequence will be a reduction in the proportion of the structural funds coming to the UK. To protect the level of structural funds coming to London, Ken Livingstone, as an elected regional leader, has had the political clout to pull together other cities and regions to make the case for an urban strand in future structural funds. The other English regions have no elected politicians with the clout and remit to undertake a similar role. As an inevitable consequence, the regions will lose out in the political horse trading that will precede any decision on the future of structural funds.

Contrast that with the growing and deepening involvement of regions across the EU with the economic development agenda. They are not doing that for fun or on a whim. They know that in the competition for jobs and investment, clear and firm political support really matters.

That takes me to my fourth and final area—the international links that regions increasingly feel the need to build up to generate trade and investment. I shall illustrate the current nonsensical situation with an instance involving Yorkshire Forward, in which I was involved. Yorkshire Forward has signed an agreement with the Zhejiang province in China, by which the two areas agreed to work together to promote trade, inward investment, tourism and other links between them. It makes a lot of economic sense for an English region to have a strong link with the largest and fastest growing economy in the world.

However, when a delegation of senior politicians, administrators and businessmen came to Yorkshire to get the agreement moving, the RDA had the difficulty of having no one at Yorkshire level to speak to them, so I was dragged into the meeting in Leeds to pretend to be the equivalent of the vice-governor of Zhejiang province—population 45 million—and explain that, although at the moment things at regional level were pretty weak, the Government were about to enable a regional assembly to be put in place that would be able, in part at least, to replicate what the regional bodies were doing in China. In accordance with the RDA's strategic goal of linking sporting success to regeneration and regional pride, I then marched the Chinese delegation to Elland Road for one of Leeds United's fortunately successful UEFA Cup matches in the early autumn. Much as I enjoyed the whole experience, I felt it was slightly ludicrous.

For all those reasons at all those levels, the economic development agenda of the English regions needs the buttressing of elected regional assemblies. Even with the limited powers in the Green Paper, many of the things that I have described will be possible. I hope that if and when there are regional assemblies in the northern regions and they are successful in moving forward the economic development agenda, the government of the day will use that as a basis to strengthen what is proposed so that what is now a second-rate, milk and water proposal for regional government becomes the real thing.

My Lords, as I have said on other occasions, I may be less hostile to the concept of regional government than are some of my noble friends. I have seen regional authorities in different forms in different countries in Europe. Despite the difficulty of transposing political structures and systems from one jurisdiction to another, there is no doubt that in those countries they enjoy some real advantages. Incidentally, like the Minister, I do not accept that this is a dastardly scheme from Brussels. I look forward to hearing later speakers this afternoon put forward the evidence that it is, which was trailed in Christopher Booker's column in the Sunday Telegraph.

Nevertheless, I remain sceptical about whether those advantages will ever be achieved in England or whether the centralising political culture of this country, which exists even when we are trying to decentralise, will bring forward proposals of any worth.

I have real reservations about the concept of regions in this country. Few areas have a clear sense of regional identity. Many people have loyalties to different places for different purposes, but they do not fall neatly into the regions that the Government have in mind.

As I have said in previous debates, there is much to be said for ensuring that there are statutory mechanisms—better mechanisms than exist at present—that enable existing local authorities to work together. They might achieve much of what is behind the idea of a regional assembly, but without the disruption that will undoubtedly follow this Bill. My fear is not that the Bill will set up another sphere of government that will weaken central government and Parliament, but that it will be just another local government reorganisation that will weaken all the local government structures in the regions in question.

The suggested powers include economic development, transport, land use and regional planning, environmental protection and public health, but not many of the major issues to which the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, referred. The Bill says nothing about the powers of regional assemblies. The noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, dwelt on that matter at some length and very clearly. I have great sympathy with the view that we should not approve the Bill until the Government give a clear and unambiguous statement as to what precisely the assemblies will do and how they will be financed. The proposals will be worthless unless there is a real devolution of power to the assemblies, not one that is hedged about by so many controls that, in effect, they are the creatures of the Deputy Prime Minister or his successor.

Much has changed since I left local government in 1998, but I am bound to observe that much of what is trailed as powers of the regional assemblies is not a million miles away from the concerns of local authorities then and, I believe, now. There is nothing to suggest that there will be a ground-breaking experiment in England to hand real power and functions to regional assemblies or even local authorities, on the Scandinavian model. Why, if we are to have devolution, are the English assemblies to be less trusted than the Welsh Assembly? If it is because the English assemblies are going to be a different creature, it can only be because it is going to be a local government creature.

Will the Minister expand on Clause 23 and the grant-aiding powers for regional chambers? I was under the impression, as I am sure that other noble Lords were, that with the advent of regional assemblies, the chambers would go. However, the Deputy Prime Minister waxed lyrical about the success of regional chambers. He said:

"They have taken on an increasingly significant role … At present, the chambers get most of their funding from local authorities. As the role of the chambers expands, in particular on planning, a more general funding mechanism is needed".—[Official Report, Commons, 26/11/02; col. 196.]

Can we have a categorical assurance that where there is an assembly there will not be an RDA, a regional chamber and, indeed, the assembly?

I have great sympathy with the views expressed on the reorganisation of local government as a consequence of a positive result of a referendum on the establishment of a regional assembly. If devolution and decentralisation are the names of the game, why must a region that has voted to have an assembly with devolved powers have a system of local government thrust on it? If devolution means anything, it must be that regional government can decide the system that it considers best for the delivery of local government services. In rural areas, smaller units for the delivery of some services may be more appropriate.

I remain sceptical about the Bill. There is a suspicion that the Government must propose the abolition of the counties if the Bill is to have anything to offer the new regional assemblies. This is a Bill to reorganise local government and, yet again, to shuffle the services between one tier and another. The resulting local government reorganisation will sour relations between communities for years and cost a fortune. It is a proposal not to give power to the regions but to create larger units of local government.

I turn to the vexed question of boundaries. It would be right for the Boundary Committee to conduct a timetabled exercise on the boundaries of the proposed regions. When the Regional Development Agencies Bill was before your Lordships' House, a number of noble Lords raised the question of boundaries. Concern was expressed that using the boundaries of regional offices for the purposes of establishing RDAs might give a hostage to fortune when the proposals were made, which were already being trailed, for regional assemblies.

At that time, I moved an amendment that would have placed the decision on the boundaries in the hands of the Boundary Commission. It was an attempt to deal with the problem of deciding on the extent of each region with the intention of ensuring that a real community of interest existed. The Government resisted that amendment and similar pleas from my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon and other noble Lords. It was resisted largely on the grounds that the future was not being prejudiced. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in resisting the amendment, said:

"This Bill is not concerned with making RDAs accountable to regional assemblies in the first place … However, we made clear our intention that in time the people in the regions of England will have the opportunity to decide whether they wish to move to a more decentralised form of government. But it is at that time, and not now, that there will be a case for putting our RDAs into a regional democratic framework and for considering the boundaries of that democratic framework … If and when regional assemblies are established, there will clearly be a need for new primary legislation to establish them. Parliament will then have the opportunity to consider the extent and the boundaries of the regions proposed in that context. We are not committed to using these precise boundaries for regional assemblies at a later stage … The Boundary Commission does, by and large, determine electoral boundaries, but that too is a matter for consideration when that legislation emerges".—[Official Report, 7/10/02; cols. 441–42.]

He went on to say that the amendments,

"would place the decisions on the boundaries in the hands of the Boundary Commission. We do not consider that to be appropriate. Although I take very much the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about the appropriateness of the Boundary Commission for reviewing electoral constituencies, we are not involved with electoral constituencies or bodies of democratic accountability here; we are dealing with development agencies and the administrative areas of those development agencies. It would not be appropriate, given the expertise and the system of working that the Boundary Commission has adopted in the past, to apply it to this area.

We understand that some of the concerns behind this proposition relate to the presumption discussed on the earlier amendments that we were using the same boundaries for future purposes. I hope I have made clear my assurances on that".—[Official Report, 7/10/02; cols. 453–54.]

Will the Minister table an amendment in Committee that will enable us to consider the boundaries of the regions? He said that there was a power to change the boundaries some time in future. Is he relying on the RDA Act, which gives the Secretary of State the power to review but not increase or decrease the number of regions? I fear that we are being asked to approve a Bill that will give the Secretary of State powers to hold a referendum in a region established by previous Secretaries of State and governments as a matter of administrative convenience. That referendum will be to decide whether there should be a regional assembly without, as yet, any specified powers. It is not known how it will be funded, and local government will be reorganised or abolished in the region before any of the questions are answered.

Far from devolving power, this is an extraordinary sleight of hand that takes power away from people and their region and puts it in the hand of Government.

My Lords, the campaign to get elected regional government on the parliamentary agenda has taken a considerable time. I welcome this Bill as the first long awaited step. Like my noble friend Lord Woolmer of Leeds, I look forward to the referendum.

I shall confine my remarks to the North East region, which has its own identity. Last Friday, I attended a memorial service for Joe Mills OBE, a great northerner. He was chairman of the Northern Regional Labour Party and was always a strong advocate of elected regional government. I pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, to my right honourable friend Joyce Quin M P, to the right honourable Alan Beith MP. and to the many others in the region who have long spearheaded the campaign for an elected regional assembly.

It was over a quarter of a century ago, in 1976, that I attended a meeting in Newcastle at which my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister showed his enthusiasm for elected regional assemblies. Unfortunately, that meeting took place during the period of the ill-fated Scottish and Welsh devolution Bills, during the 1974–79 Labour government. The meeting was attended by some cynics who felt that that policy had been trotted out as an act of appeasement to various northern Labour MPs who were not too happy about the Scottish and Welsh Devolution Bill. I should point out that some of the MPs who showed opposition did so not because they were totally opposed to devolved government for Scotland and Wales, but mainly because they maintained that Scotland and Wales already had tremendous advantages over the northern region where there was not even a regional development agency.

In his maiden speech, on 20th November 1976, after winning the by-election in Newcastle Central, and referring to the passage in the Queen's Speech on devolution, my old comrade, the late Harry Cowens, said:

"If there is to be devolution, adequate safeguards for cities like Newcastle are vital. Without them the situation would be like the attitude of a person who had tried for a considerable time to win one of the minor prizes on a football pool only to discover the person living next door winning a very big one".—[Official Report, Commons, 24/11/76; col. 112.]

That was the situation at the time of the introduction of the famous—or as many now see it, the infamous—Barnett formula.

On Tuesday, 28th January 2003, there was a very good report in the Newcastle Journal by Paul Linford, following a Question tabled by my noble friend Lord Barnett. The article pointed out that, according to Treasury figures, under the Barnett formula, Scotland receives £410 per head more than the North East in government spending on vital public services. Moreover, under the formula, Wales receives £215 per head more in public spending than is currently available to the North East. If the North East received the same overall government funding per head as Scotland, it would be worth an additional £1.1 billion to the region. I appreciate the earlier comments of the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, but the creation of a regional assembly will not in itself change the Barnett formula. I believe that an elected regional assembly would be able to make a strong case to the government of the day for a fairer and better settlement for the North East.

On 18th December 2002, in a debate on the constitution, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, said:

"It is about 175 paces from the Speaker's Chair in the House of Commons to the Woolsack here … Frankly, at times the distance between them could as well be 175 miles. We live in different worlds that seldom come together".—[Official Report, 18/12/02; col. 672.]

If noble Lords will just double that 175 miles, they will have some idea of how remote people from the area where I was born and bred feel about some of the decisions made in their name in Whitehall. There are many people in the North East who feel at times totally disconnected from the centres of power in London.

During the time that I served in another place as MP for the Jarrow constituency, Scotland and Wales had both their own Secretaries of State in the Cabinet and other Ministers. They had their own Grand Committees. They had their own Select Committees. They had their own Question Time. The regions had a committee, but, because it was a Standing Committee rather than a Select Committee, it had no permanent secretariat, did not control its own agenda and could meet only if the Minister tabled a Motion. We could never get the then Tory government to table such a Motion so that we could have a debate on the Floor of the House about the problems facing the North East. As Opposition MPs, we had to use half our supply days each Session to talk about the problem in the North East.

The 2001 census results reveal some shocking facts. They show that the North East region has England's highest rate of people in poor health, the highest proportion of adults with no qualifications, and the highest number of people who are economically inactive and permanently sick. Since the devolution of Scotland and Wales in 1999, people living in the North East can look across to Scotland and see free personal care for the elderly and students no longer paying tuition fees. They can look across to Wales and see improvement in a series of policy areas, from free bus passes for the elderly to the reintroduction of free school milk. Indeed, just recently we had a situation in which Welsh MPs in another place voted to abolish community health councils in this country while CHCs have been retained in Wales. In South Tyneside, we lost our good community health council, with which I worked for many years.

I can understand the reservations expressed today about having one tier of local government. I served on Jarrow Borough Council under the two-tier system with Durham County Council. After the Local Government Act 1972, I went on South Tyneside Metropolitan District Council. I know which I prefer. However, when I hear Tory MPs and Tory Lords and Baronesses talking about local government reorganisation and referendums, I recall that there was no referendum before the 1972 reorganisation was forced on the people. When they talk about costs, I recall that the costs of the 1972 reorganisation were colossal.

There is support for an elected regional assembly in the North East. A poll carried out last March by the BBC showed that 72 per cent of people in the North East region favour such an assembly. About the time of the Jarrow Crusade, in 1936, when 200 men marched 291 miles to London with a petition to draw the government's attention to the unacceptably high level of unemployment in the town, a small deputation from Jarrow Council went to see the then President of the Board of Trade about the terrible situation in our area. However,

"He told them to go back and work out their own salvation".

Now, almost 70 years later, I believe that an elected regional assembly will offer a real opportunity for the North East to set its own priorities. The regions will be able to make many decisions for themselves and set their own agenda based on the needs and views of the people in the area.

Some argue that an elected regional assembly would create an extra regional tier of government. However, as my noble friend Lord Rooker pointed out, a regional tier of government already exists—consisting of central government outposts staffed by civil servants as well as numerous unelected and unaccountable quangos which daily make key decisions affecting people's lives in the region.

I recall, as chairman of the housing committee of South Tyneside Metropolitan Council, going every year to the Government Office at Welbar House, in Newcastle, and arguing with civil servants for what we considered adequate finance for the Housing Investment Programme. I hope that an elected regional assembly will make the system more accountable by bringing all the regional quangos under a single, democratically elected body. To those who argue that those who want a regional assembly must be mad, I say, "Look at the 2001 census returns for the North East and see where the sane ones have got us".

I should like, finally, to reiterate the points made on the desirability of having a draft Bill printed before the referendum. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will seriously consider that. However, I assure him that he will have my utmost support in getting the Bill on the statute book.

My Lords, speaking after so many erudite contributions, there does not seem to be much more to say about the detail of this unfortunate and dangerous Bill. As my noble friend Lady Hanham made clear, it is open to unacceptable manipulation by the Secretary of State, among its other defects. But I have one question for the Minister arising from his opening remarks. He referred to Clause 12 of the Bill and told us that soundings are being taken on the levels of local interest in having a referendum at all, with a closing date of Monday 3rd March.

I am told that in some areas, and maybe everywhere, if one writes on the form that one is against a regional assembly, that is taken as "expressing an interest" and therefore counts in favour of a referendum. I find it hard to believe, but I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that that is not happening and, if it is happening, that that is not the conclusion that is reached.

The Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, assured us that the Bill does not represent another attempt by the corrupt octopus in Brussels to wrap one more tentacle around what remains of our sovereignty. To those who have watched the steady erosion of our sovereignty to the European Union over many years, I fear that those assurances do not cut much ice.

That is because with every new loss of our democratic freedom we always start off by being told by the government of the day that, whatever the threat is, it does not exist, that it is just a figment of the imagination of some academic think tank, that any Euro-realist who thinks that he has spotted some new advance by the corrupt octopus, is simply over-excited or worse. Then we move to the next phase of the procedure: "Okay, so the European Commission is proposing it, but there is no stomach for this with our EU partners". Then we are told, "Well, some of them want it, but we shall argue vigorously against it in the Council". Then when the United Kingdom has given in or has been out-voted, we get the final insult: "There is nothing particularly new in this and anyway you were warned". Thus the ratchet grinds eternally forward and indeed, as I am sure the Minister knows, the treaties state that it cannot go backwards. So, with European regionalisation, we are now at the first phase: "It's not happening". I am grateful to the Minister and to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for confirming that and for playing so true to form.

I hope it will be helpful if I try to point out why this Bill, and the whole project of European regionalisation, are indeed central in the strategy of those who wish replace the nation states of Europe with a mega-state in the shape of the European Union, sometimes referred to as a "Europe of the regions". I would have thought that now there can be no doubt that that is indeed what many in Brussels—perhaps most—want to achieve. After all, as I have pointed out to your Lordships before—most recently on 18th December in our debate on the constitution—the European Union already has its own parliament, executive, supreme court, currency, trade policy, flag and anthem. The convention on the future of Europe, chaired by Valery Giscard D'Estaing, aims to complete the process by granting the EU its own army, foreign policy, police force, tax and legal system. Above all, it appears that the EU is to have its own legal personality enshrined in a new written constitution, setting the new European order permanently above the nation states. If all that does not add up to a state, then I do not know what does.

To discover where regionalisation fits into the dream, or rather nightmare, depending how you look at it, one need not look much further than a document recently put out by the EU's Committee of the Regions, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred as the innocent little think tank that always comes into these projects at an early stage. The document is entitled Major Steps Towards a Europe of the Regions and Cities in an Integrated Continent. In a series of diagrams this document lays out the building blocks to be used in the creation of regional government in all EU countries. There are sections marked "Genesis-, "Breakthrough", "Consolidation" and "Further Integration and Enlargement"—the same kind of process that I described in somewhat less elegant terms earlier—which explain how the Council of Europe and a variety of European regional associations have been working towards this grand goal since the 1960s and which show how each new treaty has linked into and furthered the process. I suppose that this Bill starts to lead us from "Genesis" toward "Breakthrough".

Under the Committee of the Region's master plan, the UK is broken up into 12 regions, each with a regional assembly in direct contact with the Committee of the Regions in Brussels. The diagrams in the pamphlet make no reference to Westminster, and the word "England" does not exist anywhere. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland retain their identities but England is replaced by London and eight regions: East Midlands, Eastern, North East, North West, South East, South West, West Midlands and York and Humber. I wonder whether any of that sounds familiar to your Lordships. It should do because they are the same constituencies from which we send members to the European Parliament, as we saw from the earlier Bill today. So, my second question to the Minister is how the boundaries proposed in the Bill may eventually fit with those constituencies or can he assure us that they never will?

Whatever the answer to that question, the plan is that before long the Committee of the Regions will cease to be something of a talking shop, as we move from "Breakthrough" to "Consolidation", as the regions get ever greater tax raising powers and as Brussels takes over their control.

I hope that that gives some flavour of what this Bill could really come to be about. But I want to spend some of my time today looking at what is going on in the minds of those who wish to impose their grandiose dream on the peoples of Europe. Why on earth do they want to do it and why is regionalisation so important to them? As far as I can see, put very simply, they confuse patriotism with nationalism and they believe that the modern democratic nation state represents a threat to peace. So it must be broken up and neutralised and diluted into their new European cocktail. Indeed, the idea that the EU will somehow procure peace seems to be the deep, central idea which underpins the European dream. There are other bad ideas, of course, which I do not have time to deal with today, such as that the EU is good for trade, when it would be far better if the democracies of Europe entered free trade arrangements with each other and were linked otherwise only through NATO.

But the central assumption is that the EU will secure peace, which the continued existence of the nation state would endanger. We Euro-realists think that that is a dangerous assumption, because we remember the lessons of history and accept the realities of human nature. Those teach us quite simply that on the whole democracies do not provoke wars, whereas forced conglomerations of different peoples and nations nearly always end in disaster.

Of course, the EU is a top-down creation, structurally and incurably undemocratic. Apart from the remaining communist states, it must be the only institution on the planet which pretends to be a democracy, but whose bureaucracy, the corrupt and incompetent Commission, enjoys the exclusive rights to propose legislation and to conduct international affairs. So we Euro-realists say that the Eurocrats have chosen a very dangerous model. We say that democracy is the guarantor of peace, not this frightening creature which is taking shape in Brussels.

While on the subject of peace, we also think that the Europhiles have a brass nerve when they claim that the EU has been responsible in any way for peace in Europe since the last war. NATO kept the peace in Europe since 1945 and NATO will continue to do so if it is not undermined by the EU's absurd new army. Is anyone seriously suggesting that any country in the EU would have declared war on another in the absence of the EU? I hope not.

Brussels' ambitions to break up the nation states and assume their powers are not confined to its Committee of the Regions. Those ambitions are widely shared by Europhiles everywhere and have been for some time. For example, as long ago as 1994, Charter 88 group published a speech by Mr Neal Ascherson, a member of the Federal Trust Round Table, of which I gather Europhiles like Mr Charles Kennedy, Mr Peter Mandelson and the BBC's political editor, Andrew Marr are also members.

A brief quote neatly reflects the ambitions of Brussels and the Committee of the Regions:

"increasing unity at the European surface and increasing diversity at regional level are in fact parts of a single development, the weakening of the nation state. That is why Maastricht not only designed fresh steps towards supra national unity, but also instituted the Committee of the Regions".

That was written two years after Maastricht.

So I have only one other question for the Minister. I feel sure that he will dismiss my remarks, if he is good enough to refer to them at all, as unfounded, exaggerated, and generally the product of my fevered Eurosceptic brain.

My Lords, I confirm that we are not planning regional armies.

No, my Lords, but the European Union is planning its own.

So the question is this: will the Minister come to the Dispatch Box with his hand on his heart, and give an unequivocal assurance on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, that the regionalisation envisaged in the Bill will never and could never, and I mean never, lead to the kind of dominance by Brussels and the European Union which I have described? I look forward to his reply.

My Lords, first I must declare that I am leader of Essex County Council. Perhaps I should also declare that I am the leader of the Conservative group on the Committee of the Regions in the UK. I shall have a discussion with my colleagues some time about that committee; I think that there are certain misunderstandings about it. At this stage of the debate, many of the messages have been put over. I shall repeat some of the issues, but they are worth repeating, because we have to make a lot of very difficult decisions on the Bill.

Although I am a firm supporter of transferring power from central government to the local community and am a strong believer in strengthening local democracy, I cannot support the proposals for devolution to the English regions as they stand. I have three principal reservations about the Bill. First, the regions in question are meaningless to most people in most parts of the country. Secondly, the creation of regional assemblies will lead to the abolition of county and district councils. Public services will he severely disrupted. The young, the vulnerable and the needy will ultimately pay the highest price for local government reorganisation. Finally, people will be asked to vote in referendums on the grey proposals of a White Paper. People should go to the polls to vote on the black and white substance of legislation.

Any consideration of regional government must start with the regions themselves. As I see it, England has been carved into eight convenient units. Originally created for administrative purposes, they lack any cultural, social or historical identity. Why manufacture regions? Many parts of England already have a natural identity. Consider my own county of Essex. With a population of 1.3 million people, it is larger than 13 American states. By European standards it is large enough to be a region in its own right. Historically, it was a kingdom before England was unified 11 centuries ago. It is a unit of government that people instinctively understand. The 100,000 London commuters who live in Essex look to the capital, not the so-called East of England.

I have been quite disturbed by much of the debate. I do not think that people understand what counties do or what they are. Most of the people who have spoken are not from a county background or have been on county councils. We have a devolved unit in this country—the counties. They are historically devolved and should stay that way. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, mentioned that the Yorkshire and Humberside region had dealings with China. Essex County Council has an office in China, as we have trade in China. Counties can undertake such dealings; we do not need regions to do it.

Regions must be more than mere compass points on a map. People will support regional assemblies only if they recognise themselves as being citizens of the regions that the bodies will represent. I fear that we are going through all this simply because of three parts of the country—the North East, Yorkshire and Humberside, and perhaps the North West, although not everything is certain there The White Paper on regional devolution is entitled Your Region, Your Choice. Arguably, the Government have chosen regions for their own convenience. They are the Government's regions; it is the Government's choice.

Consulting people about meaningful regional boundaries is the first and most crucial step towards securing effective regional government. It is the key to encouraging people to vote in regional elections. It is the cornerstone on which regional government will stand or IA. That is why we are talking today. As the leader of a large local authority, I have grave concerns about tying elected regional assemblies to local government reorganisation. I was a serving councillor when local government structure was reviewed in the 1990s. There was little appetite for unitary authorities in many historic counties then. There will be no more now.

The threat of local government reorganisation will inevitably distract councils from the vital task of delivering quality public services. In my own administrative region, the East of England, the Audit Commission has judged the performance of five out of the 10 councils to be good. One local authority, Hertfordshire County Council, has been rated "excellent". Under regional assemblies, good and excellent councils will he dissolved. Councils that have been through a rigorous comprehensive performance assessment, have proven corporate capacity and have developed strong partnerships with their stakeholders will be dismantled. They could be replaced with untried and untested unitary authorities.

The taxpayer will shoulder the significant financial burden of reorganisation. As I said, public services will face inevitable disruption. As the Bill stands, the Secretary of State will have the power to call repeat referendums in regions that have rejected regional government every five years. Local authorities will be forced to operate in a climate of uncertainty if the issue keeps coming back. Forward planning and continuous service improvement will be undermined by the constant threat of reorganisation.

The Government believe that a regional tier of government is "one tier too many". That overlooks the different demands that different tiers of government are uniquely placed to meet. District councils are able to respond to local needs. A county council meets the economies of scale needed to deliver strategic services such as education and social care. If we introduce unitaries in rural counties, we shall lose the economies of scale, and sacrifice democratic accountability and the support for rural communities. Europe demonstrates that two tiers of government can co-exist beneath the region. We have only to look at the examples of Germany, France, Italy and Spain, as some of my noble friends have said.

Let us turn now to the powers of regional assemblies. As the Bill stands, people will be going to the polls in the dark. They will be asked to decide whether they want an elected regional assembly for their region. They will be expected to express an opinion before legislation has been passed defining any regional assembly's powers. As the Bill stands, people will be voting for what a regional assembly could be, not what it will be.

The White Paper, Your Region, Your Choice, states that functions are "generally" not being drawn up from local government. The Government have already signified that they intend to replace county structure plans with regional spatial strategies. The term -generally- allows scope for more responsibilities to be removed from local authorities. The Minister said that they would not be, but that does not reassure us about what is happening to planning. Voters must know what they are supporting before they enter the polling booth.

The weight of such constitutional reform rests solely on the shoulders of the Secretary of State. He will be the one to choose which regions should hold referendums. He will be tasked with interpreting the results of the "advisory" polls. It will be the Secretary of State who will ultimately decide whether a region should embark on the regional assembly route. A doubting Secretary of State will not even be able to turn to legislation for clarification or resolve.

The Bill sets no thresholds for voter turnout. It does not even state that a majority of those who vote in a referendum should vote in favour of elected regional assemblies for the result to stand.

The principles of devolution are laudable. Decisions should be taken as close to the people whom they affect as possible. We need to revive public interest in local democracy. It is because we are in favour of devolution that we oppose the proposals. Regional government will win public support only if it meets people's expectations. If we are to have regions, let them be meaningful with a natural identity. We should unshackle regional devolution from proposals to reorganise local government.

If there are any advantages of regional government, they must be weighed up against the costs, in both financial and democratic terms. We must ensure that any potential regional government is about getting real devolution, not centralisation in disguise. I have considerable reservations about the whole Bill.

My Lords, is it not remarkable that in 1888 the Victorians passed the Local Government Act, which served this country well for 86 years until 1974, when that infamous Act virtually destroyed everything that the Victorians had done? In contrast, in the 1980s, we fiddled around trying to put right the 1974 Act. We did not succeed, and then, in the 1990s, we reformed local government again. Apparently, that has not been a success either, and we have now reached the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill. The Bill intends to regionalise a country which is governed according to the unitary process and has been governed thus successfully over a very long period of time.

I say, first, that I am an unreconstructed fan of local democracy and local government. Therefore, I consider the Bill to be a completely unnecessary piece of legislation. It is not really about devolution, as the Minister told us. Devolution and empowerment of local people is what I want, but the Bill will certainly not provide that. Let us make no mistake and let us not pretend: it will impose yet another expensive, wasteful layer of government on England to no good purpose—indeed, probably the reverse.

The reason for the "quangoisation" of England is the removal of powers from local government. If we want to deal with quangoisation, I suggest that we give back those powers and let local authorities get on with the job that they have done for hundreds of years. If we really believe in devolving power to the people, the power should be given to strong local authorities. They should be empowered to provide for their areas what their residents need and want.

As I have already said, there is a paramount need to return to local authorities powers which have been Filched from them by successive central governments of both political parties. Indeed, it is also important to give them adequate financial resources to do their job. Those resources must include the power to raise their own money and not to be beholden to central government for most of their income. I believe that someone said that local authorities have to provide 7 per cent of their income. When I was leader of Reading County Borough Council, we provided 65 per cent from our own resources, and that gave us power to do for our area what we wanted to do, and to do it successfully and with the consent of the people of the area.

The business rate should be returned to local authorities. It is a disgrace that they ever lost it. They should also have power to raise a local income tax or a sales tax and be allocated a proportion of VAT revenues on sales of vehicle fuels in their area. Indeed, where it can be done profitably, they should also be able to provide consumer services for the benefit of their council tax payers. That is what I call devolution—not regional councils but real devolution to the people of the local areas.

As to the need to supply services or have economic co-operation over a wider geographical area, there is no reason why local authorities should not co-operate together to provide them—they have done so before. Such arrangements would be cheaper, more efficient and more acceptable than the construction of the proposed assemblies. Let us have no doubt: those assemblies are bound to move power away from the localities—it is inevitable that they will do so—and they will be less accessible and less transparent.

To further assist local democracy, the Cabinet system should be discontinued. It has been an absolute disaster up and down the country. It has removed decision-making from most of the councillors and has killed local discussion and local democracy. Therefore, having shown that it has failed, it is about time to drop that system and drop it quickly.

I appreciate that in some parts of the country local councils have been bamboozled into believing that elected regional assemblies will complement local government and not compete with it and that the regional authority will somehow attract new business to the area. Both propositions are open to considerable doubt. If the regional assemblies are to function in any significant way over the whole region, they will have to have the power to override the will of the local authorities; otherwise, they will be no good. Where they believe that they do not have that power, they will seek it, and probably—because they will be stronger than the local authorities—they will get it.

The regions are so large and widespread that there is unlikely to be identity of interest and purpose between the localities within it. Far from bringing people together, they will cause only conflict and discontent. So far as concerns economic development, industry and jobs, there is no evidence that regional authorities will assist the process of attracting or reallocating national or, indeed, international resources to any particular area, especially to regions which are already disadvantaged. What is more likely to happen is that we shall have elected regional assemblies which will be in competition with each other. The probability is that the rich regions will get richer at the expense of the poor ones.

In the North East, the real problem, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon, pointed out, is that they are deprived of that £1.2 billion which goes to the Scots and to the Welsh. If they had that, I would guess that the call for regional government would quickly die away. The imposition of regional government will be a recipe for conflict and confrontation. Therefore, I am opposed to it.

But, of course, English local government is not the only consideration in this drive for elected regional assemblies, there is also a European element.

The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, reads the Sunday Telegraph and Christopher Booker's column. I recommend that everyone should. Indeed, if everyone did, they would be much better informed about what happens in the European Union and where it is going.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. They may be better informed about what Christopher Booker thinks, but would the noble Lord not agree that they might be quite confused about what is the reality?

My Lords, frankly, I have always found that Christopher Booker is usually right on the ball and in the end has the matter right. He had it right on fridges, for example, long before anyone else got on top of the problem.

And fish!

I recommend that his column is read every Sunday.

First, there is the distribution of the £1 billion a year structural funds, for which British taxpayers have already paid £1.6 billion. Therefore, we only gel our own money back less quite a lot. Apart from that, there is an ongoing drive by the EU for regionalisation, which can be traced back to the Werner report, which warned that regional and structural polices would eventually no longer be exclusively within the jurisdiction of member countries. It was followed by the Marjolin report which confirmed that. Tindeman's report the same year predicted that regional policy would have to expand gradually with progress in aligning the economic and monetary policies of member countries.

Then of course we come to our old friend Jacques Delors, the Artful Dodger of European politics. He reorganised, through a framework regulation, the payment of structural funds direct from Brussels to the regions, thus bypassing member states' governments. That led to the setting up of regional offices in each of the English regions by the previous government. That was further developed in 1998 by the creation of regional development agencies. Those are now to be followed by elected regional assemblies.

The next little piece of history shows that regionalisation has a serious EU dimension. Occasionally, certain Europeans state openly that the days of the nation state are numbered. It is little wonder that people such as the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and myself and a substantial body of opinion are suspicious of the real intent behind the establishment of elected regional assemblies. No doubt—

Time!

My Lords, this is a Second Reading debate. While 12 minutes is recommended, there is no compulsion on people to hold to it. I shall say what I intended to say and if I am not further interrupted, I shall be able to get on with it faster.

No doubt we shall be accused of being paranoid about Europe and the denials will be issued. But, as usual, we will probably be proved right in the end.

I want finally to raise the question of public funds being used to fund organisations campaigning in favour of elected regional assemblies, but not available to those campaigning against them. That certainly seems to be happening in the North East where local councils are using taxpayers' money to support the North East Assembly/Association of North East Councils.

That is a gross, and possibly illegal, use of taxpayers' money and is unfair to those campaigning against elected regional authorities and the large body of council tax payers who also oppose these assemblies. Significant sums of money are involved. I sincerely hope, since this is undoubtedly cheating the public and gaining an unfair advantage for one side of the argument, the Government will hold an inquiry into this, or at least refer it to the Electoral Commission.

It is not our practice to vote on Bills at Second Reading, but if we were voting today, I would certainly have no hesitation in voting against this one. Perhaps we can do something about it in later stages.

My Lords, for me, this is the most important Bill before us in this Session. I know that it is only a paving Bill for a regional government Bill to come before the House later, but even so we are being asked to agree measures of which we have no detail and yet which could lead to this country being governed in a manner completely foreign to us and our fellow citizens. It is therefore imperative to debate the Bill's consequences.

The Government's record since coming to power in 1997 is one of destruction of some of our most noble and honourable institutions. I am sure that when an assessment is made of the period, no one will refer to it as one of the finest chapters in our history. The United Kingdom has seen its strengths undermined by the creation of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the London Assembly, and the Government have changed the House of Lords without having any idea of where to go from here.

The combined effect of such changes amounts to a revolution. Unless they are allowed time to bed down, they could destabilise our constitution. However, undeterred, the Government are embarking on yet another measure for which they are seeking your Lordships' endorsement without spelling out any of the basic elements.

I realise that the Bill is not concerned with setting up regional assemblies, but in order for electors to understand the issues, they must have more information than has been given to date. After all, how on earth can anyone be expected to vote or even bother to vote when they have not been told how it would affect their lives and their communities?

For me, one of the major problems is the airbrushing out of history of our proud nation of England. Scotland may have its Parliament, Wales and Northern Ireland may have their Assemblies, but the Government want England as we have known it for centuries to be divided into regions, and, as a consequence, to make England extinct—an horrendous notion. I do not know whether that has come about as a result of the Scottish flavour of the membership of this Government or because the Prime Minister feels that it would play well with his European colleagues. I can only say that I have not met anyone who finds the initiative at all attractive.

The Labour Party argues that the regional assemblies would redress the imbalance for England that has been created by the Government by devolution. But that is simply not the case, as the powers of a regional assembly would be in no way equivalent to those acquired by the devolved parliaments in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. The new assemblies would inevitably spell an end to our traditional local government in rural areas. One could speculate that the county council tier of government has never been to the liking of the Labour Party because over the years it has more often than not been under Conservative administration.

The Government claim that powers would be handed down to the unitary authorities, but I believe that exactly the opposite would occur, with duplication of services and resources being sucked up to the regional body. The cost of the assemblies is as yet unknown and one can only speculate, but even if similar assurances as those made to Wales and Scotland were given, that certainly would not give me confidence. One has only to follow the history of the costs of the building projects in Edinburgh, Cardiff and London, which soared out of all recognition from the estimates, to understand why.

It is claimed that regional assemblies would be better placed to secure European grant money to aid projects in needy areas, but it is member states that agree the allocation, not regional government. It is also the member countries that distribute the funds to regional assemblies. As a consequence, there would be access to no extra funding whatever.

The Government have not and cannot give any answer to the West Lothian question. It is inconceivable and unacceptable that we should continue with a system under which Members of Parliament from Scotland can vote on issues concerning England and Wales while we in England are not even able to ask a question on Scottish subjects. We are just told, "That is a devolved matter". That answer is intolerable. The Government appear to suggest that regionalisation is an answer to the West Lothian question and would rectify the problem, but that is ridiculous. The powers of an assembly would certainly not be equivalent to those given to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

My concern is that dividing the country into massive, unwieldy regions will take decision-making further away from the people, not nearer. The present historic county structure is a tried and tested form of government. Regional assemblies would have only 25 to 35 members—200 to 300 countrywide. On the other hand, the county councils have more than 20,000 members, who know their area and, more importantly, the constituents and their local problems, a point so well made by my noble friend Lord Elliott.

I now live in the beautiful county of Warwickshire, but in the past I lived in the former West Midlands county and served on its council. So I have experience of the different concerns and priorities of urban living. I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh, say that people have a sense of regional identity. I have no sense of regional identity. If I can use the phrase, I feel that I live on the cusp. I live within a 10-mile radius of the West Midlands, the area to which I have been assigned; the East Midlands, which goes as far as Lincolnshire; the southern area, which stretches to Kent, and the south-western area, stretching down to Cornwall, about which my noble friend Lady Wilcox spoke with such passion. My fear is that proposals to carve the country into regions would lead to the large industrial conurbations dominating decisions on all matters, to the detriment of smaller, rural counties, which would be simply left out.

The Bill would empower the Boundary Committee to make weighty decisions including where the constituency boundaries would be set and the type of unitary authority and influence over the referendum question. We need to ensure that we have as much information as possible before the Bill is passed. I look forward to our in-depth debate at Committee stage. I also look forward to hearing from the Minister this evening.

This is a horrid Bill. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, I do not see it as a comical affair. But I assure the Minister that I shall do all in my power to assist him in ensuring that his Bill will be much improved when it leaves this House.

My Lords, I cannot believe that the Minister's heart is in this Bill. He is far too sensible for that. I cannot recall a Bill presented to Parliament so deeply flawed. It is extremely difficult towards the end of the debate to know where to start.

Let us start with the White Paper, Your Region, Your Choice. Whether there is to be a referendum where you live is not your choice; the Deputy Prime Minister will choose, having considered the level of interest in a referendum. We have heard plenty of criticism of that provision and the unhealthy power that it gives the Deputy Prime Minister. I will not trouble the House by repeating those criticisms. It is difficult to take seriously the soundings exercise that is now in train and shortly to end, when one reads from reports of proceedings in another place that a person who writes to express fierce opposition to the whole idea of regional government may well he taken to be expressing interest in a referendum. Nothing could be more daft. But, apparently, that is the position, if one accepts what was said in Standing Committee A on 12th December and in the House on 23rd January. If it is not the position, I hope that the Minister will say so in plain terms. So far, no Minister has said that it is not the position.

Let us take the matter a stage further. The citizen told that there is to be a referendum where he lives may then find to his astonishment that he is being asked to vote for or against an assembly for a region that to the best of his knowledge has never existed, or to which he never thought for one moment that he belonged. Not he, but the Deputy Prime Minister, has decided that, for the purposes of this exercise, geography and community of interest should be thrown out of the window. He has decided that Banbury should be taken to be part of the south-east region; Watford should be placed in the eastern region; and Cheltenham put in the south-west. That will all be done just because it fits a map drawn up not for electoral purposes but to delineate the area of responsibility of government offices. Even if one is in favour of elected assemblies—I certainly am not—one must accept that the thing could be done in a saner way, as was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Bowness.

The bemused citizen may be approached by his diocesan bishop and persuaded to vote for an assembly. Noble Lords will know that some bishops seem to have taken a great interest in that spiritual matter. The bishop will not even be able to pass on heavenly guidance as to the powers and functions of the assembly, as they will not have been decided by Parliament. We have not yet been told that any hint of those powers will be given to Parliament by the Government before the first referendum takes place.

It is constantly said that the Bill is about bringing decision making closer to the people. In the words of the Deputy Prime Minister, it is about elected assemblies taking functions down from central government, not up from local authorities. That is a terrible distortion of the truth. A statement by Lancashire County Council—supported by all parties, I remind the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, who will follow me—points out that present plans offer no significant degree of devolution. The White Paper makes it clear that virtually no new decision-making powers are to go to the regions from the Government. There will be a sucking-up of power to the regions from authorities closer to the people. The Liberal leader on Lancashire County Council called it,

"the vacuuming-up of every decision from local communities".

To see the truth of the matter, we should consider the planning powers already seized from the county councils and handed to the assemblies before they have even been elected.

The Government are being less than frank when they say that they have no plans to abolish the county councils. If any county councils survive, it will be no thanks to the Government; it will be as a result of a decision of the Boundary Committee, which has been commanded to go down the unitary authority route, whether it thinks that that is right or not. The decision of the Boundary Committee, in compliance with that demand from the Government, to turn a particular county council into a unitary authority is the only circumstance in which a county council will survive. As I said, the survival of such a council will be no thanks to the Government.

In every instance where there is now a county council, local government will become more remote from the people as a result of the disappearance of district authorities, whether the county council survives or not. In my area, Ribble Valley, it is inconceivable that any unitary authority will be as close to the people and as responsive to local needs as is Ribble Valley Borough Council, placed in the middle of a country area.

Not only will the regional authorities, with one member for up to 250,000 constituents, be remote from the people; in the North West, the assembly will be dominated by Manchester and Merseyside. I know that that was challenged by one noble Lord who is not now in the Chamber, I think, but it is a matter of pure arithmetic. The population figures prove it: most people in the North West come from the conurbations of Manchester and Merseyside. That is a recipe for drowning the interests of those who live in the countryside and those who live in small towns.

We have had plenty of local government changes in recent years. They have cost enough. According to a paper produced to assist us by the Library, the partial-Heseltine review at the beginning of the 1990s cost £669 million. The regional policy adviser for Cheshire County Council points out that Cheshire, where there is minimal demand for regional government—I do not believe that anyone will challenge that—faces a review and, if a North West referendum is successful, faces the disruption and cost of a full-scale reorganisation of local government when it has just settled down from the local government review conducted only about four years ago.

However, all those costs of local government reorganisation are a tiny part of what will be the total cost of government regional policy. Regional bureaucracies are already burgeoning, often with a proliferation of pointless non-jobs. During the debate on the Queen's Speech, I pointed out an advertisement for a community development worker—Turkish speaking—and the government office of the East Midlands seeking a director of community affairs responsible for the implementation of joined-up policy. You cannot get much dafter than that.

But wait until people are recruited to serve the elected assemblies. Wait until we are required to pay the regional councillors the £48,000 per year, plus £50,000 expenses, drawn by the one-and-a-half-day-week Members of the Scottish Parliament. They are bound to be paid something like that. The precedent has been set. Wait until they demand prestigious new buildings. I believe that one noble Lord suggested that it was their entitlement to have such.

If the Government consider that regional assemblies are the English answer to Scottish devolution, why are we not all being asked in a referendum whether we want this form of devolution? But, of course the Deputy Prime Minister was talking nonsense when he asserted at Second Reading that:

"The Bill offers … opportunities for the English regions similar to those offered to Scotland".—[Official Report, Commons. 26/11/02; col. 189.]

The assemblies are to have no legislative powers and functions which have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament are not going to be devolved to the regions. Nor will Mr Prescott shower money on the regions—certainly not on those which vote for elected assemblies. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon, that people are far more likely to take note of stated government policy in the White Paper than the vain hopes of noble Lords, however eminent. The White Paper states in black and white:

"We believe that fairness and consistency of treatment between the English regions can be most simply demonstrated if the level of resources for the regions with an assembly is determined on broadly the same basis as for other English regions".

In other words, there is no money in this. If the noble Lord, Lord Dixon, doubts that, he should read again what was said a short time ago in this Chamber by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. He announced that there was no intention whatever of changing the Barnett formula.

One thing that the assemblies will do is compete with other regions for European largesse. I dread to contemplate the cost of junketing trips to Brussels, as one region tries to do down another. My noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch knows from harsh experience that one has only to mention Europe here to be accused of being paranoid. But I advise noble Lords, now and again, to read what my noble friend said a few years ago—he has been uncannily right on a large number of occasions. What my noble friend Lord Bowness cannot deny is that, whether by accident or design, Mr Prescott's plans fit neatly into the Brussels idea of a Europe of the regions. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, in speaking to the European Parliament (Representation) Bill today, twice referred to the Government being committed to the "regional"—namely, the European—regional agenda. Of course the Government are so committed. It is pathetic to pretend otherwise.

During the debate on the Queen's Speech, I called attention to a Brussels publication and its attached map of an area stretching from Kent to Oxford and down to the New Forest, which was described as,

"a Region of the European Union with Roman and Norman ties that stretch back into history".

We can close our eyes to what is going on if we like, but it usually makes more sense to keep them open and face up to the truth.

I do not want the dismemberment of the United Kingdom. I do not want one part of the country set against another, with the emphasis always being on what makes us different rather than what binds us together. Even if this was what the Government pretend it is, a measure to devolve power from Westminster, I would be against it because as power was drained away from Westminster upwards to our masters in Brussels and drained away downwards to the regions, we would see this Parliament losing any real meaning or purpose.

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, who is an old friend of mine. At least he wakes me up and gets the adrenalin going. I speak as someone who has been campaigning for democratic regional government for the past 40 years. I have watched the Labour Party, first in the North West and then in the rest of the country, slowly come round to the concept. I recall being involved in the publication of a pamphlet setting out a blueprint for regional government in the North West in 1967.

Nevertheless, in replying to the debate I must say that I welcome the Bill with two cheers rather than with three. Indeed, the second cheer is a rather feeble and weak affair, a bit like the powers proposed for regional government in the Bill. I listened with enthusiasm to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh, who has had to leave to catch his train. I beg his pardon, I see that he has returned to the Chamber. We shall share anoraks after the debate. I noted too the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon. Both noble Lords made passionate speeches in favour of regional government in different parts of the North of England. However, I question whether the Government's proposals as set out in the White Paper will meet their aspirations, or will go even half way to meeting them. That is the problem. So while I disagree in principle with noble Lords such as the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, and the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, I disagree with the Government in what they have set out.

We have difficulty with four elements in the general proposal. Given that this is a paving Bill, it is right to discuss the broader concepts. First, we are concerned that the new regional assemblies will be weak and ineffective talking shops. Secondly, the assemblies will be too small in number to be representative of large and diverse regions such as the North West. For example, how would the Government persuade people in Cumbria to vote for a regional assembly in which they might have no more than two representatives? Thirdly, it does not appear that the new assemblies will genuinely take over and replace the huge, complex regional "quangocracy" discussed by the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, which would be so much better if it were brought into local government. Fourthly, as a result of the proposals, will there be genuine jobs for the members of the regional assemblies? No doubt they will be well paid and expected to work full time. I share the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, over whether there are full-time jobs here.

Turning to the Bill, a number of questions have been asked. For example, my noble friend Lord Shutt of Greetland asked an interesting series of questions. However, we have three main concerns in regard to the detail of the Bill. The first is that when people are asked to vote in any referendum which may take place, they will be voting for a pig in a poke. It will not be clear what they are voting for. The Minister said that a paper would be issued giving a summary of the Government's proposals, but we know how many changes were made to the Greater London Authority Bill as it passed through Parliament, particularly in your Lordships' House. No doubt the same thing will happen with the referendum Bill. Even if the Government put forward their proposals in great detail, there is no guarantee that that is what we shall end up with.

The second area of concern has been spoken to by many noble Lords—that is, the coupling of the reorganisation of local government with regional assemblies.

The third area of concern relates to the genuine worries that exist about the consultation process. Who on earth in the North West knows that they are being consulted at the moment about whether or not they want a referendum? The answer is that it is people within the political system—councillors, Members of Parliament, those in the existing regional bodies and so on—who are being consulted. But for the people as a whole, where are the advertisements in the newspapers and on television; where are the programmes on local radio and the pamphlets through the doors?

My Lords, has the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, been consulted? Because I have not.

My Lords, the answer is no. As far as I am aware, Members of this House have not been consulted, even though they may live in the areas concerned.

Why not?

Presumably because we are not representative, my Lords. I share the noble Lord's concern. I certainly intend to make my views known before the deadline. I have found out because I am a part of the political process; I talk to politicians and we discuss the matter in the House. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said, the whole consultation process is entirely unsatisfactory.

We are told that this is what happened in Scotland. But in Scotland there was a convention that had existed for years; there was a broad degree of detailed consensus over what form the Scottish Parliament would take; there was an agreement between at least two of the political parties there and everyone was clear as to what would happen. That is not the case in the English regions.

As to the powers to be devolved, my noble friend Lord Newby was worried that any regional assembly would become a mouse; my honourable friend in the House of Commons, Ed Davey, described it as a paper tiger; and the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, referred to a corrupt octopus. Together with my pig in a poke, we have a menagerie that would do well in Blackpool Zoo.

There is a wide-ranging concern among both supporters and opponents of regional government that the bodies, when set up, will not amount to very much. They have been described as being like the GLA without the Mayor. I am not sure what the GLA would be like—perhaps my noble friend will tell me—without the Mayor and an executive to scrutinise legislation.

The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, referred to Lancashire County Council, which has voted unanimously against the present proposals. Some people will say, Well, it would, wouldn't it, because "turkeys do not vote for Christmas". However, that does not mean to say it is wrong. The Labour leader of Lancashire County Council, Councillor Hazel Harding, stated in an article she has written that:

"We looked back on the centralisation of power by recent governments. We saw huge advantages in the wide-ranging powers at first proposed. It was to have been a genuine 'government' for the North-West with a good deal of Westminster's spending power devolved locally—money that was to be spent according to local need, not dictated by distant Whitehall.

So what a disappointing surprise to unwrap the White Paper and find it contained such a poor degree of devolution that we could not support it".

She went on to point out that the North West Assembly would control a budget of £730 million—which sounds a lot at first—and have influence over another £1.3 billion. But total public expenditure in the region is currently £32 billion, so even the amount it could influence would be only 3 or 4 per cent of the total, which seems a little on the low side to put it mildly. I was a member of Lancashire County Council for 24 years. Led by its then leader, Louise Ellman, the county was the pioneer in the region in campaigning for elected regional government. If Lancashire County Council is opposed to the Bill, I believe that the people of Lancashire will be opposed to it. If the referendum is close in the rest of the region, the Government may find it difficult to get the proposal through.

As regards the coupling of these proposals with local government reorganisation, it cannot be right that the future structure of local government in Cumbria, Lancashire and Cheshire—I speak of the region in which I live and know best—may be determined by the votes of the larger number of people who live in Greater Manchester and Merseyside. There is something fundamentally wrong about that.

The Minister was very strong on this point in his opening speech. He said:

"If there is not unitary local government, there will be no regional assemblies".

He indicated that unitary local government is,

"an integral part of the regional assembly package";

and,

"We are not prepared to add an extra tier … It is not possible for us even to contemplate separating the two".

That does not sound like the approach that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, normally takes in this House. I know that he is acting on orders from on high. But this House has every right to de-couple the reorganisation of local government from the Bill if it wishes to do so. I believe that it would be right to stand firm on that. It would not be right to reject the Bill, as my noble friend Lord Shutt said. The Labour Party manifesto at the last general election included the clear commitment:

"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".

If, as a House, we stand firm on this matter as the Bill completes its remaining stages and de-couple those aspects, we are doing no more than supporting the Labour Party manifesto. I do not believe that that would represent a constitutional crisis.

My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? Does he not agree that predominantly unitary local government is not established in the North West; and, therefore, not to proceed with a referendum for an elected assembly would actually be in accordance with the Labour election manifesto?

My Lords, that is arguable. In many of the discussions that took place in the lead-up to these proposals, the "predominantly unitary" argument was being used. The compulsory abolition of non-unitary local government came very late in the proceedings. At that time, the Government accepted that the North East was predominantly unitary and that the North West just about qualified. It all depends on whether the decision is based on area or population. In terms of population, the North West already has predominantly unitary local government.

I hope that I can make just two more points without being interrupted again—much as I enjoy interruptions from the noble Lord. I want to examine the question of tiers. There is an assumption that tiers of democratic local government are in themselves somehow undemocratic and undesirable. Yet if we look at the present situation, we see that we do not have two-tier, but multi-tier, local government. Where I live in Lancashire, we have district councils and we have the county council. But we also have a fire authority and a police authority—which is more than the county council, because it is the county council plus two unitary authorities. In the health service, we have a whole series of tiers: we have trusts delivering services and we have the area health authority, which is smaller than the county but bigger than the districts. At regional level, we have a huge number of quangos.

In the House of Commons, my honourable friend Edward Davey quoted research from Councillor Chris Foote-Wood, a colleague of mine in the North East, who had found over 172 regional and sub-regional quangos in the North East and 71 Government Office North East partnerships. There is a huge number of separate organisations which may or may not work together—some cover regions and some cover only part of the regions. We already have lots and lots of tiers. What matters is how efficient and democratic these bodies are, how good the services are and—in new Labour speak—how much best value there is.

Do people in Lancashire believe that the situation in Blackpool and Blackburn, which are now unitary, is significantly better than that in the rest of the county which is still two-tier? I have seen no research and no evidence that that is the case and I do not believe that it is. The idea that the efficiency of government is determined by the number of tiers is nonsense. As my noble friend Lord Shutt said, what matters is appropriate government at the appropriate tier.

We shall be looking to improve the Bill as it goes through this House. I hope that when it leaves this House, I shall be able to give it at least two full cheers rather than one and a half.

My Lords, I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, back in his seat. We have been thinking about him a great deal in recent weeks; it has not been easy, and we welcome him back to our debates.

I predicted that the Bill would receive a lively yet interesting Second Reading, and it certainly has. The size of the Bill belies the constitutional importance of the changes it presages. My noble friend Lady Hanham, who will lead from these Benches, opened with a characteristically spirited and informed speech. Her knowledge of local government and the currency of her experience will result in a powerful contribution to the Bill's following stages, and I look forward to working with her.

The Second Reading speech of the Deputy Prime Minister made interesting reading. It contained much convolution, some contradiction, considerable distortion and very little hard information on the detail of how regional government will actually work. More crucially, the very people who will he expected to vote for or against regional government will have to do so without knowing what they are voting for. However, I was struck by the opening paragraph of the Deputy Prime Minister's speech on Second Reading. It displayed one of the false premises that underpins the Bill. He said:

"When the Government came to power in 1997, we had one of the most centralised systems of government in the western world. It had no regional democratic accountability and ignored the needs and aspirations of the regions".—[Official Report, Commons, 26/11/02; col. 188.]

Apart from the fact that we have parish, town, district, county, national and European government, with representation in all parts of our relatively small country, I am sure that doctors, nurses, teachers, policemen, firemen and prison officers—to name just a few—will testify that the Government's centralist tendency has increased massively since 1997.

I was also struck by the briefing for this debate from the Royal National Institute of the Blind. It welcomed the principle of regional government which would result, it said, in taking decisions closer to the people. How wrong that perception will prove in practice. The reverse is true. Government will be more, not less, distant from local people. However, I support the RNIB and its concerns. If regional government is to be established, we have to make sure that the interests of those with disabilities are protected.

However, to say that Conservative governments before 1997 ignored the needs and aspirations of the regions is a travesty of the facts. Let me place on record just a few of the economic regeneration programmes which transformed many parts of our country when we were in office. Here I agree with all that my noble friend Lord Elliott of Morpeth said. I hope he will forgive me for being present in the Chamber when he spoke, but I heard and saw his speech on one of the monitors.

Billions of pounds were spent de-polluting vast areas of land and preparing them for development on Teesside and throughout the Docklands area in London. There were major developments in Tyneside, Teesside, Leeds, Bradford, Liverpool, Gateshead, Docklands, the Black Country, Don Valley, Plymouth—I could go on. We introduced City Challenge programmes, the Safer Cities programme, city technology colleges and specialist schools that boosted education and training in urban areas. The single regeneration budget was introduced to tackle the poorest areas of the country and there were special centres to boost employment opportunities.

All the development projects involved the refurbishment and new build of housing, the preservation and creation of new jobs, increased economic and business activity and massive inward investment, which was attracted into our country.

Those are just a few examples of what the Conservatives did for the regions of our country. Those programmes were backed with billions of pounds. The development corporations did an excellent job. Unencumbered by bureaucracy, they were focused and their boards included a mix of local councillors, business expertise, the voluntary sector and local community leaders. Because the area improvements were based on ideas and plans created by local communities, the feeling of ownership in those areas and involvement at grass roots was very strong.

Each regional area had a sponsor Minister, who promoted the area for which he was responsible. They acted as the eyes and ears for the community, through liaising with nationally and locally elected members, businesses, the voluntary sector and the local community generally. I was proud to have been associated with Teesside, where I witnessed the most dramatic transformation in the physical, social and economic environment. I am delighted to continue to be involved with development projects in that area, although I have no pecuniary interest to declare.

I will not accept from this Government—and certainly not from the Deputy Prime Minister—the accusation that we ignored the needs and aspirations of the regions.

The greatest claim for the Bill is that it will result in bringing government closer to the people. That is a distortion. Where two-tier government exists, one tier will disappear if regional government is to be established. If the district councils are abolished in a region, a tier of really local government will be removed. If the counties are abolished, government will move on up to a regional level. We all know from the White Paper that not much power is being ceded from on high. It will pull power away from the truly local level.

However one looks at it, government will move further away from the people. The excellent speeches of my noble friends Lord MacGregor, Lord Hanningfield and Lady Wilcox made the case for county councils, although I noticed a mild threat from my noble friend Lady Wilcox of a possible UDI for Cornwall. The elected representatives will have much larger constituencies, moving from electorates of approximately 6,000 or 7,000 to electorates of between 150,000 and 200,000, with a mix of directly elected councillors and those selected by political parties under a list system.

Costs will be phenomenal. We already have on record the experience of Scotland, Wales and London, which have built—or are still building—Lrge, expensive monuments for themselves on prime sites. They have spawned large and expensive bureaucracies. Because of the greater travelling distances, more substantial and costly support services are needed to sustain the staff and elected representatives. The running costs have increased enormously.

Imagine the distances that will have to be travelled in the South West if the region is run from Bristol. Even without regional government, Cornish councillors already have to travel miles to carry out their work. The size of the south-western region is absurd. What is the community interest between the people of Hereford and Stoke-on-Trent or Wellingborough and Chesterfield? Why must the choice be one of regional government only at the expense of a tier of local government? One answer is: because the Deputy Prime Minister said so.

On Second Reading in the Commons, the right honourable Alan Beith invited the Deputy Prime Minister to comment on the following:

"If the boundary committee decides to make local government more remote by providing single-tier county local government, people will be invited to vote against the local government system that they want to get the region that they want. To make matters worse, the decision will be taken by voters who are not affected by the proposals and who live in those parts of the region that already have single-tier government".—[Official Report, Commons, 26/11/02; col. 191.]

The Deputy Prime Minister's reply was, unsurprisingly, not very enlightening. I hope that the Minister will respond to Alan Beith's point in his reply.

In response to another question, the Deputy Prime Minister said:

"Elected assemblies will take functions down from central Government, not up to local authorities".—[Official Report, Commons, 26/11/02; col. 189.]

My noble friend Lord Waddington referred to that matter. What the Deputy Prime Minister said is patently not the case, however. Has he actually read his own proposals? Of the 10 powers listed in the White Paper, eight are ceded from county councils.

The inevitable tension in the regions between urban and rural interests is a matter for real concern. With the exception of Scotland, voter turnout for referendums has been poor, whether for town mayors or devolution. Only 12 per cent of the people voted for a mayor for Bedford, while 25 per cent voted for a Welsh Assembly and approximately 17 per cent voted for the Mayor of London. That cannot be described as the will of the people. As if to cock a snook at the system, a healthy number of people in Hartlepool voted for a man in a monkey suit.

I share two more concerns. First, there is a lack of a threshold below which constitutional change should not take place. Secondly, without such a threshold, the urban vote will overwhelm the rural vote, especially if there is a low turnout. How can the Government stand by and treat rural voters with such contempt? Again, that is not surprising, because that is what they have done since they came into power in 1997.

The role, powers and functions of regional government should be determined through consultation ahead of any vote. My noble friends Lord Brooke and Lord Bowness made that point powerfully. Ministers must tell us against what criteria they will assess the level of interest in regional government. How on earth can that level of interest truly be relied on if the information that people should have to express an interest is simply unavailable?

Much constitutional change has taken place since 1997, mostly ill thought-through and much of it taken in isolation, by pursuing a piecemeal approach to legislation. This Westminster Parliament has been seriously weakened. Apart from the contempt for Parliament shown by the Prime Minister and his Executive, Members in both Houses find daily that we are prevented from asking questions about Scottish issues and that our ability to ask questions about Welsh and London matters is considerably limited. If regional government should come about, even more areas will be out of bounds to the Westminster Parliament. In a sentence, Parliament is weakening, the Executive are strengthening and the axis for decision making is moving to Brussels.

I agree with my noble friend Lady Seccombe, who asked where all that leaves the integrity of an English parliamentary voice. I refer to the whole of England, not to an England fragmented into artificial regions. As my noble friend Lord Waddington asked, what will be the constitutional consequences for the United Kingdom Parliament?

A decade or so from now, we will reap the whirlwind of such ill-thought-through constitutional change. We are already witnessing a weakening of the United Kingdom Parliament and, by default, a strengthening of the Executive. We are facing the loss of our county councils and, possibly, the Lord Lieutenancy. Worrying changes have been made to the local magistracy, and there has been greater movement towards federalism through the proposed Convention on the Future of Europe.

As my noble friend Lord Waddington said, it is fashionable to deride the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch, but today they made some powerful points. Indeed, they usually do. We need to be very cognisant about what we are sleepwalking into by some of these ill-thought-through constitutional changes.

Contrary to the claims of decentralisation for the Bill, the Government have retained throughout a draconian hold on central control. I agree with my right honourable friend David Davis in another place, who said:

"We reject regional assemblies not because we oppose devolution, but because we support it. We reject them not because we oppose economic development, but because we support it. We reject this Bill not because we oppose democracy, but because we support it".—[Official Report, Commons. 26/11/02: col. 204.]

Despite voicing many concerns about the Bill with which I agree, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, said that the Liberal Democrats will nevertheless vote with the Government. At least for the people of East Anglia, where she and I come from, the consequence will be the sacrifice of a tier of government. The Liberal Democrats will have to stand to account if that turns out to be the case.

Noble Lords should not be fooled. Regional government sounds attractive to many people because they believe that money will flow generously to the regions. It sounds attractive to others because they do not fully realise that the sacrifice that they will have to make is the loss of their own local authorities. However, as my noble friend Lord Waddington said, those who believe that money will flow generously to the regions are extremely misguided indeed. As we all know, the resources would be dissipated in the expensive abolition of county and/or district councils, by increased bureaucracy, and, from what we have seen so far of devolution, by much self-indulgence. Nationally, the Executive will remain all powerful. Contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said, and what he will undoubtedly say again in a very spirited way, Whitehall will continue to think it knows best.

There are many hours of business ahead of us on this Bill. I say again how proud I am to serve in the second Chamber, which always takes its scrutiny role so seriously and constructively. I look forward to working with my noble friends, with the Minister and with other noble Lords over the next weeks and months.

My Lords, I should like first to thank noble Lords who referred to my recent absence. I have received much comfort from all the messages I have had in recent weeks.

Before dealing with as many of the points raised as possible, I should also deal with a few summary points on cost. It is far too early to put any figures on the cost of local government reorganisation. I do not think that anyone has attempted to do so. The best estimates of the cost of a referendum vary according to population size: about £2 million in the North East, and £3 million in the South East. The latest estimated cost of the Boundary Committee's review of local government in regions chosen for referendums is slightly different from the estimate given to the Commons and in the Explanatory Notes, at between £750,000 and £3.2 million. The costs of conversion to unitary authorities will depend largely on the current mix in the region under review. The set-up costs for regional assemblies, including the costs of the referendum and elections, would vary from about £15 million to £30 million. The running costs would be about £25 million. That is a gross figure, not net, because much of that money is already spent by quangos and other bodies in the area.

I should like to deal with one point that no one has mentioned, but which is a useful pointer. I saw in yesterday's Birmingham Post that the West Midlands Regional Assembly has decided to say, "Please do not put us in the first tranche of referendums". My personal view of the West Midlands has always been that while many people there fancied regional government, there was no great push for it. I was therefore not surprised to see that report. However, if soundings suggested that there should be a referendum, a referendum were held and the electorate said no, the issue could not be raised again for at least five years. The Bill provides for that. One cannot hold referendums willy-nilly where there is a head of steam but no substance or where there is no support. That has to be put on the record, because that is firmly in the Bill.

My Lords, the noble Lord appears to have left the topic of costs, but would he comment on the cost of abolition? Taking, for example, the South West, there are 55 districts or seven county councils. most of whom would not be able to work in the one place where the regional assembly is to be set up.

My Lords, I apologise. I skirted round that matter. I said that it is too early to give the cost of re-organisation. I did not give a figure as I have no figures on that at all. I was giving a summary of some of the costs that we can estimate.

Another matter I should make clear is in relation to the soundings document. I asked where it had been sent. A problem with membership of this House is that noble Lords do not represent anyone. The Government cannot say, "That Peer may have represented somewhere in the past when in another place, but now he or she may live hundreds of miles away". Therefore the distribution list for the soundings document consisted of Members of Parliament in another place, the English regions, the MEPs for the English regions and the principal local authorities in the regions. That is a grand total of 800 out of a distribution of 1,100. The rest went to local government, the TUC, the CBI, chambers of commerce, RDAs, the regional chambers, the English regional network, the Round Tables, constitutional conventions, the Local Government Conference, various committees, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, tourist boards and so on.

There is a problem, but the distribution was not conducted in secret. It was known that a package of documents was published: both the draft information to the Boundary Committee and the soundings document.

My Lords, it seems to me that when the legislation comes before the House it may be deemed to be of interest to Members of the House. I certainly was unaware until someone found it for me that there was a paper about the sounding exercise. The House may need to consider more closely the information made available to it.

My Lords, I apologise unreservedly because people who speak for a party or a group in this place are known to have a function as Front-Benchers. Therefore, they should have been forwarded the documents. That clearly is an error.

My Lords, I was the only Member of the House who went to the meeting arranged by Mr Raynsford and to which he brought the documents for their Lordships to take away. I have them here because I went to the meeting.

My Lords, I was aware of that and the noble Lord has spoilt the line I was to use when responding to the points made in his speech.

My Lords, a number of us turned up for a meeting with Mr Raynsford but he did not turn up.

My Lords, I do not know about that. I know that there was a meeting of all-party Peers and I was told that the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, was the only person who attended. If there have been other errors I shall have them investigated.

A theme in the 22 speeches of those in support of the Bill and those against its concept—I do not believe that I am exaggerating—was a desire for more information at the point of decision making. Whether it is a draft Bill or more detailed information to the electorate and to the Houses at the time of a referendum, it is clear that people must know what they are voting for and the consequences of that for their local government structure as well as for the regional structure. We must be absolutely clear about that.

During the course of the debate I believe that the penny has dropped that there is no new money. If anyone is supporting the Bill in the hope that there will be more money, do not bother; stick with the status quo. If that is your only reason for supporting the Bill, I repeat that there is no extra money. That has been made abundantly clear.

My Lords, the Minister mentioned the question of testing public opinion as to whether there should be a referendum. He did not go on to answer the question asked, which was whether all the people, even those who expressed opposition to regional authorities, would be taken as being in favour of a referendum. That is an important point, and it needs answering.

My Lords, it is an important point and I shall come to it before I finish, because it deserves an answer.

I shall briefly go through some of the points made by noble Lords. It is impossible to deal with all 22 speeches, and I do not want to take too much of the time of the House. I certainly do not want to use Parkinson's law and speak till half-past seven.

It is clear from what the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said that there are some questions about the sounding exercise, and I have no doubt that we can debate them in Committee. It is good that we are having the debate now. The sounding exercise has taken place over three months. The more publicity there is the better. We do not want the issue to be closed off, with people not knowing about it. Some judgments have to be made from the various regions, but they will not be made until the Secretary of State has the necessary powers, which means once Parliament has approved the Bill.

Many people, such as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, have said, "Yes, we support the Bill, but". The theme of some speeches has been that the Bill does not go far enough. That is because we are presenting what is in the White Paper. We are not presenting regional government or a fully fledged equivalent of what is in Scotland. No one is making that claim. The provisions are much more akin to what happens in London.

The regional assemblies are not service delivery bodies. Let us be absolutely clear about what they are. I am not talking the issue down; I am simply setting out the facts, as it is important that I do so. They are not service delivery operations, so people must not vote or push for them in the expectation that they are something other than what is set out in the Bill or was said in the White Paper. We have been abundantly clear about that.

The noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, made a point about Norfolk. I cannot go over the detail in winding up, but an area the size of the East of England would have something like 16 elected members if there were 25 in total. Norfolk has a sixth of the population, so it is inconceivable that it would not have representation. In Committee, I could give some detailed figures or assessments of that, but it would not be deprived of representation. True, that representation would not reflect the population. I do not deny that, thinking about the issue raised on centres of population. The noble Lord was fearful that there would be no one representing what is currently the county of Norfolk.

My Lords, if there are one or two members from Norfolk, it is nevertheless an enormous county, one of the largest in the country. Does the Minister really think that it will be easy for the elected members to represent the county properly?

My Lords, I cannot make a judgment on that. I was simply making the point that Norfolk would not be unrepresented, even by a small number of people. The way the electoral system is being looked at would satisfy that, I hope.

My noble friend Lady Gould made the point—she made it for me in a way—about expectations being raised. It is wrong if people raise expectations about what is outwith the White Paper. We are promoting what was in the White Paper. In effect, the Bill is a paving Bill for the referendums and for the possible starting-up of elected regional assembles. We do not want to mislead people. On the other hand, of course, regionalism in the way my noble friend put it draws in much wider sections of society than the present arrangements enable us to do.

The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, gave us a series of lessons from the past, but I have to be careful about answering him. The last time that I answered one of his vitriolic attacks on the Government was two days before the last Budget, and no one woke up to what I said about the Treasury until just after the Budget. That caused a little bit of inconvenience in the Home Office at the time. I went a little too far. I said "every good idea"; I probably should have said "many", "most" or something like that.

The noble Lord is right: we should learn lessons from the past when we go in for such changes. In the forthcoming period and during the passage of the Bill, I hope that we will be able to show that we have done that. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, also supported that point. The powers obviously do not go far enough. She said that they were "okay—but". I thank her for her support. Nevertheless, attempts will be made to strengthen the Bill. I accept that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, raised the question of Cornwall. I fully accept her point. I have been to Cornwall only a few times on holiday. I drew attention to the fact that the regions are government regions. There is one example that I always give to people. I have never measured the distance, but about 40 miles south of the centre of Birmingham is the small town of Chipping Camden, which is in Gloucestershire. It cannot be much more than 40 miles from Birmingham, but it is in the same region as Land's End. That is the reality. The noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, made the same point, giving examples of boundaries where she lives in Warwickshire. It is a difficulty; I do not deny that.

The noble Lord, Lord Smith, raised the question of the complexities of the institutions in the regions. It is true that they are incredibly complex. He made the point fairly that at present London, and not Manchester or Liverpool, makes the decisions for the North West. That is the reality, and clearly one has to work on that issue. We do not want such decisions to be made in London because we do not accept that Whitehall and Westminster know best. We want to move decision-making to the relevant area. Of course, the argument will be over whether the decisions should be made in Carlisle or Manchester, but certainly they will not be made in London. That is a big advantage.

The noble Lord, Lord Elliott, made the point about the RDA in the North East being a big success. I am very glad to hear that. I do not know how the noble Lord voted during the passage of the RDA Bill, but that is something that we tried to do because we wanted to reach out—it was a better way for our regions. We believed that the regional development agencies would be a good idea. They are very new instruments. No one is in a position to say whether they have been a roaring success or an abject failure. But everyone can find good things that the RDAs have been able to do for their regions. That is an excellent point. I make no claim beyond that. Quite rightly, the noble Lord said that the North East is in the vanguard; others will say that that is not quite the case.

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. We are trying the patience of the Minister and I know that he is trying to finish his points. Just now, he made an interesting statement about how people in Manchester or Liverpool would want decisions to be made not in London but in their part of the world. Can he give one example of a decision that would be made in Manchester or Liverpool—not by a county council or a unitary authority in that area—that would previously have been made in London?

Yes, my Lords: housing. We are regionalising housing. The decisions that would have been made in the Housing Corporation and the centre in London will not be made there. That is set out in the sustainable plan published a few weeks ago. That is one example which meets the criteria to which the noble Baroness referred. If she asks me to give another example, I shall have a job to find one. I should have to take advice on that. However, it so happens that I know that housing is one example that fits the criteria.

The noble Lord, Lord Shutt, who attended the all-party meeting, also made the point—

My Lords—

My Lords, perhaps I may answer the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, and I shall then give way to the noble Earl. The noble Lord, Lord Shutt, asked whether there would be any fewer quangos. The answer is probably "no". The legislation would not lead to the abolition of quangos. The strength of the provisions would lie in how the quangos were arranged and managed and were democratically accountable to the people sent by the electorate.

The noble Lord also asked whether there would be more than one Bill—the implication being a Bill for each region. The answer is "no". Once a referendum has taken place in an area—if it takes place and is successful—then a Bill will be brought forward to the House for that region. But that Bill would be triggered later. A Bill for every region would not be required. The noble Earl spoke next but clearly he wants to intervene.

My Lords, I apologise because I love listening to the noble Lord; it is a great pleasure to do so. Can he explain how housing will be devolved? At present, central government imposes housing targets, which most of the regions do not want. Will the regions be able to say, "We don't want them"? No, they will not. Therefore, I believe that this will still be a central government issue.

My Lords, there really is no time to go into the detail, but it is clearly set out. I am not speaking off the cuff, it is set out in the sustainable plan published on 4th February. It makes absolutely clear the substantial changes we propose for regionalising decisions made on housing.

I regret that the noble Earl lost me slightly. My education was not that good in that I was just an engineer. I understand his points and the one about the Euro-connection. We are not seeking or offering to break up the United Kingdom or England. The Bill is not a precursor to that. Therefore, those who claim it is are saying that there is more to regional government than we propose. I must knock that on the head so that false expectations are not raised.

My noble friend Lord Woolmer spoke about the need for more information before the Bill is enacted. He made the point about the White Paper making bold claims regarding our proposals. He asked about the two-tiers argument. The simple argument is that it may not be logical but it is political. I do not believe that anyone could stand up in this House and honestly say, "Well, if you'd gone down this road we would have refrained from complaining about your introduction of an extra tier of government and more bureaucracy". The CBI and every party would be after us to say, "You are just initiating more elections, adding more tiers and burdening the voters". We will not do that. So the reason we do not want that extra tier may not be logical, but political.

My Lords, the Minister says that every party will be after the Government. Does he exempt us from that accusation?

My Lords, the Liberal Democrats are not a national party like others. They are different in some parts of the country from others. Even I know that. I am speaking in the round. We would have been open to an accusation of imposing an extra tier of government. We are not prepared to be put in the dock for that. That is the reason why we shall not opt for three tiers.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, spoke about the powers of a mouse. If we are to have the definition of a mouse—as opposed to a lion breaking up the UK into fully-fledged regional government, which we do not propose—we plead guilty. Nevertheless, it is a beginning.

Oh!

My Lords, I said earlier that even the boundaries could be open to review at a subsequent date. That would not be before the referendum. We want to stick to existing boundaries otherwise it would cause a massive upheaval. We have no secret agenda or plan, but it is not set in stone that this will always be the case.

We do not have this kind of structure now. Therefore, we want to start at a very modest level—25 to 30 people—with a modest set of devolved powers and to democratise those existing powers already being used in the regions.

My Lords, perhaps I may offer some comfort to the Minister. The point he is attempting to make is one which people have been trying to explain to the English since 1604. If he does not succeed, he is in good company.

My Lords, I take that as a tribute. I thank the noble Earl. This is not sleight of hand. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, said that.

It was, my Lords.

Yes, my Lords, it was. This is not sleight of hand. I hope that I am making the matter clear, but the noble Lord also stressed the need for clarity on the powers in a Bill or draft Bill—as I said, the theme throughout the debate was the need for information up-front. He also asked—I can give a positive answer to this—whether the chambers will go if there are elected regional assemblies. Yes. There would be no justification for the chambers; they would be superfluous.

My noble friend Lord Dixon made the point, which is fair enough, that an elected regional assembly for his region could make a contribution to finding local solutions to local problems and regional solutions to regional problems. It is not the be-all and end-all, but my noble friend also made the point about requiring better information and a draft Bill. I fully accept his point about the Barnett formula. Fairly, he drew attention to other matters relating to Scotland and Wales. We may end up with elected regional assemblies in only two or three regions. I do not know; it is the voters' choice. If it happens to be in those regions that adjoin Scotland, so be it, the people will have chosen; the Government will not have imposed it on them. That point is not unimportant.

I intervened in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, to make the point that we are not proposing that regional assemblies should create armies.

My Lords, I let the Minister off when he said that the last time, but not even the European Union would be as stupid as that.

But, my Lords, the noble Lord saw fit to raise the issue in his speech, along with a lot of other scare stories. Nevertheless, he had a point to make and it has been heard. I must say that I do not think that the referendums will impinge on the peace that has been created since the Second World War—another road down which the noble Lord travelled. He asked me about Euro-constituency boundaries. At present, I understand that regional government boundaries are in any case coterminous with European Parliament boundaries. As far as I know, there is no cross-over; they were used last time.

The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, speaks with massive experience of local government, which I respect. He gave a fair example when he said that Essex has a bigger population than a certain number of US states—I cannot remember how many.

Twelve, my Lords.

Well, my Lords, it is not an unimportant point to make that each state in America gets two Senators, whether it is smaller than Essex or, like California, with a population of 50 million. That is the most powerful second Chamber in the world, with 100 members, but it is not based on a proportion of the electorate; there are two Senators per state. We would not invent that system today; we would not propose that in this House—oh, no, there must be equality of the vote. Nevertheless, that is a good example.

The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield also asked, "All for three regions?" I would say that if it ends up being all for three regions, so what, if that is the people's choice? He made a point about voter turnout; I wish that we could do more about that as well. I hope that good, vigorous debates in this place about the reality of life outside—to which we are just as attached as are Members of another place—and on the structure of government, from our experience, will set the debate alight.

I fully admit that I have kept my big mouth shut on reform of this place, but in my short experience here—less than two years—I have been under much tougher scrutiny as a Minister in this House than I ever was in the four years from 1997 to 2001 in the other House. I make a rod for my own back, but that is the reality. I could cite example after example from the past 18 months. So I hope that I treat the House as being important because of the experience that is here, and that we can set the debate alight so that people do not go around saying, "We did not know what was happening. We did not understand what were the consequences of the Bill".

My Lords, no one would accuse the Minister of failing to answer our questions in detail—to that extent I entirely agree with him. However, on voter turnout, does he agree that the more that voters know about what any given authority has the powers to do—and, indeed, the more powers that it has and, therefore, the greater relevance to their lives—the greater the turnout?

Yes, my Lords, that is absolutely true. If they have a good understanding of the electoral system, that is even better. Of course, we have not quite had the courage to introduce proportional representation for another place, but, gradually, it is coming. People's votes count more under PR than under first past the post. I was converted many years ago.

I want to make only one point in response to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, who forecast everything he said in the Daily Telegraph, which is why I raised the point in my opening speech. He used the phrase, "the imposition of regional government". I flatly deny that there will be any imposition of regional government whatsoever. Some will say that the proposed system of regional assemblies is not government anyway. There is no imposition of government. That is the kind of extravagant language that sets the hares running, confuses people and becomes anti-democratic. You might as well be honest: it is not imposed. You may not like what is happening, but the voters will choose. You may not like the boundaries; you may not like the question, but, at the end of the day, pieces of paper will go into a ballot box, which is how the decision will be reached. I cannot accept that that constitutes imposition by anyone.

My Lords, the Minister makes some interesting comments about the word "imposition". But vast rural areas of this country could, as a result of a derisory majority—one vote is enough, as there is no threshold—decidedly consider that regional government had been imposed on them if the voters who turned out came from urban areas. The noble Lord is right technically but, unless the Bill provides a safeguard for those living in rural areas, they will believe that in practice regional government has been imposed.

The noble Lord has been hugely patient. Will he clarify an answer that he gave me earlier on the powers in respect of housing that would be given to regional assemblies? Only a week or so ago, we received a paper in this House that told us about the number of houses to be built across the country. Some of my noble friends regarded the plans as concreting over the South East and South West. If the assemblies are to have power at regional level, as opposed to dealing with aspects of the housing sector as the White Paper says, does that mean that they can decide not to build houses in, for example, the Stansted area, along the corridor between Cambridge and London, or in the precious parts of the green belt in the South East and South West? Is that the power that they will have? If not, what is the power worth?

My Lords, the noble Baroness's question is based on an assumption that all the big cities (and the big-city politicians) want elected regional assemblies. That may not be the case. They may prefer instead to be the biggest fish in their own pool. It is assumed in the question that the big cities will be hell-bent because they are unitary; that it does not matter to them, and that they will opt for elected regional assemblies. That is not a valid assumption.

The implication is that it will be argued that only people in areas with two-tier authorities should have a right to a vote. That is one of the issues raised by the Local Government Association. If that policy were adopted, people in some small areas would be given a veto against the majority in the regions. I fully accept that we can debate the matter at length in Committee.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the only veto that people in those minority areas would have is over a reorganisation of local government in their own area; and that it would not affect the people in areas that are already unitary?

My Lords, no. But I think that the question was put in reverse, to the effect that people in rural areas would lose the right to a two-tier authority because they tend to be two-tier.

On housing, the White Paper was published last May; the sustainable communities programme was published last month, and housing policy changes have been taken forward. The plans for how we will regionalise housing are still being discussed. The noble Baroness in her original question gave the good example of housing. I will be happy to go into further detail on it.

My Lords—

My Lords, may I first respond to the noble Baroness's speech? I have re-read my right honourable friend's opening paragraph. Without qualifying what he said, I wish to make clear that we do not claim that the world started on 2nd May, 1997. My right honourable friend did not say that.

There are some good examples, which we have celebrated and made clear. The first is the docklands development. I accept that there have been problems with it; but, for 30 years, four local authorities did absolutely damn all about the docklands until the development corporation was set up. In the development vehicles for the four growth areas we are now trying to learn from some of the mistakes made by the London Docklands Development Corporation in its early years.

The other thing that we can celebrate is that one of the four growth areas, the Thames Gateway, was identified 10 to 15 years ago by the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine. That is where the credit goes for that, and we have always made that abundantly clear. We did not invent it, and we did not ask for studies to be done, as we did with Ashford, Stansted/Cambridge and Milton Keynes/south Midlands. As for the one in my back yard in Birmingham—Heartlands—I remember going with colleagues late one night to see the late Nick Ridley and ask him to impose a development corporation for those 3,000 acres because, otherwise, nothing would be done. We are not saying that the world started then.

On the other hand, it was not this Government that abolished the Royal County of Berkshire without a referendum, was it?

My Lords—

Hang on a minute: I have not had an answer to that question. It was not this Government that abolished the Royal County of Berkshire without a referendum.

My Lords, I am most obliged to the noble Lord. He suggested that I had said that regional authorities would be imposed. I did. The Bill is an imposition in itself.

In my speech, I raised the question of the use of public money on one side of the argument. Ratepayers' and taxpayers' money is being used to finance organisations campaigning at this stage for regional elected assemblies, while those who are against them are denied public money. Is that legal? Is it fair?

My Lords, all I can say is that the matter has been examined by Nick Raynsford, the Local Government Minister. Nobody has found any illegality taking place. I understand that issues have been drawn to the attention of the district auditor. Answers have been given in another place and, I think, to one of the Committees of your Lordships' House to the effect that the money is not being misspent. Obviously, people can investigate that.

I must make a final point before I sit down.

My Lords, I want an answer on one point. If Birmingham City Council, say, takes the view that the noble Lord said that it had done, could it, as a big fish in a small pond, campaign against the plans as a matter of council policy? Would that be allowed under local spending rules?

My Lords, it is not a question of campaigning. I said earlier that, as far as I know, the regional assembly in the West Midlands has written to say, "Please don't put us on the list for a referendum". There is nothing to campaign about. When the point comes and an area chooses to have a referendum, a campaign will be under way, and the Electoral Commission's rules on money, on the length of the campaign and on ensuring fairness for both sides will come into play.

I shall make a final point to answer a specific question that I was asked about the soundings document. At the back, there is a little questionnaire. Maybe that is putting it a bit strongly: there are a few tick-boxes. If anybody writes in to say that they do not want an elected assembly, that will not count as having an interest in a referendum. If someone writes in and says, "We don't want an elected assembly", it will not count. If someone sends in the form, on which question 6 asks "Do you want a referendum in your region?", and they tick "Yes" or "No", we will have an answer. If they write in and say, "We're not interested in this", it will not count. Question 7 goes on to ask for a view on holding a referendum, ranging from "Very strong" to "Very weak". The Bill does not allow us to count such letters. We operate not as free agents but as decent public servants making proper decisions. We will publish as much as we can about the representations.

I have referred to every noble Lord who spoke. I may not have answered all their questions, but I hope that the Bill will get a Second Reading.

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down—

My Lords, the Minister has been extremely tolerant. He has spoken for 37 minutes, with many interruptions. There will be a Committee stage and a Report stage.

On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

My Lords, no one can doubt the importance of this Unstarred Question. The world is faced with one of the most profound health challenges that we have ever experienced. Globally, there have been 23 million deaths already. It is estimated that AIDS has created 13 million orphans. Around the world 40 million people live with HIV.

That is not all. All the forecasts indicate that we have not yet seen the worst. The worst is still to come as the epidemic spreads through India, China and Eastern Europe. Yet the tragedy is that the deaths and the sickness are not inevitable. HIV/AIDS is preventable. We can prevent its spread; we can prevent babies being born infected. People with AIDS do not have to die. Although there is no cure and no vaccine, retroviral drugs can extend life for many years.

Therefore, on one side are deaths which are counted literally in millions and on the other the ability to drastically reduce that toll and all the other suffering that HIV/AIDS brings. What has prevented such action from being taken? What I fear has been lacking is the will here in the West to do everything in our power to halt the spread of the disease. Even though the figures are so self-evidently terrible, there is still a lack of concern, a lack of outrage and a lack of anger at what is happening. We watch with something approaching indifference. It does not affect us in the West to anything like the same extent.

I pay tribute to the wonderful voluntary organisations working both in the United Kingdom and overseas. They carry out some truly heroic work. That should be recognised and the tribute to them should be underlined. But generally, I fear that public concern has not been remotely at that level. Would we get millions of people on the streets of London demanding more action on AIDS in Africa? I doubt it. Are there calls for emergency debates in Parliament on the position? Certainly that is not my experience. Yet, the human damage being inflicted by this epidemic dwarfs the results of terrorism.

This week, the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave interviews to both the Guardian and the BBC. Incidentally, the reports by those two organisations were excellent. I congratulate both. I particularly pay tribute to the BBC which receives much criticism from politicians. Thank goodness we have a media organisation with the courage to lead its 10 o'clock news with HIV/AIDS, as it did earlier this week. I am tempted to say that the media are doing rather better than the politicians in this particular area.

Responding to questions, the Chancellor of the Exchequer called on drug companies to provide much cheaper drugs. I agree with and endorse what he said. This is not remotely a matter of party politics and nor should it ever be so. However, I must add that initiatives like that do not absolve governments from their own responsibility. All the evidence suggests that the role of government is absolutely crucial in fighting HIV/AIDS. No one else has the power or the resources.

In Britain in 1986–87 the then government sought to lead with their public education campaign, comprising advertising on television and in newspapers; posters, and a letter sent to every household. As Secretary of State I received much advice on what we should put in the letter and what we should and should not do. What was fascinating was that the public response to the letter was very mature. There were few complaints. I think that most of the public reacted extraordinarily well to the careful medical advice being given. I admit that we made one mistake. We sent a letter in Welsh to a non-Welsh speaker. We learnt of the mistake when he turned up at a social security office believing the letter to be an application form for a heating allowance. In the main, however, I am glad to say that the impact was much more beneficial. I know too that in Africa, the lead given by the Ugandan Government in tackling AIDS has had an important and fundamental effect.

So I would suggest that today the question for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and for the Government is whether they are doing enough. For unless they are, it is difficult to say to others, "You must do more". I regret to say that I do not believe that the Government are doing enough.

As regards the United Kingdom, what most concerns me is the high degree of public complacency, as well as the degree of ignorance. Surveys show that today almost half the country feels it knows very little about HIV/AIDS. One survey showed that four out of 10 teenage boys had not even heard of the disease, a condition that is causing so much suffering around the world. I know of no one working in the area of young people who considers the present position in this country to be satisfactory. The truth of the matter is that public education is failing.

I have to say to the Minister that it took the Government four years—I repeat, four years—to produce their sexual health strategy paper. It was as if they were afraid of offending the public by raising such issues. Whether that is right or wrong, there is no doubt about what is happening. The pressure on clinics dealing with sexually transmitted diseases has become intense. Between 1991 and 2001 new cases being seen at the clinics has increased from 670,000 a year to over 1.3 million. The clinics are grossly overcrowded. One has only to go across the river to St. Thomas's Hospital to see that. People have to wait weeks to be seen. Indeed, the position is particularly bad in London.

Turning to HIV infection, it is estimated that last year there were 6,500 new diagnoses, the highest figure ever recorded. Furthermore, the number of homosexual men now being diagnosed is again increasing after levelling off in the early 1990s. That is bad news because it obviously means that the safer sex message is not getting through.

The one part of the picture which has remained good has been the low number of reports of HIV contracted from injecting drugs. Although at the time I was much criticised for introducing clean needle exchanges—it was not one of the easiest of discussions in government at the time—I would claim that the policy has worked.

Of course it is true that today the figures for HIV are much affected by heterosexual transmission. There were over 4,000 reports last year, and of those 80 per cent of the infections were acquired in sub-Saharan Africa. We have all seen the reports in The Times of 13th February stating that all immigrants are to be given compulsory HIV tests, as cases rise. I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on those reports. Certainly there is a strong case for such checks when someone is going to work in the National Health Service and will be involved in procedures such as surgery, gynaecology and dentistry, where the patient may be put at risk. But if you are to have general checks, the question becomes what action follows those checks, particularly with HIV, where the condition can be dormant for months.

We should always remember, and perhaps underline again, that HIV is not infectious in the sense that it can be easily spread. There is certainly a question about the cost of medical treatment, but not a massive new threat to public health. So we await the Minister's comments on the Government's policy in that area.

Let me take the argument further. At the same time as recognising that concern, we should also feel compassion for people from Africa who are seeking treatment. In this country, we are talking about 4,000 people, many of whom have come from Zimbabwe where their country is being laid waste.

Compare that with the figures for sub-Saharan Africa. Almost 30 million people have the AIDS virus, including 3 million children under the age of 15. More than 4 million require immediate drug treatment. Yet across that continent only 50,000 people are receiving the medicines they need. The others are condemned to die. That is the bleak and dreadful truth of the problem. Those are truly terrible figures.

I am in no doubt as to what is the most urgent task. It is for the prosperous western nations to come together to provide the resources so that we can save life. In that respect, the most hopeful development came in President Bush's State of the Union Address last month. In that he pledged 15 billion US dollars over the next five years for this cause.

What a contrast with what has gone before. I remember going to the United States in the late 1980s to see what the Americans were doing at government level, to be told that already we in Britain were doing more. The word "AIDS" had not crossed President Reagan's lips; the Governor of California, which had the biggest problem, ignored the issue. Voluntary organisations and Churches were doing a great deal; government were doing very little. So I unreservedly welcome the President's commitment.

Of course there are issues about how such money should be divided between bilateral aid and the Global Fund, but the issue, the challenge which we should face, is what we can do in Britain and Europe to match that commitment.

I acknowledge the Government's increased contribution through the Department for International Development and I welcome it. But I have to say—and I suspect that Clare Short would agree with me—that it is still not enough. The noble Baroness, Lady Amos, said last night that the Government had contributed 200 million US dollars over five years to the Global Fund. In reality, that is a small amount compared to the billions of dollars that the Global Fund needs each year—7 to 10 billion US dollars is the goal.

There needs to be a step change in the resources we are providing. That applies not only to Britain but also to the other developed and prosperous countries of the European Union. Europe is skilled at argument and debate—often with each other—but there is here the opportunity, the challenge, to come together and to devote resources and effort to a cause which we can surely all agree. Our aim should be to match the effort and commitment now coming from the United States.

Equally, we could follow the United States in having a European high level special co-ordinator. The President of the United States has said that his appointment will have the rank of ambassador. We could give a European appointment equal importance. The point would be to bring greater direction and greater purpose to all the different programmes that now exist and to encourage the new resources which are needed.

A terrible tragedy has already unfolded. On present policies, that tragedy will deepen and extend even wider. We have the knowledge and the ability to prevent millions of deaths from taking place. We should use all the resources at our disposal to fight this epidemic and be totally committed to this goal. Future generations will judge us on how we respond.

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, on asking this Unstarred Question. I think it is admirable that the noble Lord, who was Secretary of State for Health at the time the epidemic first appeared in Britain, should demonstrate his continuing interest. His team then at the Department of Health, backed by the Cabinet Committee headed by Lord Whitelaw, really went into action. It was a scary time, but the response was appropriate. Very explicit health messages went out on billboards, in newspapers, on television and through letter-boxes. Sexual topics which till then had been taboo were frankly discussed. Some people were shocked. I was impressed by the ability of a Conservative government to be so open. And the campaign worked. The incidence of new cases of HIV slowed from 1985 to 1988. Some other countries at a similar state of development tried to follow suit, but few were so successful in containing the epidemic as the United Kingdom.

In looking at the situation today, I could quote many statistics which have been kindly given to me by the Public Health Laboratory Service, but I shall be selective. Like the noble Lord, I shall divide my time between the UK and the developing world. The two pictures are linked, as the noble Lord implied. New notifications of HIV in the UK increased gradually from 1989, but more rapidly from 1998. Deaths from HIV/AIDS are now much lower than in the early years of the epidemic because of the availability of combination anti-retroviral therapy, and are down from over 1,000 per annum to about 400.

The increased rate of HIV transmission that we are seeing now is largely due to sex between males and females. The rate among this group has increased relentlessly, from a very low level in 1985 to 2,441 according to the most recent (2001) figures. It now makes up 55 per cent of the total. Transmission resulting from sex between men is now only 32 per cent of the total—down from 72 per cent of the total in 1986. But the number of cases from men having sex with men has crept up, even though the percentage has gone down, in the past three years—in parallel, as the noble Lord suggested, with a rise in other sexually transmitted diseases, because the practice of safe sex is diminishing—possibly because of a mistaken belief that HIV, now that it can be treated, is no longer lethal.

The noble Lord also pointed out that the incidence of HIV spread by drug abusers is very low because of the success of the needle exchange programme. That is still operating. I very much hope that the Government will keep it going or strengthen it, because it has been effective.

The increase in heterosexually transmitted HIV is largely confined to communities in the UK consisting of people originally coming from countries with a high HIV prevalence—mostly from sub-Saharan Africa. Many of their infections have been acquired abroad, and the culture of denial, which is all too common in those countries, still prevails among some immigrant communities here—those affected are mainly in London.

The Government are fully aware of these trends, as is shown by the National Strategy for Sexual Health and HIV, and are working with black African people, especially in London, in an attempt to increase awareness through health promotion programmes and are encouraging HIV testing and counselling. The African HIV Policy Network co-ordinates these activities which are carried out, for example, through the National AIDS Trust and the Terrence Higgins Trust. The department funds projects by NGOs. One in particular is the African Services Development, which is under the aegis of the Terrence Higgins Trust. Core funding for the organisation is not, however, provided by the Department of Health, and I strongly recommend the Minister to look at ways in which the department can strengthen this work and put it on a more strategic and co-ordinated footing, with a long budget line, (if that is the way to describe money promised over three to five years instead of one year).

There are other initiatives which need encouragement. It is not easy, working with these communities. The African community in London comes from disparate cultures. It is different from working in a village in Africa, where there is usually an informal administrative structure headed by respected elders.

The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, spoke about the proposal to screen and test all immigrants, treating those found to be positive for HIV, TB or other diseases. There is a strong case for that on public health and individual health grounds, but there are many political and ethical arguments against it, and it might even be counter-productive. Like the noble Lord, I should very much like to hear the Minister's views on that.

The total prevalence of HIV infection in the UK, estimated to be 41,200 by the Public Health Laboratory Service, is only 0.08 per cent of the population. That, of course, is considerably greater than the figure for those infected by variant OD, caught by eating the wrong kind of beef, but it is tiny compared with the disastrous rate of 25 per cent or more in many sub-Saharan countries. DfID is well informed about the devastating nature of the pandemic—the noble Lord has given the figures. It is suggested that although sub-Saharan Africa bears the brunt at the moment, as the noble Lord suggested, there are indications that India, possibly China, Russia and the other former Soviet countries may also be about to see an onslaught of similar dimensions.

A large part of the reason for the African disaster is the refusal, until recently, of many, but not all, African heads of state to accept that intimate sexual behaviour, patterns or habits which have become part of the cultural norm will have to change and include the use of condoms—not very popular. They could take a leaf out of the noble Lord's book and look at what we did here. I am sure it was not easy for the noble Lord or his colleagues to reveal and publicise the seamy side of life, but they took the plunge and it worked. In Africa, President Museveni has done the same but, sadly, President Mbeki of South Africa still seems to be in denial. But former President Mandela has given encouragement to many in South Africa to stand up and he counted. There are many courageous people there, giving the true message.

It is in South Africa that the most vigorous campaign has taken place to purchase an ti-retroviral drugs at low cost. The South African Government have finally agreed, in principle at least, to offer all HIV-positive pregnant women the option of receiving the drug Nevirapine at the time of delivery to reduce the transmission of HIV to their babies. The campaign to persuade the pharmaceutical giants to provide low-cost anti-retroviral drugs to the world's poorest and most afflicted nations continues.

At present, South Africa and some others are buying generic drugs from India and Brazil, but even these are well beyond the reach of most developing countries if they were to give them to their entire HIV-positive population—were that ever possible through a very basic and sometimes absent health infrastructure.

However, there is a strong possibility that the marginal cost of increasing the production of antiretroviral drugs by the major pharmaceutical companies would be less than that charged by the generics industry. By marginal cost, I mean the cost of production. They would not lose, but they would not make a profit. The production could be vastly increased, but we do not know the full figures for the marginal costs. That is the route through which a huge increase in the production of the drugs could be achieved. However, deadlock appears to have been reached at the World Trade Organisation. Let us hope that an agreement can be reached between now and next September, at the next ministerial WTO meeting in Cancun, Mexico. I very much hope that my right honourable friend Patricia Hewitt—if it is to be she who represents us—will speak strongly in favour of such an agreement before and at the summit.

Equally crucial is the need to build up Kofi Annan's global fund for AIDS, TB and malaria. It is still woefully below its target level of 10 billion dollars per annum. If all countries in relation to their wealth had contributed as generously as the UK, the kitty would contain more than the 2.2 billion dollars that it now has, but it would still be grossly underfunded. That is a sad story in comparison with the huge sums of money now being spent on the build-up to the possible war in Iraq. If the war starts, the cost will be vastly higher—maybe 100 billion dollars, which would be enough to finance the global fund for 10 years, with inestimable benefits to the poorest people in the world and the saving of millions of lives. On the contrary, a war would cost many thousands of lives and cause destruction that would take many billions of dollars to rebuild.

However, we have to deal with the situation as we find it. Many low-cost projects can be carried out to soften the impact of this worldwide disaster. Many are in action already. DfID is helping some of these bilaterally through the EU, the multilateral agencies and, particularly, through non-governmental organisations. These measures include support for governments and NGOs to carry out preventive programmes, especially with young people—I am sorry that there is not time to go into this—and to help those with HIV and AIDS to live better lives. Much can be done to improve their quality of life in their own homes as they become weaker.

Just after Christmas, I spent a week with ICROSS—a small, Kenya-based non-governmental organisation headed by a dedicated Anglo-Irishman called Mike Meegan. It trains local village or slum people to look after their fellow villagers who are sick with HIV, give them simple remedies when they suffer opportunistic infections, refer them to hospital if necessary, but be ready to receive them back to continue treatment at home, thus saving many hospital beds. I thought that the visit would be harrowing. It was not. The patients clearly had a feeling of inner contentment, because in their suffering they were being cared for and their children, who were to be orphans, were already bonding with other villagers who would take over the parents' role. There are many similar caring organisations, some receiving help from donor countries, some from individual donations. It is good that they are there, but it is a sad reflection on the fact that at present we cannot do more.

My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Rea, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for obtaining this opportunity for us to address the most significant plague to have appeared in our globe in my lifetime and a deeply serious and worrying matter.

The small number of noble Lords taking part in the debate tends to suggest that colleagues may be taking comfort from the fact that much progress has been made in pharmacological treatment, public health and preventive measures in this country. In much of the developed world, the early fears of galloping epidemic have, fortunately, not been realised. However, the picture in developing countries is very different. This debate allows the House and those outside it with an interest in these matters to be updated in the approach being taken by Her Majesty's Government, but it also provides your Lordships with an opportunity to proffer some thoughts and advice on the matter to the Government.

I address myself largely to the situation in the developing world, rather than to that in this country. I shall refer especially to sub-Saharan Africa, where the impact of the disease has been, and will be for the foreseeable future, absolutely catastrophic. It is not possible or appropriate in a debate of this kind to try to address all aspects of the problem, so I shall restrict myself to two or three.

There is a dilemma involved in reaching people with educative and warning messages to inform them how and why they must modify their behaviour to protect themselves and their families from the disease. One difficulty is in reaching them in a way that works. In this country, as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, said, we have radio, television, advertising hoardings, newspapers, the Internet, leaflets delivered to every home and many other methods of health education. Those methods are all possible and have been undertaken with significant success.

The limited research evidence available on this matter, which includes an interesting report that was published in the past 12 months by the United Nations, and the common-sense appreciation of the realities of life in sub-Saharan Africa, make it clear that there is only one significant way in which to get across a message to the population at large. That is the use of radio. In many parts of Africa, it is simply impossible to reach people in any other way, because of rurality, illiteracy and the other manifold social and educative problems. Radio is not only a way in which to reach people individually; in many developing countries, listening to radio is a group activity that stimulates thought and discussion.

Despite that knowledge, there has been relatively little concentration on ensuring that journalists, especially radio journalists in developing counties, are adequately encouraged and trained to use radio to get the message across. In this country, the United States and a few other countries, there have been laudable attempts at limited schemes to train health journalists. However, that tends to involve a privileged few journalists travelling to attend worthwhile courses in the developed world. Reaching really significant numbers of journalists would mean conducting training exercises in developing countries, although that might involve taking some of our skills and experienced people to assist. It would also involve a follow-up. Training journalists to appreciate the value of this is of little consequence unless there is a continued provision of stories that can be introduced into the programming and the news to ensure that the message continues to get across.

The BBC World Service Trust has done some work in the area of HIV/AIDS health journalism. Money invested in that area gives the prospect of a significant multiplier effect. Will the Government consider encouraging not only the subtle mention of HIV/AIDS in soap operas, although that is valuable in its own way, but also other definitive and clear information through radio? That would require some significant, though not colossal, public funds. The Government could encourage other foundations and funders to assist organisations such as the BBC World Service Trust and other bodies to develop such work. I believe that such training and support of journalists to use radio is an extremely important way of getting the message across.

That leads us to the question of what precisely we should be saying about our understanding of the illness. That question has come to the fore even today with the publicity about three articles published by the Royal Society of Medicine in the International Journal of Sexually Transmitted Diseases and AIDS. I have been provided with the articles by the editor of the journal, Professor Wallace Dinsmore, and I have read them. It seems to me that there may be reason to revisit some of our assumptions about the spread of HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa.

As some noble Lords will know, the received wisdom has been that in excess of 90 per cent—some people give even larger numbers—of transmission is by heterosexual intercourse, a very different situation from that which is understood to be pertaining in this country, for example. What those articles raise is the possibility that a significant element of the transmission may be by other means, including possibly the use of infected needles. The reasons given for those findings are that the spread of AIDS in Africa has not followed the pattern of other sexually transmitted diseases. For example, in Zimbabwe in the 1990s, HIV increased by 12 per cent annually while other STDs diminished by 25 per cent and condom use actually increased in the high-risk groups. In one study, the mothers of more than 40 per cent of HIV-positive children tested HIV negative, and the children who tested HIV positive experienced twice as many injections as compared with HIV negative children.

Very worryingly, it is often countries with high levels of healthcare that have the highest rates of HIV transmission. I remember being particularly struck, a year or so ago, when visiting Botswana, a country with a relatively small population, a very good infrastructure, a good healthcare system, and rampant AIDS. I wondered why that was. It did not seem to me reasonable simply to assume that it was a matter of sexual behaviour. I therefore think that it is important to look at those articles. The authors quite properly insist that their findings are not definitive. However, they raise an important question. It is a little disappointing that the immediate reaction of a WHO representative was reported to be negative, although as politicians we know that it is a little dangerous to take reports at face value.

I can understand the deep anxiety that all the work done to persuade people to exercise greater care and less risk in their sexual behaviour could be damaged. However, I hope that the Government will not simply dismiss those articles but examine the issue properly. If further investigation sets them to the side, that will be well and good. Better that than that a warning bell be rung and ignored and that subsequent findings confirm the findings. Apart from the loss of life in the interim, the damage done to the standing of western medical science and its use would be absolutely profound. If there is a real issue, we need to know about it.

In any case, it raises another important question about how we apply medical treatments developed in western contexts in less developed situations. In this country, for example, we would not dream of not using sterile single-use needles, but in other parts of the world, finance makes it difficult to do otherwise. In this country, we would not contemplate embarking on anti-AIDS multi-drug treatment without proper tests and proper monitoring. But how possible is it to ensure that such tests and monitoring take place even if we are able to provide the multi-drug treatments that we desperately hope will soon be available for people in sub-Saharan Africa?

The implication is that not only do we need to ensure that those pharmaceutical products are made available at affordable costs in developing countries, whether by encouraging employing companies to provide them—such as in South Africa, where they have begun in enlightened self-interest to realise that AIDS rampant among their employees is not good for business—or by government-sponsored schemes, as elsewhere, we also need to ensure that all other aspects of the treatment and of the AIDS campaign are present, such as supporting healthcare professionals and providing them with single-use needles. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, pointed out that in this country we took that step with intravenous drug abusers and it has been helpful. Why assume that it is irrelevant in sub-Saharan Africa? I do not believe that it is.

I mention again facilitation and encouragement in radio broadcasting as a feature of public education. By concentrating on sub-Saharan Africa I do not suggest that it is more important than other parts of the developing world or that the situation is satisfactory here. The powerful speech by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, makes clear that there are problems here and problems elsewhere. I am convinced that in good conscience we cannot simply forget the utter disaster that is affecting not just many of our Commonwealth colleagues but all other countries in sub-Saharan Africa. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will have something encouraging to say in that regard.

My Lords, it is not enough to thank the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for introducing the debate; we must also be thankful that it is through the noble Lord that this debate was initiated. He is a modest man; he has been the first to admit that his rate of success has been very partial. But the rate of success in dealing with major pandemics is almost nil. The noble Lord will stand comparison with any Minister in any century that I know of who has tried to tackle any epidemic. We are fortunate to have him here tonight.

As my professional skill is not medical, it naturally occurs to me to think of this issue in the context of other major pandemics, especially that of the Black Death. One of my interesting questions is whether the similarities or the differences are more relevant. The scale of death in the Black Death was at many stages greater. It is believed—I cannot put it more strongly than that—that in 1348–9 something like 30 per cent of the population of England died. Even in sub-Saharan Africa we have not yet seen figures of that kind.

Right down to the plague of 1665 there were at least four occasions in any normal century when 20 per cent of the population of London died. What strikes me about such occasions is the extraordinary resilience of human society. If one looks at the records of the Parliament of 1625, when they had to step over the dead and the dying in Palace Yard to get into the House, one can read through without knowing that that was taking place. If one looks at municipal records, where they continue, which is not always, one sees presented an unbroken surface. That resilience is crucial, both in the strength of the family bond—during the bubonic plague there is no recorded case of parent and child or husband and wife failing to nurse each other through it—and in the capacity of the population to recover.

After each of those epidemics there was an abrupt drop in the age of marriage that lasted for about three years which replenished the population and then it settled down to its previous age. My academic colleagues are correct in ascribing that to the economic opportunity for marriage, created by inheriting the house, the farm, the shop or whatever. In the words of the epitaph:

"Beneath this stone, in hopes of Zion, Doth lie the landlord of the Lion; His son keeps on the business still, Resigned unto the heavenly will".

It is of course the intensity of the human urge for reproduction that carried us through, but that is where the difference lies. The danger of AIDS is that it attacks us at the point where we feel the reproductive urge most. It threatens the very mechanism that enabled us to survive much worse epidemics in times past. That makes me wonder whether one of the best places to try to tackle the whole problem is the mother-baby link of transmission.

I listened with great care to what the noble Lord, Lord Rea, had to say about the use of anti-retroviral drugs. I thought of the previous problem of rhesus negative babies. Obviously there is a point of parallel, although not a complete one. It is not so long ago that having a rhesus negative baby was a really life-threatening situation in a way in which it is not now. If we could break the link, the strength of the human urge for reproduction would again be protected.

However, we must think also of the feeding of the baby. Clearly, it cannot be done on the mother's milk. The practice of wet nurses, as used in Tudor and Stuart England, is of limited application, because there is a limited supply. That brings us back to the question of bottles, which brings us back to the question of the Johannesburg Summit—of clean water. I remember that stage of parenthood as an endless process of scrubbing out bottles with a substance known as Milton. Being brought up on Gray's Elegy, I always thought of it as mute inglorious Milton. It is no good having any amount of mute inglorious Milton if there is only polluted water to use. The question of clean water, as it came up in the Johannesburg Summit, may even be vital for our survival as a species.

If one looks at the subject, one realises the importance of blue-skies research. If we think of San Francisco, AIDS came literally and metaphorically out of the blue sky. I remember it being said during the education debates of the 1980s that it can take up to 20 years to build up a competently trained first-class research team in a particular field. Of course, microbiology was not the flavour of the month immediately before AIDS.

We do not know where the next danger will come from. If one begins to build up academic capacity only after the need is perceived, one comes into something like the curve of pursuit in calculus, which was the only bit of calculus that my father ever managed to make me understand. A dog runs diagonally across the corner of a field to pursue his master who is walking along the other side. He runs towards where his master is, but since his master continues to progress along the field, the dog is perpetually running behind him. That is what happens if one tries to commission research according to perceived need. It is always behind the need for which it is designed. There will be other such problems, so we must have blue-skies research.

I noted what the noble Lord, Lord Rea, had to say about healthcare. The key question for me is whether the motive is purely medical. In the 16th century, syphilis was known in this country as the Spanish disease. In the 17th century, it was known as the French disease. That change is not a matter of medical evidence, but of changing English foreign policy. If a test is imposed on everyone, regardless of nationality, coming from a particular country, one can make a scientific justification for that. However, if it were applied to people on the basis of nationality, not on the basis of where they have been.

I would find that a highly suspicious proceeding and not one particularly easy to justify in scientific terms. I also wonder, with some curiosity, whether one might do something to improve the situation by moving towards greater equality of the sexes. The reluctance to wear a condom is, of course, normally a male phenomenon. One understands perfectly well why, but understanding why does not make it any more helpful. In a situation of greater equality, it may be easier for the female partner to insist on its being worn. Therefore, that may be one area where progress might be possible.

I think also of the specific context of prostitution, which is clearly one in which the spread of AIDS must be possible. According to the Sunday papers—independent journalists in different papers repeat themselves so consistently that I believe they are probably on to something—prostitutes are regularly offered extra money for being prepared to have sex without a condom. Of course, I do not need to say that that is a dangerous practice, but it is also an exercise of crude economic power in an unequal relationship. I cannot help wondering whether it might strengthen the prostitute's bargaining position in this situation if it were a criminal offence to offer to pay a prostitute money for intercourse without a condom. Of course, the very last thing that any man wants in that situation is publicity. There are risks in the idea; I throw it out only as something that we might consider.

On the question of the drug companies, I understand that research has costs. I understand that those costs must be met somewhere. But it is also necessary for any commercial organisation to think in a wider context. Commercial organisations need customers, and I cannot think of any more extreme form of short-termism than killing one's customers. Therefore, it might be in the drug companies' economic interests to listen to some of the things that the Chancellor is saying to them.

I listened with great interest to what my noble friend Lord Alderdice said about needles. I had read about it in this morning's papers, but he developed the case in much greater detail and with much greater scientific precision than one ever expects from any newspaper which has been sub-edited in the middle of the night.

The one thing that is clear to me at present is that there is no academic consensus on the matter. Where there is not academic consensus, one usually needs more research with larger samples and a wider range of questions. But I must confess that, when we were talking about the supply of needles, unbidden came into my mind the voice of my noble friend Lady Northover last night. She spoke about the supply of condoms provided by one particular charity, which, she said, amounted to one condom per male per annum—not a particularly satisfying allowance.

I cannot help wondering whether that might be true of the supply of needles to some areas of sub-Saharan Africa, where there is a considerable shortage of such things. I also wonder whether, in the task of sterilising needles, the problem of clean water may, again, be rearing its ugly and polluted head. After all, what is the point of attempting to sterilise a needle in polluted water?

Therefore, again, we need to get across to those who are influential in the World Trade Organisation—I am glad that a number of people have attracted our attention to that organisation—the proposition that the short-term pursuit of profit is not always profitable, again, according to the principle that one does not want to make profits at the expense of killing one's customers.

The invisible hand has something to be said for it, but some hands are rather more invisible than others. The hand that says, "You shouldn't deal with problems of polluted water because it diminishes your short-term profits", is a hand that I find quite peculiarly invisible. Indeed, it is in more senses than one a hand of a ghostly quality.

So, in discussing World Trade Organisation problems with those who take some of the new economics which come from places across the Atlantic, I hope that we shall be able to get people to take a slightly wider view of the matter. It is in the World Trade Organisation that in the end the battle will be won or lost.

My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Fowler on initiating this debate. I agree very much with what he said. I also endorse his remarks about President Bush's admirable contribution.

The recent increase in the incidence of AIDS in this country is very worrying and therefore the timing of the debate is particularly helpful.

At the outset I should declare an interest. I have been president and chairman of the Mildmay centre in Hackney, which we set up in 1986 as the first hospice for people dying of AIDS in Europe. As we found ourselves treating quite a number of Ugandan women and children, President Museveni of Uganda visited the centre and asked us to build a similar organisation near Kampala. Of course we readily agreed, not thinking how on earth we would find the money.

My noble friend Lady Chalker was very supportive. The Overseas Development Agency provided us with several million pounds to build a large outpatient and teaching centre, which continues to serve a large number of people, not only in Uganda but also in many other African countries.

I found attending a clinic in the centre to be a very harrowing experience. One would see about 90 children, all with AIDS, all orphans and all dying; 80 per cent of them had open TB; and many had scabies. It was not the usual type. Because they have no immunity it is a generalised rash and does not look like scabies, but is very distressing. Of course that can be cured quite easily. There was also shingles. I have never seen such terrible cases of shingles. Again that condition can be helped. One problem is looking after the staff of the centre. It is such a strain that we have to make sure they get regular holidays.

I want to look at how the incidence of AIDS can be reduced. There have been many attempts to that end, but none more successful than the Ugandan policy, which succeeded in reducing the number of new cases from 30 per cent to 11 per cent.

In order to be up to date, I obtained the latest figures by telephoning the two ladies in Uganda who have done such wonderful work there for many years. One is a real live matron—how we miss them in this country—Ruth Sims, and the other is the medical director, Dr Veronica Moss. They said that the incidence of AIDS in pregnancy has fallen even lower to 7 per cent.

The question arises: how has Uganda achieved this while other countries have not? I think that President Museveni is probably one of the most outstanding of Africa's leaders. When he realised what the problem was in the late 1980s, he decided that above all the country had to face the facts. Concealing the truth, he knew, was a recipe for disaster. So it has proved to be a disaster in several of the African states.

I was very interested by what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said about the percentage of people that the plague carried off. I knew that the plague carried off about one-third of the people, but the same thing looks to be happening in some of the African states. Furthermore, a similar catastrophe appears to be in store for several Asian countries that pretend that AIDS is not their problem.

As the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, mentioned, even today there was a dubious report about the spread of AIDS in Africa, stating that it had more to do with faulty medical treatment—including contaminated equipment and blood transfusion. I put more store by what Professor Michael Adler had to say about those papers. He is a distinguished doctor who has been involved in HIV/AIDS for many years. His view was that those propagating that view had produced no new data and that most of their analysis dated from the 1980s. Blood transfusions are now much safer; people are much more aware of the dangers; and people are more careful about medical interventions.

On the "Today" programme this morning, a senior doctor working in Kenya pointed out that 1.5 million Kenyan people have died of AIDS and 2 million currently have AIDS, but those people never see a hospital until they have developed the disease. He also emphasised that for the past 10 years in Kenya they have used only disposable needles and that all blood transfusion is doubly checked.

The World Health Organisation figures estimate that unsafe injections are responsible for only 5 per cent of HIV/AIDS infections. A United Nations unit called the Safe Injection Global Network has been established to promote safer practices, focusing mainly on hepatitis, which is much more easily transmitted in that way than HIV/AIDS. As a surgeon myself, I am very careful with the knife and needles not to incur any injury to myself or my assistants, but it is not AIDS that I am concerned about, it is hepatitis. It is actually quite difficult to pick up AIDS from a needle stick, but easy to pick up hepatitis. So the policy is, when operating on a person, to assume that everyone has hepatitis. That makes one very careful indeed.

Of course, it was not so long ago that surgeons did not need to wear gloves at all and, during the war, many of them did not. But we now tend to wear two pairs of gloves. Someone said that the only reason that surgeons wore gloves in the old days was so that they did not leave any fingerprints behind.

Experts have pointed out that if contaminated needles were responsible for the spread of AIDS, Hepatitis B would be spreading faster than HIV/AIDS in Africa and Asia. It is not. An Imperial College epidemiologist, Professor Roy Anderson, has said:

"Understanding the root of infections is very difficult unless you do cohort studies which compare groups of people who get the disease with similar groups who don't get the disease".

When that was done for HIV/AIDS, two risk factors were identified. The first was sexual behaviour and the second was the presence of other sexually transmitted diseases, which may facilitate infection with HIV/AIDS. The number of injections that anyone has had does not appear to be important.

Another specialist has stressed that if the main spread of the disease was through needles, one would expect to find the disease in similar concentrations across all age groups. But that is not the case. It is overwhelmingly concentrated in the sexually active age groups.

President Museveni himself launched a sustained campaign based on preventing AIDS by encouraging faithfulness within marriage. He said that, if a person could not confine sex to within marriage, precautions should be taken on the clear understanding that they are not always successful in preventing AIDS. They are not all successful in preventing pregnancy either. Sperm are many hundreds of times bigger than the HIV virus. He emphasised that education was not enough; a change in behaviour was required. Recently, that was underlined when a young lady doctor who went to work in Africa had an affair and, tragically, returned home with AIDS. She was highly educated. I was struck by the suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that perhaps attitudes to women should change. That comment is typical of the noble Earl. In his entry in Who's Who he lists one of his hobbies as uxoriousness.

Noble Lords have drawn attention to the tragedy that developing countries cannot afford the antiretroviral drugs, which would relieve a great deal of suffering. It has already been pointed out that a single dose to a mother with AIDS during childbirth can protect the baby from developing the disease. But, sadly, that has stimulated some very chilling ethical discussions. Many argue that it is unfair to save a child who will be left with no-one to look after him. Clearly, much more effort must be made to find money from the wealthier nations to supply those necessary drugs. But simply attacking the drug companies is no real answer. In my own experience of working in Africa, not only in the Kampala centre in Uganda but also on a hospital ship with Mercy Ships, travelling to developing countries and staying in port for several months, doing the operations that people there cannot do and showing them how to do them, I was struck by the generosity of the drug companies. When the companies found out that some charities were using out-of-date drugs to economise, they offered to replace them free.

Reference has already been made to the great concern that we all feel about the recent, unacceptable increase in the incidence of AIDS. It emphasises how essential it is never to let up in the campaign to try to persuade those at risk to take every care to avoid contracting this fatal disease.

We all look forward to hearing from the Minister what the Government plan to do to turn the tide of the epidemic. As I know the Minister is aware, there is an urgent need to provide more resources to deal with those awaiting treatment in genito-urinary medicine clinics. I am sure that she is aware that the waiting time is now unacceptably high. We also need more resources for an effective screening programme for chlamydia, especially among young women.

I would also like to know how government publications, advertisements, videos and so on are being distributed throughout the country, and whether they are the ideal format. I have been impressed in the past with the BBC and other broadcasting companies who have incorporated those essential messages into their programmes—"Coronation Street", "The Archers" and so on. It is great that they do so. We need constant vigilance if we are to succeed in containing this plague.

My Lords, it is a considerable privilege to wind up a debate that has not only been led by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, but has attracted the contributions of noble Lords who speak with authority and expertise on the medical side not only in Africa but also at home. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, has the gift of foresight. In 1986, when he was Minister of Health, he responded extremely well to what was then a completely unknown and unpredictable situation. He also found a time for our debate in a week in which, as he said, the BBC and the Guardian have done excellent work in drawing international attention to the challenge at home and abroad.

It has been a good debate, and we have ranged far and wide. To return to something that was said in the debate, I think that one of the reasons why we have, in some respects, a good record in containing the infection relative to those of our European partners was the foresight that was shown in introducing prevention intiatives such as needle exchange. I enjoyed all the contributions and have learnt a great deal from the debate. I hope that, in the time available, I can answer some of the questions and reflect on some of the issues and on the interesting suggestions as to some aspects of policy.

I will not repeat the details of the scale and implications of the global tragedy; that has been done better by other noble Lords. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for making, as only he can, the chilling historical comparison with previous plagues, particularly the Black Death. On television the other night, someone describing the way in which teenage children follow their parents to the grave referred to the plague as an African Black Death. That is a more than sobering thought.

One of the problems is that one's vocabulary is exhausted when one tries to describe the current situation and its implications. The numbers defy imagination. As the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, said, the focus is on sub-Saharan Africa, where the phenomenally high figures are so daunting, but the fastest rate of growth is in eastern Europe and the central Asian republics. We have only begun to think what alternative strategies are needed to address the different cultural reasons for that expansion.

We have the excellent and inspiring story of Uganda. I pay tribute to the work done by the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, in Uganda and on the Mercy Ships. It was interesting and not a little humbling to hear of the time that he gave to that work and the positive impact that it had. Comparing the situation in Uganda with that in Swaziland and Botswana helps focus our mind, so I will talk first about what we are doing to meet the global challenge. I hope that I can convince the noble Lord that, if there is a lack of will, it does not exist in this Government. We have a good record of responding quickly to the HIV/AIDS epidemic, focusing on priorities and maintaining vigilance, which is all the more important, as the epidemic spreads.

First, I shall speak about what the Government are doing to meet the global challenge. I hope that I can convince the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, that if there is a lack of will, it is not in the Government. We have a good record of responding quickly to the HIV/AIDS epidemic, of focusing our priorities and maintaining a vigilance, which has been all the more important as the epidemic has spread.

I turn now to the reasons for the growth of AIDS and the issues raised concerning needles and cleaning. There is no academic consensus. I was interested in the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, about the alternative point of view. The Government have not yet had time to study the research. It is important that we do some triangulation on views and evidence. We know that UNAIDS disagrees with the results. We agree that more resources are needed to ensure sterile medical care in all countries. That is one reason why we have put such a huge effort—£1.5 billion since 1997—into health care systems as part of our contribution.

There is a wide range of measures that the Government are attempting. We are trying to build effective health care systems. We are focusing some of our work on high risk groups. I shall turn later to the transmission of the infection between mothers and babies. Essentially, we are helping countries to build up strategies. I, too, pay tribute to the heroic work of the voluntary organisations, both in this country and in sub-Saharan Africa.

Our record is something of which we can be proud. We played a key role in setting up the global fund to fight AIDS, TB and malaria, launched in July 2002. We pledged 200 million dollars. In response to the point raised by the noble Lord, we intend to monitor, evaluate performance and review our contributions. The Government believe that the global fund has made a good start. It is now inviting bids for the third round. It has moved fast. As a public/private partnership mobilising additional finances, it holds considerable hope of a more focused and complementary resource which will work alongside the nationally-driven bilateral effort.

In looking at such efforts, the Government have increased their contribution from £40 million in 1997 to £200 million last year. That is a significant increase. The type of measures that are happening on the ground are, for example, working with orphans in home-based care in Kenya. We are assisting the Russian Federation with a £16 million programme to assist with prevention focusing on harm reduction and needle exchange programmes. In Swaziland we are working on regional initiatives to raise awareness of HIV.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, I am sorry every day that Lord Young of Dartington is no longer with us, but he was a great believer in the power of radio in South Africa. Certainly, he would have championed the ideas put forward. However, there is good news. Among the programmes that DfID funds for African communities, we have funded the weekly South Africa radio programme for African communities around London. We support a number of successful and influential television-based soap dramas in Africa. That is being replicated in a number of other high-prevalence countries. Clearly, we are aware of the power of radio and television. In the light of points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, we shall consider the training of health journalists because they hold the key to much of this.

In addition, our work involves committing £14 million to the international AIDS vaccine initiative. Vaccine is interesting because it is not entirely out of sight. We believe that in seven years there may be a vaccine. It is important to keep up the range of research and development on which we are spending approximately £21 million per year. I do not know how much of that is blue sky, but I could probably find out. The Government are also supporting the Medical Research Council's Microbicides Development Programme. That has a narrower focus—probably something available in about five years, based on the best evidence.

Turning to the extremely important issue of drugs, noble Lords will know that at the end of last year the Prime Minister launched the report of the High Level Working Group on Access to Medicines which brought together the UK Government, the pharmaceutical industry and international partners, and so forth, to enable poorer countries to buy cheaper drugs through differential pricing. In the Southern Africa debate yesterday, the Minister for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office said that we are now seeking support from RGAs and other colleagues to take recommendations forward on this work. It is a question of persuasion and of selling this model which holds out the prospect of some successful ways of getting cheaper drugs into these countries. The current World Trade Organisation negotiations have attracted a great deal of attention over the past week. The Government are disappointed that the WTO has not been able to resolve the issue of the manufacture of cheaper drug substitutes in any country with insufficient or no drug manufacturing capacity. We cannot disguise that. The Chancellor has made it perfectly clear that this is a problem around which the whole world needs to unite. We shall continue to work with energy and commitment with the EU and all other WTO members to find a workable solution to the problem.

However, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, quite rightly insisted, we have to plan for the long term and in the context of sustainable development as a whole. The programmes of clean water and good nutrition will come into play when seeking to meet development goals. This weekend the Chancellor will meet with representatives of the G7 countries to discuss the proposal launched in January for an international finance facility which aims to double global aid flows to around £100 billion per year in the years leading up to 2015, thus helping to meet our millennium development goals.

Turning to the position in the United Kingdom, we cannot be immune to the global epidemic. Figures for the increase in HIV infection have been quoted by noble Lords and it is obvious that we have a major public health problem on our hands. Several noble Lords asked about our intentions as regards entry requirements for those coming into this country. What I can say is that the Cabinet Office is currently coordinating a comprehensive review of imported infections and immigration. That involves discussions between all the relevant departments, including the Department of Health. Work is being taken forward as a matter of urgency.

We know that early diagnosis and excellent surveillance is absolutely essential. We have increased our efforts to reduce undiagnosed HIV infection. Two particular programmes are extremely important in regard to that effort. First, we are beginning to reap the benefits of changes made in 1999 to our HIV testing policy for pregnant women. By routinely offering and recommending HIV testing to all pregnant women and ensuring that they are offered routine interventions, over the past year we have been able to save around 100 babies from transmission of infection. Secondly, an HIV test should now be offered to all genito-urinary medicine clinic attenders on first screening for sexually transmitted infections.

I agree that genito-urinary medicine clinics are under great pressure. That is why this year we have invested an additional £5 million in these services. We expect to continue that investment in future years. It is not an end in itself, but is intended to pump-prime services, open doors, release more resources and improve access. It is a way of expanding capacity.

My Lords, perhaps I may ask one question. The noble Baroness moved rather rapidly over the issue of the tests being looked at by the Cabinet Office. Is the Cabinet Office inquiry going to consider the whole issue of compulsory tests? Is that proposal under consideration? I should be glad to know the position.

My Lords, the inquiry is looking at the whole range of public health issues associated with immigration. I hope that that answers the noble Lord's question.

My Lords, I beg the pardon of the noble Baroness. She referred to issues "associated with immigration". Does that mean that she cannot give the assurance I seek; that is, that tests will be based on medical need or risk and not on nationality?

My Lords, the Cabinet Office is conducting a factual inquiry and we shall have to wait for the outcome. It is a broad inquiry and in that context many issues will be discussed.

I shall take a few minutes to respond to some of the additional questions that have been raised in the debate. I want to talk briefly about the sexual health and HIV strategy. The noble Lord, Lord McColl, and my noble friend Lord Rea pointed out that there is a close link between sexually transmitted disease and HIV infection, which is why we are spending an additional £47.5 million over the next three years to implement the strategy.

This is the first sexual health strategy we have ever had in this country. It has been designed to address the problems in the round. I should add that the £47.5 million is only a small element of and additional to the £300 million we are spending on AIDS in terms of prevention and treatment. Within that strategy we have five aims relating to HIV, which include reducing transmission, reducing the prevalence of undiagnosed HIV, reducing stigma and so on.

I am delighted to inform noble Lords that we have made much progress in implementing the 27-point action plan agreed last July. Rather than reading out live pages of closely printed text, I shall circulate to noble Lords the information on what has been happening.

I particularly commend the commissioning toolkit, which has been issued very recently indeed, not only on the web but in hard copy. It provides guidance and good practice examples for the NHS on planning and delivering sexual health and HIV services.

The roll-out of the chlamydia screening programme is now in place, a point referred to by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and relates to capacity building, training, investing in technicians, laboratory services and so on. We now have in place 286 sexual health strategy leads in primary care trusts.

Implementation is the key. By taking away the ring-fencing around budgets we can ensure that on the ground the money will match the need. HIV/AIDS is not evenly distributed throughout the country and, given the variations between them, we need to give local authorities the power to use the money wisely.

We have learnt from the AIDS (Control) Act reports that we need more systematic monitoring and more intelligent use of the information we receive, and we shall monitor more closely in that respect. We are also finalising new recommended standards for HIV treatment services.

We are extremely aware of the need to be not only vigilant in terms of health promotion but to get the message across. That is why the target groups for that message remain gay men and the African communities to which my noble friend Lord Rea referred. We are spending a fair amount of money on the community HIV/AIDS prevention strategy—CHAPS for short—which includes a mass media campaign aimed at the gay community. It has been sufficiently successful to have been picked up by the United States and Australia.

As regards the African communities, the focus is on culturally appropriate information. Obviously we are funding the African HIV policy network to ensure that we pick up people's concerns. It is operated in a language which will enable them to feel confident about going for diagnosis and so on.

The general population presents the other great challenge of appropriate messages. I am sure that noble Lords will have seen the sex lottery campaign, which will cost about £4 million and is aimed at 18 to 30 year-olds. The Minister in another place said that this has been tested to death, and we are confident that it is reaching the people who need to know about it. That goes alongside better guidance in schools following the Ofsted report, a matter about which the noble Lord is concerned.

I have run out of time. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken with passion, compassion and tremendous expertise. The debate has been enormously valuable. I hope that it will set the record straight from 1604, or whenever it was when politicians stepped over the bodies of those who had died from the plague.